Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'll reply to this offlist, Ted, for my own sake as well as yours, and the list membership. Kit (who is not, with all due respect, "a dear lady.") ;-) - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Ted Grant Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 2:19 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] OT - National Geographic film usage bdcolen wrote: >>But don't forget that they are often involved in assignments that > extend for months, and involve travel to difficult and distant places, > places where you can't easily return - or can't return at all - to get > the one shot you missed. <<< Hi B.D., That's a factor many photographers, amateurs in particular, do not think of when they get off on large amounts of film use, usually decrying the amount and, "if I shot that amount of film I too could be as good as etc etc...." Absolutely not true! The difference is the experienced photojournalist "writes with their cameras" instead of plinking one or two frames here and there. Simply because the amateur or casual shooter has never done a major documentary on a location they'll not likely if ever return to ever again. And in some cases have never done an in-depth "self project" on where they live. Since my beginning days I've never thought about the amount of film I shoot, period. As it's a non-issue. The most important thing has always been and still is to this day ".... shoot everything that motivates you toward the success of the assignment...." Or project I'm working on! Kit McChesney wrote: >>> Maybe this will make you feel better, but there is probably a greater > percentage of pictures that are "successful" than the few that are > published in any magazine or newspaper.<<< Nearly always! That's why I said the 90% not used aren't throw a ways. >>And it may be that some of those pictures are even "better" than > the ones that are published.<<< Quite often that's the case no matter whom you are shooting for on large film use assignments. > I would also venture to say that if it takes 20,000 shots per story, > someone is wasting lots of film, and maybe the photographers aren't that > good after all. <<<<, Not so at all, simply because the "really good guys and gals" never relate to how much film, they relate to the motivating moment to the eye. Quite often it's the experience of shooting years that lets the photographer have a better eye than the inexperienced amateur. However, not always. >>I'm sure if I took 20,000 shots (and I don't consider myself a half-bad > photographer) I could get five or six pictures, or even a dozen (most > National Geographic stories don't have much more than that) that would > pass muster for just about any publication!<<< I suppose one could ask...." have you ever shot any major assignments for self or published?" Please take that not as a reflection on your ability as it's quite possible you maybe one of the, what I call... unsung heroes of the amateur photographer world. (If you are or were a professional please accept my apology.) Who in fact, if given a true opportunity may just be the hidden "worlds Greatest unknown photographer" because the situation to shoot a major shoot has never been offered. Therefore one remains a complete unknown. > Kit (who at age 15 wrote a letter to the editor of National Geographic > asking "what do I have to do to become a National Geographic > photographer?" and who later found out that there were many other > equally or even more interesting things to do in the world!)<<< Kit dear lady.... never! Nothing beats free roaming the world shooting all kinds of life situations day after day, year after year. Meeting new people, being involved in situations many only see on TV or in magazines. And my gosh the wonderful things one learns in real-time and not by reading a book or looking at the idiot box screen. Love it and wish I could live it over another ten times more! :-) And the best part? Being paid to do what you love with great passion, with a never ending life of enjoyment, enjoying it with never a word of retiring. ;-) ;-) Me? I'm not retiring, that's quitting. When I go it's going to be right in the middle of shooting something wonderful with the last image being my best! ;-) Oh yeah and a Leica of whatever model clutched in my steely grip! :-) Of course I suppose if you worked your life doing really what you wanted wit h great passion, then that's cool, good on you. As there are thousands in the cold cruel world doing a "job" they hate and would give their eye teeth to be a free wheeling do your own thing photojournalist . Or as one guy said to me..." is that all you do for a living go around the world going click click with those little black cameras? Geesh what a racket, I'm going to get me one of those and live like that." Then I explained the reality of somethings in life and he got the message. Returned to fixing furnaces. :-) True story. :-) Kit again wrote: >>Yes, imagine the practice that taking 43,000 shots will give you! (And the labor paying for all the film! That's a whole 'lot of dishes to wash!)<<< Naw when yer working like that someone else is paying the film bill. :-) However, if it's perceived you're blowing film just for something to do without any kind of picture success rate...... you'll be in very deep doo-doo big time and possibly be dropped as a shooter for whomever your client is. Then your final job may well be washing dishes! ;-) ted - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html