>> |
Anonymous
>>69880 >>69880 Except that's not how it actually works. Pros, even those shooting film, shoot loads of photographs. It's not spray and pray. It's experimenting, working the scene. Search on YouTube for the trailer of the film "War Photographer," a documentary on the immensely talented James Nachtwey. There's video in there taken from a video camera mounted atop his camera to show how he works. What's he doing? Press the shutter, recompose. Press the shutter. Recompose.
What's the advice given to any artist? Practice. That's what all those spare frames are. Just like a writer should write every day, even if what they write is too pitiful to ever do anything with, they write to develop an automatic relationship with their tool, the language. Photographers should shoot as much as possible, anything that catches their eyes, even if they know the shot will be shit. They'll develop a better eye for light and composition, a better feel for their camera, and so on. Hell, even flower macros are useful self-instruction subjects.
>Film just makes you think before you press the shutter.
This is an insult to any serious photographer that shoots digital. It's the rapture of the moment, the artistic impulse, the desire to "fix to shadow" that makes one think before taking a photograph, not the medium.
And on anything but static subjects- well, one has less than a second sometimes to make any last-minute adjustments to focus and exposure, and compose. Someone who's shot thousands of frames will have that behind them, to give their thoughts a kick into quick praxis, whereas someone who hasn't will still have to think about what to do with the shutter speed control.
>It makes you look at your photos more, and analyse, and consciously learn. If you need film to do that, fine. The rest of us have better motivations for being good at what we do than not wasting money.
|