[rollei_list] Re: The Photographic Reality
- From: "Marvin" <marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:42:01 +0800
I think that obviously the type of photography determines the way you shoot,
i.e documentary, sports, landscape tec..The idea that film is cheap is
abhorrent to me.
For one the idea that film is cheap is a relative term.
Second this is the age of environmentalism.
However, most of all it seems to encourage sloppy shooting. I have found
that when a shoot a liberally and carefully I have much good material to
choose from. When I shoot liberally- for the sake of it, I end up with a lot
of junk.
Marvin.
-----Original Message-----
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Allen Zak
Sent: 21 February 2010 11:00
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: The Photographic Reality
On Feb 20, 2010, at 3:29 AM, Mark Rabiner wrote:
>> At 01:18 AM 2/20/2010, Mark Rabiner wrote:
>>
>>> Also Yul Brenner and Sammy Davis Jr. never stopped clicking their
>>> shutters.
>>> They shot everything and everybody. All the time. You're bound to
>>> get some
>>> good ones out of all that.
>>
>> The Photo Editor of the Baltimore NEWS-AMERICAN
>> told me in 1975 that, "film is cheap: the
>> picture is priceless". He probably stole the line, but it is true!
>>
>> Marc
>
>
> ""film is cheap" is a big thing I was taught early on and what a lot of
> photographers are taught. It makes a big difference to not skimp on
> film.
> Now of course it cost relatively nothing to click hundreds of shots of
> something but lots of people don't do that and they end up with maybe
> not a
> solid shot. The more I have to choose from the better the final take is
> going to be.
>
> [Rabs]
> Mark William Rabiner
>
Still, I can't get over the notion that "film is cheap" is actually a
sneaky campaign by Kodak to promote overshooting. My bent in this
matter took form when, as a teenager, I was trying to feed a 35 mm
camera with Kodachrome out of my 50¢ per hour after school job. I used
to load my camera in the dark to squeeze an extra two exposures out of
the roll by not winding leader. Every exposure had to count and the
discipline was invaluable. When eventually there were clients picking
up the expense, I still used film sparingly. I believe the number of
exposures made should meet the requirements of the subject. That can
be a gazillion or 12 (24 if you are using 220,) depending. Anything
over leads to sloppy visualization.
Allen Zak
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
