Hi Peter,
Interresting statistics, really. I've noticed from myself, that over
time, I've gone through a cycle of photography, starting with the
experimental "phase one" learning the basics of photography, then through
"phase two" - the "brute force" way of getting useable shots by taking
*lots* of films and selecting later (coinciding with a brief venture into
comercial photography where getting "a shot of this scene is crucial") and
finally through a "phase three" where I care much about the photo *before*
I press the shutter, thereby yielding a higher rate of shots which are ok
and above. This later phase started when I acquired a medium format camera
- which inspires a slower working pace (changing film takes forever,
compared to in my OM1, for example) and saving on the raw material (medium
format film is more costly than 35mm). Also, the big, bright viewfinder of
a medium format really inspires one to compose correctly and maximize the
use of this wonderful big format.
I have not counted as carefully as you, but from my recent (also
business) trip to the sount of France, I shot 4 kodakchromes. I count 3 or
4 bad frames (overexposed - I didn't bring an ND-filter and even at 25 iso
the sun was at times too strong for f22+1/1000, which was max I could do
with the OM2s/p), a couple which were "not terribly exciting" - and the
rest went (selected not by myself) into the casettes being used for
projection.
I contrast that with the results from my "phase two" from above, where
I out of 4 films might have 4-5 frames I like - at most.
I keep wondering if it was buying the medium format that triggered that I
went from "phase two" to "phase three" - or it was a natural development
of my photographic temperment...?
I also keep wondering what will happen when I continue my venture into
larger negative sizes........hmmm....
Anyone else with similar observations from themself?
--thomas
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Peter Leyssens wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I just went through my 338 pictures of the Far East again. Having
> travelled there quite a number of times, this seems like a
> disappointingly small number, but it was always for business, so I had
> little time for Zuikoholism.
>
> I counted the following :
>
> Good (with quite some doubt sometimes) (11) : 3.3%
> OK (86) : 25.4%
> Boring (177) : 52.4%
> Bad (out of focus, really crap composition, mistakes) : 13.9%
> 1 Composite picture (9 shots) : 2.7%
> Testing my P&S camera (8) : 2.4%
>
> This makes up for a grand total of 100.1%, random rounding included
> :-) Obviously, this subdivision is quite arbitrary and likely to
> change, but it's interesting anyway that I quite dislike 2/3 of my
> pictures afterwards.
>
> I guess I'm going to watch my composition in the future to reduce that
> number of pictures that I take and find boring afterwards. The best
> hint I got here since I rejoined, was the saying that to paint is to add
> components to your picture, while to take photographs should be to
> remove them. I'll think of that next.
>
> I'll try to get my sister to scan a couple of the nicer pictures,
> specially the 50/1.8 macro pictures (handheld reversed lens) because the
> bokeh is cool. It's printed already, so her flatbed will do this time
> :-)
>
>
> Peter.
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------
Thomas Heide Clausen
Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
M.Sc in Computer Engineering
E-Mail: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop
-------------------------------------------
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|