Selectivity in photography . . .

[j.lukow]

This thread is inspired by another thread I was unable to participate in - RF vs SLR for obvious reasons.

Within the thread it was mentioned by several posters about machine gunning on digital . . .

[Orio]

I think shooting style depends both on the type of subject, and on the personal preference of the photographer.

Live events require you to shoot sequences. You just would not be able to do otherwise. I don't use motor for sequences because my finger is fast enough and I can control it better than the motor. Yet I do shoot in sequence when the moment requires it.

Other type of situations instead allow for quiet posing and composing.

[poilu]

[Farside]

[LucisPictor]

When I shoot on film, I think more about what I do, for sure.
But actually, I do not shoot the "machine-gun" style anymore (aprt from when taking pics of my running daughter for example). I used to do that a lot when I started with digital cams. I guess that shooting on film again has changed my way of shooting with a DSLR.

[j.lukow]

Thanks for the responses . . .
@poilu, we all learn in our own way, you're probably not as blind as you may think! Time will often shape ones "marksmanship " and hone the eye!
@farside, I think you've brought a good concept to this thread, on the use of digital for learning. (Though can't one develop bad habits that would make film frustrating?)

Though I'm wondering if I may have goofed on my phrasing
I do have a motor drive which is more a thing of convenience.
The key point that was somewhat missed is, can one be a good photographer through sheer volume? If there is no cost attached to the pictures how does one invest value?

Jim

[poilu]

[Orio]

I tihnk that if I'm an acceptable photographer today it's because I have learned how to photograph for many years on purely manual cameras. I could not, in fact, afford any automated electronic camera until I was already experienced. And I did not have a camera with matrix metering - only average central (FM2) or nothing at all (Super Ikonta).

So I was forced to learn how to use an external light meter. I was forced to learn where to measure the light manually in a backlit scene, or when you have light sources in the frame. I was forced to learn how to compensate when shooting snow or black subjects. And so on.

I think that this has been an even more decisive factor for me, than the use of film.

Today, for speed, I almost always use the AE mode. With moving subjects, it's a great help. AE is in fact a "semi-automatic" mode because you still need to make some choices. However the Manual mode is where you really learn how to photograph - in my opinion.

Obviously, this is only half of the way - because you don't only need to learn how to photograph, you also have to learn photography

[lahnet]

I shoot most of my pictures using AF lenses. But using M42 MF and full manual has for sure improved my knowledge, AND my skills about photography. An other thing is that when using M42 MF I fell more like a photographer compared to AF - It just more fun.

I believe that I think more about all aspect of my pictures when using M42 MF, and I am really looking forward to try out film soon

[poilu]

[Rob Leslie]

'So my question is which is better to fire off at everything - either via digital camera or by cheap film and processing - or to be selective in your shooting?

I guess its the old quality vs quantity.'

For me the simple answer is both.
I shoot as many shots as I can 'See' in that subject. If time allows I will also try different ways of doing the shot. Another lens a different exposure as well as a different angle viewpoint.
IMO the idea that people shoot more shots of the same subject in hope of a good one is rubbish.
Those who have little idea only shoot the shots they see in front of them and quickly run out of ideas to shoot more.
If I can manage to shoot a couple of hundred shots of one subject I would be delighted and consider I was really on form. As it is I often run out of ideas after the usual 5-10 shots and later kick myself for the shots I missed.
You can always see it by looking at peoples photos. If you or others can see the shot could have been improved by a change of angle or viewpoint then the photographer didn't have the skill to see a good shot or in most cases didn't bother to spend time getting the right shot.
Most very poor photographers actual spend their time taking lots of shots of different subjects I some cases they may not even move and just shoot the view that comes to them and the shots show nothing, they have no subject. Their time would be better spent taking lots of shots of one subject and trying to get that right.
Quantiy has little or nothing to do with it a snapshot will always be a snapshot no matter how many or few are taken. Good shots are made by seeing all the posabilities and shooting them.
E.g Would you expect a large format view camera user to always get the perfect shot with one exposure or would three or four be the better option? But would the very average LF users consider the cost and take three or four different subjects with his expensive film?
He must be brilliant if that one shot is always the best that could be got from the subject.

[A G Photography]

For me it's mainly a false question because it heavily depends on which kind of photography I'm doing.

For still life I usually start with an image in my mind and, even if sometimes I end up with a different perspective and framing, usually I just take 2-3 different final shots. I say final because there is a lot of preparatory work to get the right light, colors and exposition but these shots are mostly like the old test polaroids.

When on the street I usually try to think ahead and wait for a good focus and framing, when in digital I just have the luxury to get 2-3 more shots with slight different fous (mainly because it's hard to judge focus in the digital cameras viewfinder). In digital also have the chance to "risk" some more shots even when I'm pretty sure they'll be awful and, to be honest, 99% of the times they are and the more I'm using digital the more I shot the same as with film camera so to avoid the hassle to delete them later.

Panorama and nature shots are pretty similar to still life, it's just that I can't arrange the set. It'd be cool to have a car, electricity pole remover though

[Laurence]

I just don't shoot very many digital images. I currently have just the K110D with some M42 lenses for my digital group.

I find myself reverting to "old habits" - and am extremely slow using my digital camera. I notice when shooting in a group that the others are "firing off" a lot of shots in comparison with me. It sort of makes me think I'm missing something at the time. And I even had a member of a group ask me when I was going to start "getting a few more shots".

So what do I do, almost every time? I go back to the car and get my manual film cameras. Digital is a lot of fun, for a short while. But I must have a "gene" in me that doesn't enjoy the machine-gunning so it probably seems as if I'm wasting a lot of lot of time positioning myself and "micro managing" the scene.

Anyway, when I get back to my film cameras I'm all of a sudden less dependent on a sort of "hit and miss" digital venue. I just feel better working out the exposure and scene with the film equipment.

The last time I was out for an extended two-day outing with the K110D and the film cameras, I shot with the K110D for about 30 minutes. I spent the remaining time using my film cameras. I guess I'm some kind of Luddite, but it is all fun!

[Orio]

[Farside]