sblitz Posted March 24, 2015 Share #21 Posted March 24, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) It is fairly evident, to me at least, that while the great photographers have an eye for composition, exposure, and print, their great truly lies in picking out the print from the 36 or so that works. It is the critical eye of an editor, perhaps aided by a printer, that makes the photo wonderful. What looks like an easy snapshot is the result of a lot of editing and refinement of a lot of photos to deliver the "one" -- and even then they often miss. As for Mr. Puts, interesting he found his way back to film with the M-A and enjoying the journey. Me too! 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 Hi sblitz, Take a look here Erwin Puts' Latest Blog on "Celluloid" - Film vs Digital. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AlanG Posted March 25, 2015 Share #22 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) It is fairly evident, to me at least, that while the great photographers have an eye for composition, exposure, and print, their great truly lies in picking out the print from the 36 or so that works. It is the critical eye of an editor, perhaps aided by a printer, that makes the photo wonderful. What looks like an easy snapshot is the result of a lot of editing and refinement of a lot of photos to deliver the "one" -- and even then they often miss. That is an interesting thought and implies that sometimes the real decisive moment occurs long after the photo was captured. I was always taught that studying your own work and being brutal about editing was a good way to improve. Probably the best example of a photographer's entire body of unknown work being edited and presented by an outside person is going on right now in the fascinating and unique case of Vivian Maier. (She shot for decades and never edited or presented her work and left many exposed and undeveloped rolls behind when she died.) And this is all available for us to study including some of her contact sheets. Vivian Maier Photographer | Official website of Vivian Maier | Vivian Maier Portfolios, Prints, Exhibitions, Books and documentary film Edited March 25, 2015 by AlanG 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted March 28, 2015 Share #23 Posted March 28, 2015 It is fairly evident, to me at least, that while the great photographers have an eye for composition, exposure, and print, their great truly lies in picking out the print from the 36 or so that works. It is the critical eye of an editor, perhaps aided by a printer, that makes the photo wonderful. What looks like an easy snapshot is the result of a lot of editing and refinement of a lot of photos to deliver the "one" -- and even then they often miss. Everyone needs a good editor, in my experience. But an editor - no matter how good - needs material to edit. A fine print on the wall starts in the artist's mind. The original idea can easily get mangled at any step thereafter, but if the photographer did not have some form of concept - no picture will result. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted March 28, 2015 Share #24 Posted March 28, 2015 Absolutely true. My point is simply that talent brings a better roll of 36 shots than it would for someone with lesser talents. But not everyone of the 36 is great and the genius eye knows the one of the 36 is best and how to crop print etc to make the statement. In other words the taking of the pictures is only. A first step and there many many many more issues than hits. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted March 28, 2015 Share #25 Posted March 28, 2015 Probably through self-delusion, but I think composition is just as visible "in reverse" on the negative as it is in a print. Using this rationale I have not done a single proof sheet in three years. How much have I missed? I do edit, and brutally too, but my son often sees a better crop on a print than i did on the easel. His eye will be much better than mine ever was, I've admitted defeat on that, but is his editing improved in part because he's seeing the positive print while I only look at negatives? I told myself this would be the year I started proper proofing but have done nothing yet, again, so far. Will add that this also saves me some very scarce time, but perhaps at a dear cost. s-a Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 28, 2015 Share #26 Posted March 28, 2015 But not everyone of the 36 is great and the genius eye knows the one of the 36 is best and how to crop print etc to make the statement. In other words the taking of the pictures is only. A first step and there many many many more issues than hits. True, but I think you can take it further and say a good photographer (and editor) knows when to abandon the roll altogether. But it is getting embarrassing to try and find crops that work in some way or other in negatives if you didn't anticipate the need to crop in the first place. Steve 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gberger Posted March 28, 2015 Author Share #27 Posted March 28, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Since I do transparencies for my own satisfaction, and for my family to enjoy in later years, I go through the 36 and cull, keeping the culls and keepers separate. Several days later (and usually in late morning), I go through the keepers and culls again to see if my decisions have changed. Yeah, I do find that I keep slides that really should go in the wastebasket, and have culls that should have been in the keep pile. I probably have a distorted sense of what to shoot in the first place, as I usually only keep around three or four slides per roll. My decision point for keepers? "Do I want to take the time and trouble to mount the keepers in glass for projection?" In other words, am I willing to project the keepers for others to view and to critique, and are they really decent enough to keep for posterity. The light table and a good loupe substitute for the contact sheet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 28, 2015 Share #28 Posted March 28, 2015 Nothing should ever go in the wastebasket, not only film but digital images as well! Throw the failures away and you never learn from failure. Failure pushes you on to success, success pushes you further. Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 29, 2015 Share #29 Posted March 29, 2015 Nothing should ever go in the wastebasket, not only film but digital images as well! Clearly you have not seen the terrible photography that I make. When an SD card utterly failed one day, I considered a blessing! -- Pax 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 29, 2015 Share #30 Posted March 29, 2015 Well perhaps there is a different mind set at work, but I've never processed a roll of film and in editing it cut out the good ones (if there are any) from the film strip and thrown away the rest, and I'm not sure I have ever heard of any photographers who would do that? I would guess the end point of only keeping the good ones is that eventually you have to start throwing even those away, or deleting them, because as you get better as a photographer the older images get worse (unless you don't get any better, in which case it's time to throw them all away and take up knitting). Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted March 29, 2015 Share #31 Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) Oh, I don't know.... With both film and digital, I accumulate a fair number of test shots - film, lenses, cameras, developers, etc. A few are useful to keep around - but keeping all of them is like a chemist cluttering up his lab with beakers full of the sludge from a career's worth of experiments. Once I've considered the results from a Fuji this or a Canon that - I don't really need to keep the artifacts around. So long as I retain the knowledge gained. But as to roll-film strips - certainly, one keeps a whole strip if there is one good picture on it. It makes handling the film safer (fingerprints and scratches) and more convenient. However, several newspapers I worked for, when they still used film, did cut out and file individual 35mm frames in "aperture cards" more or less like this, except without the computer-related baggage, just spaces for hand-written data: http://www.obsoletemedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Aperture-Card.png Filed in ready-made "computer-card"-sized drawers, which the 20th century provided in the millions: http://fscomps.fotosearch.com/compc/CLT/CLT008/aspy5294.jpg Of course, that began in the era of drum film scanning, when one cut off a single frame for fluid-mounting on the scanner anyway - a fairly brief interlude between making prints for reproduction, and the advent of desktop scanners that could handle strips. We kept the single-image filing system, though, so that the picture could be passed from editor to designer to the scanner operators as a discrete original, safe in its plastic pouch. Edited March 29, 2015 by adan 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
splinter Posted March 31, 2015 Share #32 Posted March 31, 2015 Puts says 'There is much confusion about the true meaning of this decisive moment style. '. I think Puts is a bit confused himself. Puts essentially says that Bresson tries to manipulate the situation and therfore the photograph, thats not why he was 'dancing around' it was beause he was simply trying not to miss (in his eye) the decisive moment - which is a constantly evolving thing. Yes you are trying to predict what is going to happen but you're not influencing the subject. The only way he was manipulating the image was to make decisions around composition and moment. This is not unique to Bresson, thats photography in general. I feel that Erwin Puts rambles in this article and the only thing that has any merit to it is his admission that film has more personality than the Monochrome digital offering (in my view theres no doubt thisis true of any digital offering). 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted April 2, 2015 Share #33 Posted April 2, 2015 Simply put Putts is rediscovering the tactile sensation of film where the moment is as much about how you get there, as the destination. I empathize with this since recently rediscovering film I now use a M7 most of the time. Its altogether very enjoyable. His main point about how quick a M-A is use vs a digital camera (which have to power up, etc.) is kind of well made, but my expertise in picking the exposure would be much much slower then any digital camera. He can obviously sense the light and just set (or pre-set to some extent) and shoot. I will never be able to do this and for me the M7 is lightening, the M240 is thunder, the A7S, E-M5ii and X-T1 are a sprint and the X113 and RX1R are a leisurely stroll in park ... 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted April 3, 2015 Share #34 Posted April 3, 2015 I will never be able to do this ... Harold - i think you are selling yourself short on this rubbish statement. You can say that you will never have the desire to work hard enough at learning the exposure values to be able to... Big difference in this and what you said. I'm sure that you can master this a lot sooner than you think if you put your mind to it. If you do, going meterless will, in many cases, be the ultimate in speed and will be superior to all those digital cameras you mentioned. In the others cases, it may take a bit longer, but you will like your results better. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted April 3, 2015 Share #35 Posted April 3, 2015 The human visual system does not accurately judge brightness values. It is controlled by an affect called "constancy" which tries to open up shadows and darken highlights. If anyone can adjust exposure fairly well in some situations without using a meter, it is through mental reference and recall of values used for previous similar experiences. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted April 3, 2015 Share #36 Posted April 3, 2015 Alan - this is a nice general statement, but not that practical in many situations, including the street, where many difference gradations of light exist, particularly in NYC. Pointing a metered camera directly towards a bright horizon with shadows next to the buildings and around people's faces will not (unless your are lucky) give an accurate (or at least a usefully better) reading of the exposure value that is relevant to the subjects that your are trying to capture. This is supported by the invariable (and frustrating) change in meter reading the camera will give you if you tilt it slightly upward or downward (as the meter sensor moves away from the bright horizon or dark shadow). It is much better to do your own reading of the overall scene (based on your own knowledge!) and then average that reading to prioritize the EV of the relevant main subjects, using a hand held meter to confirm. Film is very foregiving and you need to really grossly screw up the exposure to ruin an image. I'm not talking fine art photography or photography with slide film. I'm talking regular everyday "street" photography with a film like tri-x or portra. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted April 3, 2015 Share #37 Posted April 3, 2015 If anyone can adjust exposure fairly well in some situations without using a meter, it is through mental reference and recall of values used for previous similar experiences. Seems to me that this is the point. I know that one standard situation in which I photograph requires f5.6 and 1/250. I use experience and some knowledge of how different situations relate to my "anchor" situation, and I adjust exposure accordingly. Anchor plus informed adjustment. Works perfectly, or well enough that I rarely have a duff negative. And I very occasionally use a spot meter to decide on difficult situations where I don't trust my judgment. It is a bit like doing mental arithmetic to get close approximations - it is a developed skill. I recommend it. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted April 3, 2015 Share #38 Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) Yes this can work for rough exposure settings as long as you have reliable numbers in your brain for typical previous situations. I shoot interiors with multiple flash units and never meter and rarely metered when I used to use 4x5 chrome film. But I do use a tethered laptop and before that shot Polaroids and you'd be surprised how close my initial settings often were before I fine tune. This is completely from experience of similar settings for ambient and supplemented lighting. However, if you were in a very brightly lit white room, reading a newspaper, and every minute the brightness of the room was gradually lowered by 1/10th of a stop, how long would it take you before you realized the room was getting darker? As for Puts' point, I find pretty much everything about shooting digitally to be faster and better. Edited April 3, 2015 by AlanG Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted April 3, 2015 Share #39 Posted April 3, 2015 However, if you were in a very brightly lit white room, reading a newspaper, and every minute the brightness of the room was gradually lowered by 1/10th of a stop, how long would it take you before you realized the room was getting darker? Kind of like the slow boiling of the frog.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted April 3, 2015 Share #40 Posted April 3, 2015 Yes this can work for rough exposure settings as long as you have reliable numbers in your brain for typical previous situations. I shoot interiors with multiple flash units and never meter and rarely metered when I used to use 4x5 chrome film. But I do use a tethered laptop and before that shot Polaroids and you'd be surprised how close my initial settings often were before I fine tune. This is completely from experience of similar settings for ambient and supplemented lighting. However, if you were in a very brightly lit white room, reading a newspaper, and every minute the brightness of the room was gradually lowered by 1/10th of a stop, how long would it take you before you realized the room was getting darker? As for Puts' point, I find pretty much everything about shooting digitally to be faster and better. Fair enough. My statements relate much more to outdoor shooting. I can get fairly good results without a meter in normal indoor settings. But I would indeed use a hand held meter for most indoor shooting, which I don't do a lot of. A flash is a monkey wrench in this analysis for me. I am struggling with this right now with outdoor street shooting with a flash. But a like the challenge and am determined. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.