Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/10/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Well, it depends. Let's say you're covering an event, wedding, conference, whatever. That means you'll have to do a number of set pieces, usually anywhere from a just a few to more than a dozen. By checking, as opposed to thinking that you might of gotten your shots, you'll know if you have your shot or not. It allows for much greater time management efficiency. This was always a goal of the working photographer, enhanced certitude. Don't think that Adams and Caponigro's work for Polaroid was for just for taking home a pay check. What they did at Polaroid allowed for another evolution in photography. That peel apart material was not only the main stay of the commercial photographic studio, indoor and outdoor, but also with the fine art shooters. In fine art photography, they didn't skip a beat, when they tied up their view cameras to a laptop for scenic work from the very beginning of the introduction of digital imaging products. All for the specific point of a need to know at the time of the imaging act itself. Slobodan Dimitrov On Oct 30, 2006, at 8:48 AM, Lottermoser George wrote: > As with most opinions about things photographic - no correct answer > for all situations. There are times when checking your results > makes more sense than not; and there are times when the > photographer should focus their attention on photographing. To > write off the availability of a technical check capability - or the > possibility of knowing whether you achieved success in your goals > makes little sense to me. > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george@imagist.com > > > > On Oct 29, 2006, at 8:30 PM, David Keenan wrote: > >> I really do think chimping it is a goofy practice. > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information