Yep, good photography starts in the mind, not in the viewfinder.Originally Posted by Brian K
Yep, good photography starts in the mind, not in the viewfinder.
The thing that interests me about these types of workshops isn't the gear but the idea of shooting with a bunch of other photographers. I like to talk with other photographers, exchange prints etc but shooting with so many other photographers would drive me mad.
I wonder how many others here are like me in not being able to concentrate on composition unless they are alone?
What are most workshops like, do they involve setting up cameras in a line and everyone taking a similar image?
The LL trip in question conjures up images of the penguin rookeries they visited, a beach full of waddling photographers.
P.S. Another big vote for Frank Hurley, his photographs of the Endurance stuck in the ice are superb. He published at least 10 books of his warmer photos and they are found in many large libraries here in Australia. They're mostly interesting for their historical value but are worth a look if you ever get the chance.
Last edited by Mattg; 9-Mar-2007 at 22:55.
There isn't little added cost - there is NO added cost. Yes, when shooting digital, one has to have memory cards and storage, just like one has to have film holders for LF.
I don't understand what do you mean by "shooting useless shots". Comparing LF workflow directly to digital one is comparing apples and oranges. There is no wasted time because when shooting digital (assuming hand-held), there is no setup time, there is no movements, no loupe focusing, no closing the shutter, no inserting the folder, taking the dark slide, re-inserting the darkslide... All you do is aim the camera, compose, half-press the shutter to focus and measure light, press (if bracketting, three-shot burst), release the shutter, recompose, repeat the procedure... you get the idea.
By the time you set up your camera and before you even get to composing, he has already taken several shots (each bracketted) and checked the exposure on the LCD. And that's if he is working slow...
So, even if only one of those is a good shot, and half a dozen are discards, he still hasn't lost any time compared to working with LF. Not to mention action shots - there really would be no comparison whatsoever.
Mind you, I am NOT putting down LF here - I am shooting, or at least beginning to shoot LF myself - I am simply saying that these are two totally different toolsets and two equally different workflows. I really don't understand what all this criticism is all about - he took his trip, made his choices and brought back his photos.
I haven't figured that one out either. Reichmann is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned; his work and his opinions.
Well, this thread IS all about Reichmann and his Antarctica workshop. If you really consider him irrelevant, then how come you have contributed 8 (eight) posts to it? It is one shy of three fully bracketed digital shots.
That's an awful lot of wasted time, according to some of your earlier posts...
Because I enjoy chatting with others.Well, this thread IS all about Reichmann and his Antarctica workshop. If you really consider him irrelevant, then how come you have contributed 8 (eight) posts to it? It is one shy of three fully bracketed digital shots.
That's an awful lot of wasted time, according to some of your earlier posts...
Marko, it doesn't take me much time to set up, and while i'm setting up I'm thinking about the shot, it's giving me time to think. Photography is not a race, it's not about getting as many images as you can as quickly as you can, to me it's about getting images of merit. And at least I know that I have a near zero percent rate of malfunction, versus the 1 in 4 chance that my DSLR won't work as evidenced by this trip. Ask those people who paid $15k to go to Antarctica only to have their digital camera completely fail them if they were happy with their results from the trip.
Brian,
My point was that comparing handheld digital workflow to LF techniques makes no sense. No matter how fast you are with your setup, you simply cannot compare. Nor can you compare focusing either. Nor pretty much anything else. It's two different worlds.
My question to you is: how many pictures did you take in Antarctica?
I shoot at least 10x more digital frames than 4x5 frames. Getting to the final image takes about the same amount of time, since time spent scanning and dustbusting equals the time spend editing and selecting. I don't think film or digital is more or less valuable/better than the other, just different.
Shooting quantity is useful in some situations, I don't discount it as a technique. I do recognonize that I might shoot 4-10 shots of a gesture and it is often the first and the last frames that are the best, but I never would have gotten to that last 10th frame unless I shot the preceeding nine... especially with action, expressions, and gestures.
But, I might shoot 3-400 frames in a session but I quickly toss the losers and get it down to ~100 right away. Then I edit those hundred down to a handful but keep the select 100 in long-term storage.
Brian K has forgotten more about professional and commercial photography than you, me and Reichmann have ever learned.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks