Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/03/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>From: 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? snip This is how you start your lecture. Why? I and surely all in this list know how much film we use when there is an inspiring subject around. For me it is not a small amount. And yes, BW is cheap stuff, mostly, but kodachrome isn't. I quoted the NG figure just because many people I have mentioned it didn't know it and found it rather interesting. One shot out of 30 rolls. ><<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! I shoot regularly with 50 mm f1.4. I don't believe Noctilux makes an essential difference. Low light situations are inherently contrasty. Evaluating the exposure and judging how the highlights, hues etc. render on the particular film in use are more difficult. So is focusing. You bracket and end up using significantly more film. In you reply you first deny this and then acknowledge it. What exactly is your point? ><<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 was just acknowledging that he probably had a point. I think that it is more reasonable that one's reflexes can be trained for short rather than long delay. Bash him if you really think it is completely false. But I made an other point. ><<<<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! The point arouse because Captijn wrote some numbers related to how often he thinks one captures the right moment as a function of how one previsualizes. Implying that RF users might have a significantly better chance to capture the right moment and thereby having less mistimed junk frames. IMHO this is more than off-set by the difficult conditions under which the NG people practice their art. Why do you get so defensive at that? I already told that I have a great deal or respect for the shooters if not to the editors or writers. Moreover you have no idea of my shooting experience. In fact when I'm on the road shooting it is mostly similar remote locations NG people tend go to not some hospitals conveniently nearby. >ted Your condescending lecturing wasn't called for. Kari Eloranta