Re: I respectfully agree with Ted ;-)

[Jack Gottlob <sam@injersey.com>]

ted grant wrote:
> 
> Eric wrote:
> 
> <<<<<But sometimes you have to shoot a lot of film, simply because as you
> shoot, you begin to see new things. If you stop, you might miss the best
> picture that only comes as you begin to whittle away the lesser pictures.
> >>>>>>
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> There are folks who believe the more you shoot the greater your chance of
> getting "the" picture. Because if you use enough film you are bound to get
> the perfect photograph sooner or later.  "WRONG!"
> 
> Using great amounts of film by an inexperienced photographer or an
> incompetent one will not give them the "award winning photograph."  It
> rarely happens and if it does, then that truly is "pure luck!"
> 
> What some people don't understand is, we documenting photographers are no
> different than a writer who starts to write a book.  He begins to write
> without any thought in numbers of words, paragraphs or pages. She starts to
> create sentences forming paragraphs and they in turn form chapters.
> 
> Before they are finished they have used a great number of words (read here
> rolls of film!). Their work is edited, rewritten and finally the finished
> product goes to press.
> 
> Photographers work very similarly, we start shooting without any thought of
> "how many frames" (read here words). Our frames are edited, sometimes
> reshot and when we are done, we cut to final images for the essay.
> 
> Film is the cheapest commodity of an assignment, much like words. But if we
> do not "write with our cameras" in that we use film as the writer uses his
> or her words, then how do we know we have done the very best coverage
> possible?
> 
> <<<But sometimes you have to shoot a lot of film, simply because as you
> shoot, you begin to see new things.>>>>>>>>
> 
> That is very true.  You begin to feel how the light is working and changing
> as you shoot your way through the maze of motivating actions or scenes.
> 
> I never relate to film or how much I may use, much like an artist begins a
> canvass rarely concerns himself with "how many tubes of paint" he will use.
> They begin with the sole object of creating a finished piece of work. Using
> the same logic, why would we ever consider how much film we use on a
> documentary?
> 
> It is interesting though to take one Leica, one lens and one roll of film
> and shoot an assignment.  A personal project kind of thing and simply shoot
> an exciting series of pictures. What this does is make you look at the
> subject more objectively, select the Leica lens and which model (M6 or R8)
> that will allow you to do the best job.
> 
> Shooting something like this sorts out the "machine gun shooter" from the
> "single shot shooter" because volume of film isn't available with only one
> roll.  Simply put, "more doesn't make you better, unless you are paying
> attention and know what you are doing!"
> 
> I do the "one roll, one Leica" thing every once in awhile simply as a
> "refresher shoot".  Works wonders for "learning to see"  when you have to
> work at it with 36 frames. Besides it makes you "look harder" about what
> works and what doesn't.
> 
> In the end it makes you a better photographer when the time comes that your
> 5 or 6 Leicas are smoking with film flying in all directions! :)
> 
> tedLets not forget the large format photographer who goes out with a couple 
of dozen film holders and somehow winds up with prints that looks like 
John Sexton's or Bruce Birnbaum or       (you fill in the name).  I am  
awe struck by some of the work that I see, (large and small format).  
If you haven't looked at a copy of Requim I suggest that you do so.  I 
still can't get some of the images out of my mind.  They really had a 
disturbing effect on me.
jack