Re: [Leica] OT - National Geographic film usage

["Barney Quinn" <Barney.Quinn@noaa.gov>]

Seems to me that your message means that you have already replied to it on-line.
It seems to me that this is just about the same rhetorical device as, "Since I
am an honest and fair politician I am not going to mention that my opponent
beats his wife."

Barney

Kit McChesney | acmefoto wrote:

> I'll reply to this offlist, Ted, for my own sake as well as yours, and the
> list membership.
>
> Kit (who is not, with all due respect, "a dear lady.") ;-)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Ted Grant
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 2:19 PM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] OT - National Geographic film usage
>
> bdcolen wrote:
>
> >>But don't forget that they are often involved in assignments that
> > extend for months, and involve travel to difficult and distant places,
> > places where you can't easily return - or can't return at all - to get
> > the one shot you missed. <<<
>
> Hi B.D.,
> That's a factor many photographers, amateurs in particular, do not think of
> when they get off on large amounts of film use, usually decrying the amount
> and, "if I shot that amount of film I too could be as good as etc etc...."
> Absolutely not true!
>
> The difference is the experienced photojournalist "writes with their
> cameras" instead of plinking one or two frames here and there. Simply
> because the amateur or casual shooter has never done a major documentary on
> a location they'll not likely if ever return to ever again. And in some
> cases have never done an in-depth "self project" on where they live.
>
> Since my beginning days I've never thought about the amount of film I shoot,
> period. As it's a non-issue.  The most important thing has always been and
> still is to this day ".... shoot everything that motivates you toward the
> success of the assignment...." Or project I'm working on!
>
> Kit McChesney wrote:
> >>> Maybe this will make you feel better, but there is probably a greater
> > percentage of pictures that are "successful" than the few that are
> > published in any magazine or newspaper.<<<
>
> Nearly always! That's why I said the 90% not used aren't throw a ways.
>
> >>And it may be that some of those pictures are even "better" than
> > the ones that are published.<<<
>
> Quite often that's the case no matter whom you are shooting for on large
> film use assignments.
>
> > I would also venture to say that if it takes 20,000 shots per story,
> > someone is wasting lots of film, and maybe the photographers aren't that
> > good after all. <<<<,
>
> Not so at all, simply because the "really good guys and gals" never relate
> to how much film, they relate to the motivating moment to the eye. Quite
> often it's the experience of shooting years that lets the photographer have
> a better eye than the inexperienced amateur. However, not always.
>
> >>I'm sure if I took 20,000 shots (and I don't consider myself a half-bad
> > photographer) I could get five or six pictures, or even a dozen (most
> > National Geographic stories don't have much more than that) that would
> > pass muster for just about any publication!<<<
>
> I suppose one could ask...." have you ever shot any major assignments for
> self or published?"
> Please take that not as a reflection on your ability as it's quite possible
> you maybe one of the, what I call... unsung heroes of the amateur
> photographer world. (If you are or were a professional please accept my
> apology.) Who in fact, if given a true opportunity may just be the hidden
> "worlds Greatest unknown photographer" because the situation to shoot a
> major shoot has never been offered. Therefore one remains a complete
> unknown.
>
> > Kit (who at age 15 wrote a letter to the editor of National Geographic
> > asking "what do I have to do to become a National Geographic
> > photographer?" and who later found out that there were many other
> > equally or even more interesting things to do in the world!)<<<
>
> Kit dear lady.... never! Nothing beats free roaming the world shooting all
> kinds of life situations day after day, year after year. Meeting new people,
> being involved in situations many only see on TV or in magazines. And my
> gosh the wonderful things one learns in real-time and not by reading a book
> or looking at the idiot box screen. Love it and wish I could live it over
> another ten times more! :-)
>
> And the best part? Being paid to do what you love with great passion, with a
> never ending life of enjoyment, enjoying it with never a word of retiring.
> ;-) ;-) Me? I'm not retiring, that's quitting. When I go it's going to be
> right in the middle of shooting something wonderful with the last image
> being my best! ;-) Oh yeah and a Leica of whatever model clutched in my
> steely grip! :-)
>
> Of course I suppose if you worked your life doing really what you wanted wit
> h great passion, then that's cool, good on you. As there are thousands in
> the cold cruel world doing a "job" they hate and would give their eye teeth
> to be a free wheeling do your own thing photojournalist .
>
> Or as one guy said to me..." is that all you do for a living go around the
> world going click click with those little black cameras? Geesh what a
> racket, I'm going to get me one of those and live like that."
> Then I explained the reality of somethings in life and he got the message.
> Returned to fixing furnaces. :-) True story. :-)
>
> Kit again wrote:
> >>Yes, imagine the practice that taking 43,000 shots will give you! (And the
> labor paying for all the film! That's a whole 'lot of dishes to wash!)<<<
>
> Naw when yer working like that someone else is paying the film bill. :-)
> However, if it's perceived you're blowing film just for something to do
> without any kind of picture success rate...... you'll be in very deep
> doo-doo big time and possibly be dropped as a shooter for whomever your
> client is. Then your final job may well be washing dishes! ;-)
> ted
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html