1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Except that...

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by Roger Hicks, Jul 28, 2013.

  1. martin.devlin

    martin.devlin Active Member

    In this digital age we all shoot too many shots (some of us in the hope that one of them will be good). My approach is to take my time in how I frame and compose the image (when possible) but also to get it as close to perfect as the situation allows. I'm not being conceated or big headed, but having trained on film where you did not have the luxury of post processing, you got you technical's correct (especially on transparency [slide film]) so whatever you were shooting you planned in advance and took your time to get your work right. Also you had a limit of between 12 and 36 frames on your roll of film and film and processing cost money so every time you pressed the shutter there was a cost and this cost sharpened our attention because money was not in great supply. Consider this if every time you press the shutter it costs you 50 cent (45 p) you would take less exposures but the chances are that they would be of better quality because there was a price to pay. Or if you don't think the money side important set yourself a target that you only have a certain number of frames available to photograph what you want (as with film) and watch how this concentrates your approach.
    To finish Except for Digital we could all be better photographers! wrong, because of digital too many people think that they are photographers and have not recognized that they are taking thousands of snaps, the majority of which will never see the light of day.
     
  2. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    So true, so true.

    'Nuff said. :)
     
  3. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    There's some truth in that, but equally the opposite is true; I'm a much better photographer because of digital - not having a cost per shot, it's allowed me to experiment a lot more and take artistic risks, from which I've learned a lot.
     
  4. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    I very much agree: it's much easier to throw out the rubbish when you have 360 shots to choose from instead of 36, and not to make excuses (to yourself) for pictures that are OK "except that..."

    On the other hand, it's also easier to shoot a lot more rubbish, and you need to work even harder to go through vast numbers of pictures while cultivating the honesty needed to say "It's a great shot, except that..."

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  5. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    If ever I shoot 360 at a go ( it happens occasionally) sorting them to rubbish or maybe becomes an awful task - my critical judgement goes awry long before then, probably much nearer the 36!
     
  6. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Exactly!

    The term Frances and I use is "I'm pictured out".

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  7. George W Johnson

    George W Johnson Well-Known Member

    Most likely because your subconscious spotted the opportunity and it managed to distract your conscious mind long enough to make it do what the subconscious wanted. Then your logical thoughts come in and start trying to get everything organised like the bossy hostess. The subconscious, who was coping with the guests up to that point, throws up it's hands and walks off back to the bar! Ha ha!
     
  8. Geren

    Geren Well-Known Member

    An interesting discussion indeed.

    Before I picked up a camera and realised that photography was really what made me tick, I had assumed that my "creative outlets" would be painting/drawing and writing; hobbies that I had developed enough to incorporate into my working life. It occurs to me that these are "additive" activities. You start with a blank sheet of paper, an empty notebook, a sketchbook full of possible alternatives, and you decide what you're going to add to that to fulfil your vision. With a camera, it's pretty much the opposite, unless you're doing something like still life/product photography. For the most part, you have a scene in front of you and you have to work out which bits to get out of the frame to enable you to concentrate on the main part. It's when you've missed something that you end up with "sauf que..."

    One of the reasons that I loved doing the HNC in photography at college was that I had lecturers who could point out the "sauf que" for me, when I'd been blind to it. Friends and family were all too good at saying "Oh, I like that...", or "You're really good at this..." because they didn't see the "except that"s either. I probably tried to pass off a few of these efforts as coursework submissions in the first few weeks but soon realised that I was being expected to be a bit more critical in my work, aiming for better. I'm not sure I'd have had the discipline to do it on my own. I'm sure others are less self-decieving than me. But it's one of the main things I took from that course. Really look. Really decide if it's what you wanted in the frame.

    That's not to say that I don't keep and display some sauf que work. It's a record of progress maybe? Little aide memoires to try and spur on improvement.
     
  9. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    A very elegant analysis! Thanks. I'm not sure it's invariably the case but if it isn't, it's certainly overwhelmingly often the case.

    Cheers,

    R.
     

Share This Page