Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/12/30

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: London challenge shoot
From: leica at rcmckee.com (R. Clayton McKee)
Date: Thu Dec 30 07:39:50 2004
References: <41D336B4.6370.43C905@localhost>

On 29 Dec 2004 at 22:24, Feli di Giorgio wrote:

> 
> On Dec 29, 2004, at 8:59 PM, R. Clayton McKee wrote:
> > I've never forgotten what he said:  "If I get less than two good
> > shots on a roll, I wasn't paying attention.  If I get more than four,
> > MAYBE five, I wasn't pushing myself hard enough."
> 
> Do you think he was pulling your leg? Was he talking studio work, 
> landscapes or on the street? I can see 5 useable per roll in a studio or 
> if you 
> are shooting landscapes, but five or more per roll on the street? And what 
> does he 
> mean by hits?  Hits or home runs?

He worked at the time for National Geographic, magazines and books.  
Primarily fieldwork, I believe, mostly nature/wildlife....  and by 
"good" he meant about what you'd expect someone of that level to 
mean...  things he'd be willing to show the world with HIS name on 
them.

What he meant, *I* think, was that the question, and the issue behind it,
 is meaningless.  The emphasis most people put on NOT making bad 
photos gets in the way of making good ones.  

I put it to you that you, or I, or anyone with some basic skills is 
capable of getting 35 good shots out of a roll of 36 (allowing one 
frame for the unexpected).  It's simple.  Take No Chances.  Never 
punch the button unless and until everything's perfect.  It may take  
3 years to shoot that roll of film, but hey, patience is part of the 
art.  Brandenburg does it...

But how many very very good shots passed in front of the lens while 
the shooter was waiting for those 35 perfect ones?  How many great 
shots zipped by and then were gone forever because wasting film is 
the mark of a bad photographer?  How many experiments, lessons, new 
approaches didn't get tried because they might be mistakes? 

Any time you bring home too few bad shots, you're not pushing the 
limits, you're not learning, growing.  If you're not making mistakes, 
you're not shooting anything important.  

Anytime more than a bare handful of my take makes it past MY cut, I 
wasn't having a good day, I was sitting on my (expanding) ass waiting 
for nice safe happy snaps to drop by and wave flags at me to get my 
attention, and while I may have gotten the good shots, odds-on  I 
missed the great ones.  They were there, but I wasn't looking.

Said it before, will say it again:  Throwing out exceptionally bad 
shots is the price we pay for the chance of getting exceptionally 
good ones.  

(That said, however, please DO note the corollary:  Shooting lots of 
bad shots doesn't in and of itself make you a great photographer.. 
you must also have the ponies among the manure... and just because 
you make lots of mistakes does NOT mean you should inflict them on 
the rest of an unsuspecting and largely undeserving world....)

Keep the change.

--


R. Clayton McKee                               www.rcmckee.com
Photojournalist                            rcmckee@rcmckee.com
P O Box 571900                      voice/fax   713/783-3502
Houston, TX 77257-1900                  dig pager  281/510-3588


In reply to: Message from leica at rcmckee.com (R. Clayton McKee) ([Leica] Re: London challenge shoot)
Message from feli2 at earthlink.net (Feli di Giorgio) ([Leica] Re: London challenge shoot)