Re: Burning film (was Leica bashing on usenet groups)

[Ted Grant <75501.3002@CompuServe.COM>]

Responding to:  Kari Eloranta:

<<<captyng@vtx.ch (Gerard Captijn) notes:

>Very often maybe only 2-3 pictures on a 36-roll are really good. In
>addition, practice shows that we often need to expose many rolls  
to >produce one really  excellent, exhibition quality image  
(National >Geographic probably won't disagree with these statements  
given the >level of film consumption of their photographers). Why?>>>>>>>>

Let me attempt to explain film usage to those who are accustomed to one roll a
day or week. Month?

When you are working on a story the least expensive item is film. When a writer
begins a story they do so from how they feel about the subject and what they are
attempting to say. Even when writing a few hundred word piece they do not just
write 300 words and that is it. They write much more, then edit to the cream of
the article.

When I was learning how to take pictures and the wonders of photography, I
bought 100 ft. rolls of the cheapest 35mm film I could and I shot tons of film
and the more you shoot the better you get.  Or you should!  It seemed to work
for me.:)

The same applies as a working photojournalist, I never relate to how much film
I'm using as I'm "writing my story" and will edit later. One frame may be great,
but the next ten get better because the mood changes, the light changes, the
angle changes, the subject does something entirely different.

You may expose a frame exactly as the meter tells you and that frame is
technically perfect, but the next three as you stop down deliberately
underexposing each frame, you create something technically way under, but when
you look at them on the light table, you find the one frame three stops under
exposed is just the greatest thing since sliced bread.

That does not mean the others are no good, it means this one frame, deliberately
and badly underexposed piece of film is the diamond of the bunch!  The truth of
your work is on the light table! And many times the very best never see the
printed page, no matter how good you may think you and your photography are.

And that is why you shoot film without any thought. You are "writing with your
camera!"

However let me clarify:   If the photographer is just burning film without
really seeing nor being motivated, nothing is gained. Some do just throw  film
away and that is a crime. But when I say that only 10% of my work is "the best"
and within that 10% we hope to find a few diamonds, it doesn't mean the others
are no good.  Sure there are going to be some bloopers in there and that's a
given.  Nobody is so good that they shoot 36 perfect frames on a roll! And I
don't care who it is!!!!

And I say that with over 40 years of shooting time and still doing it.

<<On the  other hand M-Leicas kind of invite you to shoot under apalling light  
conditions which automatically means a stiff film bill.>>>>>>

Nope!  It means you have images where others fear to tread! Try a Noctilux under
those conditions and there isn't any "appalling" light!  And of course you are
going to bracket difficult light situations. That's being prudent and a
professional!

<<In additon to the shutter-delay advantage pointed out by Captijn  >>>>

Sorry this just doesn't enter into real time picture taking! If your reflects
are in tune the theoretical "shutter delay" isn't worth commenting on!  And I'm
not sure where this would be a factor in any case.

<<<<I don't believe that their Leica shooters are particularly efficient with
film usage.>>>>>

I believe you are referring to National Geo photographers here and your comment
is totally unjustified!!  Unless you are shooting the type of assignments they
do and many of the rest of us in similar fashion, I might suggest before you
make a broad base statement like that, you might do some home work or get some
experience!

ted 
Victoria, Canada
http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant