« Getting Together With Ctein in London UK | Main | Ctein's European Tour: Latest Updates »

Thursday, 21 April 2016

Comments

That's why I still use a medium format rollfilm camera. Same results with a lot less editing.

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

Funny, though being British I would have used the word 'good' instead of 'awesome', which I believe means the same.

You hiatus seems to be leaking.

"True?"

No

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.

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!

I always thought that this joke should start with a single sheet of large format film and caption "1 exposure, 6 are Awesome!"
;)

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!

...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. :-)

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.

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.)

Funny? No - true!

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.

... 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...

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

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.

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

"1 or 2 are awesome" for each is closer to the truth for me

The comments to this entry are closed.