Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Other Stuff
Off Topic
Difference of Opinion - Many clicks vs. Few clicks
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bob Blaylock" data-source="post: 253594" data-attributes="member: 16749"><p>There probably isn't one answer that is always right.</p><p></p><p> Surely there are some times when you'll get the best picture with a fair amount of planning, setting up, and waiting for just the right moment to take the shot.</p><p></p><p> Just as equally surely, I think, there will be some shots that you will best get by simply taking large numbers of shots very rapidly, and picking the best shot out of those later.</p><p></p><p> This is certainly something that has changed greatly with modern technology.</p><p></p><p> A century ago, working with wet plates and huge view-type cameras, our forbears had no choice but to put a great deal of thought and planning into every photograph that they took. It took several minutes, at least, to set the camera up to take a picture, perhaps a few minutes of actual exposure time, and then several more minutes to prepare the camera for another shot; not to mention the time and expense for the chemicals, materials, and processing.</p><p></p><p> Today, we have DSLRs that can easily take several shots in a second. It costs us nothing to take large numbers of pictures. No reason not to take advantage of this.</p><p></p><p></p><p> The scene at the following link is NSFW, but it seems to make a point that is very relevant here. Follow this link at your own discretion:</p><p></p><p> <a href="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6709750/079_susan_sarandon_pretty_baby_nude_scene/" target="_blank">Suan Sarandon, topless, in Pretty Baby — I already warned you that it's NSFW</a></p><p></p><p> Perhaps somewhere out there, there is a more G-rated scene that makes this point as well, but this is the one I knew to look for.</p><p></p><p> A fictional depiction of an early-20th-century photographer taking a picture of a prostitute. What stands out to me about this scene is that in the entire scene, the photographer takes only one photograph, at the end of the scene, after several minutes of fussing around and setting things up. A modern photographer, with a modern camera, put into this same scene, would surely have taken dozens of photographs, including some that would be much better than the photograph that was finally taken.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bob Blaylock, post: 253594, member: 16749"] There probably isn't one answer that is always right. Surely there are some times when you'll get the best picture with a fair amount of planning, setting up, and waiting for just the right moment to take the shot. Just as equally surely, I think, there will be some shots that you will best get by simply taking large numbers of shots very rapidly, and picking the best shot out of those later. This is certainly something that has changed greatly with modern technology. A century ago, working with wet plates and huge view-type cameras, our forbears had no choice but to put a great deal of thought and planning into every photograph that they took. It took several minutes, at least, to set the camera up to take a picture, perhaps a few minutes of actual exposure time, and then several more minutes to prepare the camera for another shot; not to mention the time and expense for the chemicals, materials, and processing. Today, we have DSLRs that can easily take several shots in a second. It costs us nothing to take large numbers of pictures. No reason not to take advantage of this. The scene at the following link is NSFW, but it seems to make a point that is very relevant here. Follow this link at your own discretion: [url=http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6709750/079_susan_sarandon_pretty_baby_nude_scene/]Suan Sarandon, topless, in Pretty Baby — I already warned you that it's NSFW[/url] Perhaps somewhere out there, there is a more G-rated scene that makes this point as well, but this is the one I knew to look for. A fictional depiction of an early-20th-century photographer taking a picture of a prostitute. What stands out to me about this scene is that in the entire scene, the photographer takes only one photograph, at the end of the scene, after several minutes of fussing around and setting things up. A modern photographer, with a modern camera, put into this same scene, would surely have taken dozens of photographs, including some that would be much better than the photograph that was finally taken. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
Off Topic
Difference of Opinion - Many clicks vs. Few clicks
Top
