Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/03/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Kari Eloranta wrote: > > captyng@vtx.ch (Gerard Captijn) notes: > > >Very often maybe only 2-3 pictures on a 36-roll are really good. In > >addition, practice shows that we often need to expose many rolls > to >produce one really excellent, exhibition quality image > (National >Geographic probably won't disagree with these statements > given the >level of film consumption of their photographers). Why? > > Some time ago there was an article in NG about the working habits > of their shooters. Although I don't find their kind of wholesome > writing and photography so interesting anymore this was certainly > very captivating reading. Among a staggering statistics: in recent > years about *one tenth of a percent* of their frames ever make it to > the pages of the journal. This inspite of them being very good > people, surely previsualizing a lot and not just letting the motor > chew off the film. > > I don't believe that their Leica shooters are particularly > efficient with film usage. To capture the moment and the mood in a > definite way you need lot of film, period. Probably M-Leicas are a > bit more suitable to capturing *the moment* than an SLR. On the > other hand M-Leicas kind of invite you to shoot under apalling light > conditions which automatically means a stiff film bill. > > In additon to the shutter-delay advantage pointed out by Captijn > there is another M-forte here, this time over medium format RF's > (Mamiya 6 or 7). When you have to follow an unpredictable sequence > of events it makes a differece to have some 38 shots per roll > instead of some 16 or 24 at most. > > Regards, > > Kari Eloranta I look forward to hearing more when you make ANY sense. isn't film meant to be used and the cheapest part of photography?