Is it a greater skill to know which pictures NOT to take?

[sovietdoc]

It's 2010 and I'm still shooting film. It's still not ridiculously difficult. It's just slow.

It is if you shoot AND print yourself without anything to help you. So good old dryin' photos in the bathroom. But I mean it is difficult compared to point and shoot of DSLR's in full auto mode with a pict bridge printer attached to it.

 

[Alpha]

Indeed. No home darkroom at the moment. I rent space at a darkroom/studio in town for my printing. These days I often have my negs developed by a lab that I trust.

 

[skieur]

With film, one was limited to 24-36 shots per roll. This limitation caused us to be fairly deliberate before pressing the shutter. Now we have essentially an unlimited number of shots we can take. On the surface that's a tremendous advantage. But the downside (and of course I'm speaking of art photography, vs. snapshots and so forth) is how it tends to reduce our ability to previsualize and determine whether or not a shot is going to work before actually taking it.
Some would say: "So what? What's the harm in taking 41 shots of a flower and picking the best one?" I can't really argue against that type of method other than to say: "Wouldn't it be nice if you could arrive at that 'best' shot in 3 instead of 41 because you already had a pretty good idea how they were going to turn out?" Of course there are exceptions, like with novel subjects or situations where you need to experiment.
To me, one of the hallmarks of a "great" photographer is a person who travels to a beautiful location, surveys the scene, notices for one reason or another that the conditions just aren't right, and leaves with at most a few token or experimental photographs. S/he doesn't try to force what just isn't there.

The problem with taking 41 shots of a flower, for example, is that in order to choose the "best" shot, they should obviously be 41 DIFFERENT shots.

I am not sure how quickly most photographers could come up with 41 different ways to shoot a flower and do it.

skieur

 

[benlonghair]

Wedding and general photography is one thing. Wildlife photography is entirely different. Look at pictures of National Geographic photographers from prior to the digital age. Nothing like slogging through the jungle with 200 rolls of film for a month and a half.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Wedding and general photography is one thing. Wildlife photography is entirely different. Look at pictures of National Geographic photographers from prior to the digital age. Nothing like slogging through the jungle with 200 rolls of film for a month and a half.

Indeed, some types of photography have an inherently high "failure rate".

 

[Mike_E]

Wedding and general photography is one thing. Wildlife photography is entirely different. Look at pictures of National Geographic photographers from prior to the digital age. Nothing like slogging through the jungle with 200 rolls of film for a month and a half.

But after a month and a half in the jungle with film you would still have images- there's no guarantee that electronic gear lasts in the wet.

Knowing when to shoot and when not is a good thing. Being able to machine gun a subject is a good thing too.

A blink of an eye doesn't last very long but you catch them all the time. Things are always moving and a camera can make them stand still (effectively) but sometimes it takes a lot of stills for them to be posed pleasantly.

Few artisans do only one thing, even a sculptor who uses only one chisel will use different motions to create a work.

Use whatever tool you need, how ever it needs to be used and enjoy your day.

 

[smokinphoto]

All Digital here.. Definitely no room in my basement for Dark room where I can develop.

I have switched to Digital. It will be decades before Digital Photography reaches the quality needed to replace film.” Oh yeah? Only a few years after that prediction was made, digital photographic technology had reached a quality, resolution and affordability sufficient to make film all but extinct.
The convenience, the cost, the ease of use coupled with huge technical advances in converting photons into pixels have combined to make digital photography popular among top pros, advanced amateurs and novices alike. As early as 2006, 82% of a group of photographers surveyed said they had tuned to digital photography.

Digital photographic equipment is just as sophisticated and expensive as film equipment ever was. The results are obviously of a high enough standard to be used in any professional application. And the technology continues to advance at great speed.

Just wrote back here if you'd like to read.

 

[maris]

With film, one was limited to 24-36 shots per roll. This limitation caused us to be fairly deliberate before pressing the shutter. Now we have essentially an unlimited number of shots we can take. On the surface that's a tremendous advantage. But the downside (and of course I'm speaking of art photography, vs. snapshots and so forth) is how it tends to reduce our ability to previsualize and determine whether or not a shot is going to work before actually taking it.
Some would say: "So what? What's the harm in taking 41 shots of a flower and picking the best one?" I can't really argue against that type of method other than to say: "Wouldn't it be nice if you could arrive at that 'best' shot in 3 instead of 41 because you already had a pretty good idea how they were going to turn out?" Of course there are exceptions, like with novel subjects or situations where you need to experiment.
To me, one of the hallmarks of a "great" photographer is a person who travels to a beautiful location, surveys the scene, notices for one reason or another that the conditions just aren't right, and leaves with at most a few token or experimental photographs. S/he doesn't try to force what just isn't there.

I sometimes think the big up-turn in skill comes when "taking pictures" is replaced by "making photographs". That's what happened for me.

Days before exposing film I know what the photograph will be about; some theme like beauty, truth, decay, sadness, and so on. To get these ideas into a photograph I need to find subject matter that can carry the theme in the form of a visual metaphor or simile. That's the main stumbling block. Really good subject matter is hard to find. So many good (I think) ideas never get expressed.

The technical side of photography can be carried out with certain success. It's easy to learn compared to flying a helicopter or playing good guitar. Lots of people can do these things. I get 100% mistake free negatives. The only failure is lack of imagination and talent.

I budget 50 sheets of film per year. Even in the 8x10 format that's not much money. Some years I don't get to 50. Once I got to a 100! All the pictures I took years ago are still on file but the ones I made are on the gallery wall.