> One big difference between film and digital is that with film, you try to
> make every shot count, whereas with digital, you just fire away and sort it
> out later.
> In looking over my archive, I see that I literally took 1/10th as many photos
> when it was film.
> I think that if you had been shooting film, you would have been much more
> deliberate, and would have taken no more than a tenth as many photos... but
> what do I know?
That is absolutely true. However, on the flip side of this, I know
that I wouldn't have gotten many of the shots with film because of
they required numerous attempts to get. A couple years ago I did a
write-up called "The Gotcha of the Great".
http://zone-10.com/d1/node/205
The premise generally follows the Seinfield episode "The Sponge" where
Elaine has to determine if a particular boyfriend is "Sponge-Worthy"
as her supply of contraceptive sponges is limited. That's how it is
for me with shooting expensive film. In my mind I have to ask myself
if this particular picture is "Velvia-Worthy". It's not just a matter
of shooting, but also a matter of scanning.
That said, I do look forward to some hiking this year with an OM body
and a couple of select lenses. Not every time, but I figure that it
certainly would be good for me to limit myself in such a way. I think
I'll be able to do it now since we're going on two years this summer
and I should actually dial back the photo-bingeing a little bit.
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|