Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/04/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think when you edit 20 shots out of 1200 you're going to probably end up with a very solid page of 20 shots which could make a nice portfolio or gallery show or book. Why? Its the 59 shots sitting on the bench behind every picture you take that makes that picture as solid as it is. You gotta have a strong bench like like in sports; football or basketball. The bench wins the game. The guy who says Salgado never checks the back of his camera is Bryan Appleyard as I looked it and him up. His field is finance. He's the only one I found saying this. One might think Salgado would be interested in checking his exposure or focus as any photographer would be he does seem to be surrounded by a team of tech people who might compensate for this somehow. If its at all true at all. More believable is that he's not constantly checking the back of his camera but like Elliot Erwit just does at the beginning of a series of shots. On 4/8/14 8:18 PM, "Ken Carney" <kcarney1 at cox.net> wrote: > Yep. My wife and I went on a trip with National Geo photographers in > the film days. I had my M-3 and lenses and maybe six rolls of film. I > was amazed at how many rolls the pros went through. Now we went on a > week trip and I came back with 1,200 images (33 rolls of film). I > thought I was pretty selective but that edited down to about 20 photos > to keep. I read an article the other day stating that Salgado never > looks at the back of the camera after taking a photo...not me, I'll take > everything the technology has. > > Ken > > > > On 4/8/2014 6:59 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote: >> The idea that one is going to get better pix in the end because one knows >> that we have to shoot LESS mystifies me. >> The bottom line in getting excellent results in photography has always >> been >> Converge and >> Working it. >> And it was easier to do that with 36 on a roll than it was with 12. Or >> with >> sheet film. Much more of a chance of capturing that magic moment and magic >> camera angle. .. than standing there going "click" and walking away. >> >> I have never been more excited about my work. And the fact of getting 360 >> or >> 3600 or more on a roll has done nothing but positive things for my work. >> >> On internet chat groups you'll read all about "overshooting" >> Trust me that concept did not exist before 10 years ago. >> Its a product of internet photography chat groups. >> >> A photographer comes back to their studio with their take and looks at it >> all and goes "damn! I wish I'd done a few more of those I may have not >> quite >> gotten it and damn! I wish I'd done a few more of those!" >> Never "damn I took too many of those!" that's an occurrence which just >> doesn't happen. >> >> >> On 4/8/14 7:43 PM, "Jacky aus" <jackyaus at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Adam and Ted, >>> >>> Thank you very much for giving such a good explanation in great patience >>> and tolerance, especially for non-techies. Does it mean that we need to >>> be >>> SMART techie guy (knowing and understanding all variety of techie >>> craps...) before we take the full power, advantages and beauties of >>> digital >>> camera and lens.... It seems to me that if I were SMART techie craps, my >>> pictures will go better, brighter and brilliant .... >>> >>> We are going and moving into digital world, leaving the CLASSIC film >>> behind, even though FILM has been working with us for so long. >>> >>> To be frank, I still love FILM as it teaches and motivates me to think >>> more >>> and innovate more before I press my valuable shutter button in precise >>> and >>> artistic ways.... >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Jacky >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9 April 2014 08:52, Adam Bridge <abridge at mac.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ted, >>>> >>>> With our M8's it's not so much of an issue because the sensor is >>>> smaller. >>>> The weird things happen out at the edges where the light comes in at a >>>> steeper angle. >>>> >>>> When you think of a sensor on a digital camera you need to think of the >>>> light-sensitive part living down in a pit. Sort of like you're standing >>>> at >>>> the bottom of a well looking up at the sky. Light from the back of the >>>> lens >>>> spreads across the sensor. If you're in the middle then you get all the >>>> light. But out the edges the light hits the side of the pit and doesn't >>>> make it to the bottom. >>>> >>>> The answer is to put a small lens (they call them "micro-lenses" at the >>>> top of the pit which gathers the light and directs it down to the >>>> bottom. >>>> But the design of that lens would have to be different for each lens you >>>> mount on your camera. What to do? Well, every camera has a small >>>> computer >>>> in it to handle taking the electronic information from each little >>>> sensor >>>> location and using that in some rather complex ways to organize it into >>>> a >>>> "picture" that makes sense. If the computer knows that you've got a >>>> 24mm f2 >>>> lens on it can adjust for both how the light from the lens reaches the >>>> sensor at the bottom of each pit AND it can even adjust for known >>>> problems >>>> in the design of that particular lens! >>>> >>>> Of course with film this isn't a problem. With black and white film the >>>> layer of light-sensitive particles is very thin while for color the >>>> different layers are still very thin - no pits! >>>> >>>> I hope this helps. I could probably do a neat little illustration if it >>>> would help you. >>>> >>>> It IS very complicated. We're still at that awkward phase of technology >>>> where exactly how to do the engineering is being worked out in an almost >>>> minute by minute advance. Film, however, has been a mature technology >>>> for >>>> decades. Now, if you had started out in photography in the 19th century >>>> you'd have done much the same except you'd be worried about wet plates, >>>> or >>>> dry plates, or film, or different formats. That all settled down with a >>>> few >>>> formats and lots of well-understood chemistry to make it all happen. >>>> Just >>>> think about the different developers used on something like Tri-X and >>>> all >>>> the discussions on this list about which was best and how to get the >>>> optimum result. >>>> >>>> That's happening all over again but its even more complex now. But, I >>>> think, it'll start to get simpler again. When my grandson (now 6 months >>>> old) is our age.... >>>> >>>> Happy snaps! As always I read all of your posts and am deeply grateful >>>> for >>>> them, even when you're feeling cantankerous. <grin> >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> On 2014 Apr 7, at 6:56 PM, tedgrant at shaw.ca wrote: >>>> >>>>> I shoot with my M8 and whatever lens it maybe, my images look just >>>>> super >>>> fine while printing 13X19 size prints. So is there some kind of >>>> situation? >>>> Lighting effect? Whatever? A situation where I can shoot a scene and >>>> see a >>>> diffeence. I'll rent a coded lens or maybe someone living near by has >>>> one >>>> I'll ask a loan for a few hours or so. And shoot with both non-coded and >>>> coded. >>>>> Maybe that'll make me see the errors of my anti-coding rants! >>>>> thank you. >>>>> cheers, >>>>> ted >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Mark William Rabiner Photographer http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/