TOP is on hiatus right now, but you have to check out this funny graphic. True? Thanks to mathewdh for passing this along.
I've posted a bunch of new comments, some very late (sorry...), including several about the London meeting with Ctein.
Mike
« Getting Together With Ctein in London UK | Main | Ctein's European Tour: Latest Updates »
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
That's why I still use a medium format rollfilm camera. Same results with a lot less editing.
Posted by: Herman | Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 11:12 AM
I don't know if this applies to everyone, but if I got 6 'Awesomes' from a 36 exposure roll of 35mm, that counted as a very special day...
Steve
Posted by: Steve G | Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 11:41 AM
Funny, though being British I would have used the word 'good' instead of 'awesome', which I believe means the same.
Posted by: Mike | Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 12:26 PM
You hiatus seems to be leaking.
Posted by: John Camp | Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 01:36 PM
"True?"
No
Posted by: Moose | Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 02:25 PM
The funny graphic tells a sad true, not only related to photography. The availability of almost free bits and baud rate to anyone, plagues the web of nonsense garbage each day, with a rate much higher than 2000/6.
Posted by: Marcelo Guarini | Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 02:53 PM
Not true!
"6 are awesome" from the SD card might be true enough, but 6 being awesome from the 12 or 36 emulsion exposures is ridiculous. Most of them aren't even going to be well focused or decently exposed!
Posted by: Arg | Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 03:06 PM
I always thought that this joke should start with a single sheet of large format film and caption "1 exposure, 6 are Awesome!"
;)
Posted by: Bernard | Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 05:46 PM
Almost, but not quite for me. Where is the Gracmatic with just 6 exposures - OR the double dark with only 2 ... or possibly only 1 exposure?
Kids these days can't recall anything prior to Sesame Street!
Posted by: Walter Glover | Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 05:47 PM
...True?...
Nah, there were never that many "awesome" exposures on any of those media types. Also, it skipped sheet film, where one's "awesome" ratio is even lower. :-)
Posted by: Sal Santamaura | Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 08:12 PM
Ha. Untrue. But sometimes it feels true. My ratio was never better than 3 out of 36 keepers anyway. That ratio has held steady, but I am taking several thousand pictures a year. I usually finish with about 200 that are worth showing to others, and between five and 12 that I am really proud of. The "really proud" number tends to decrease with time, though, as I reassess, reassess, reassess . . . and then sometimes get bored. The ones I can stand after five years, I'd stack against anyone's photos.
Posted by: Benjamin Marks | Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 09:15 PM
In my case, 6 out of 36 might have been OK. Maybe. 6 'Awesome' took way more than 36 exposures.
(Depending on your assessment of awesome, of course.)
Posted by: Tom Burke | Thursday, 21 April 2016 at 10:18 PM
Funny? No - true!
Posted by: Rick | Friday, 22 April 2016 at 02:42 AM
Very true, I find from my experience. Whenever I shoot film, my keeper rate tends to be much higher. As an example, a few years ago, we went to China for ten days. I took 57 B/W pictures with my M3 and a 28 mm lens, and 22 of those now make up a small gallery:
http://www.imagepro.dk/China_2012/
I also took some hundred digital pictures, of course, but that gallery somehow contains the pictures that matter the most to me.
Posted by: Soeren Engelbrecht | Friday, 22 April 2016 at 02:46 AM
... which wouldn't matter, if the photographer would do the work of editing down to the 6 rather than throwing them all at the world...
Posted by: Graham Byrnes | Friday, 22 April 2016 at 05:08 AM
I wonder if the digital media contains the claimed six "awesome" images among the 2,000 exposures.
The trend towards thoughtless, rapid-fire shooting may reduce the randomness of "awesome" images more than many would like to think.
Perhaps I'm a poor judge of this, however, as I've exposed 2,000 images in each of the two film formats without stumbling on even six "awesome" images.
YMMV
Cheers
Posted by: Jack | Friday, 22 April 2016 at 07:58 AM
Nice. As others have noted, I would have been very, very happy if I had ever had six "awesome" pictures on a single roll of 120 (or 220!), or 35 mm film. However, questionable statistics aside, it does raise some interesting corollary questions: What are the differences between the six awesome pictures obtained from each medium? And, more importantly, do those differences matter to you as a photographer? It seems pretty clear that the three sets of good pictures could likely be of very different things due to the way each medium requires one to work. So, I guess it's just the old "horses for courses" adage again.
Posted by: Derek | Friday, 22 April 2016 at 08:27 AM
I can only imagine the pressure Steve McCurry must have felt when he was asked to shoot the last roll of Kodachrome. 30 of the frames are on his website:
http://stevemccurry.com/galleries/last-roll-kodachrome
Posted by: Joseph Brunjes | Friday, 22 April 2016 at 12:36 PM
"1 or 2 are awesome" for each is closer to the truth for me
Posted by: Peter | Friday, 22 April 2016 at 04:12 PM