1250 shots in two days…

By |2008-04-08T12:41:47+10:00October 20th, 2007|Categories: Photography|Tags: , |

Now tell me you could do that in the old days of film. Digital certainly has its advantages, and the ability to cut loose with the shutter is one of the main ones. If you take 1250 shots in two days as I just did, and assuming you are at least a reasonably proficient photographer (as I'd like to think I am) then it's not that hard to come up with 2-300 really nice photos. That's a ratio of somewhere between 1 in 6 and 1 in 4. In the old days, when you couldn't afford to take so many shots, you might have, in the same circumstances, taken about 250 shots. The difference being that then, having to take a hell of a lot more care before pressing the shutter, the ratio would have invariably been a lot higher, possibly 1in 3 or 1 in 2. Still that would [...]


By |2016-10-22T09:42:34+10:00August 19th, 2007|Categories: Photography|Tags: , , |

We had a visit last week at school from the editor of a magazine called Silver Shotz. He was an interesting guy who had a lot of interesting advice and examples of really interesting film based processing techniques, like cyanotypes and salt prints and the like. But in my eyes he undermined his whole talk by being decidedly and openly anti-digital. It's one thing to be a film enthusiast and to spruik the joys of film based photo arts, as there is a lot of really good stuff you can still only do with film. But to take a stance that says digital is rubbish, and only film is any good is clearly a stance that won't go down well in a 2007 classroom of photographers. It seems to me that it's insane not to embrace digital. It's not going to go away, that's for sure. Film is the impending [...]