>> |
Anonymous
>>174481 Photojournalism is entirely different than the (crappy) "fine art" photos that were being discussed in reference to the OP.
We were never discussing photojournalism, we were discussing how to get a certain "film" look. You just jumped in with your thousand shot bullshit.
Digital has made photojournalism much cheaper and more convenient, but there are a different set of concerns in photojournalism than in fine art photography. A photojournalist isn't going for any special look or effect, he's trying to record a scene accurately and in a way that is interesting to look at as quickly and cheaply as possible. Image quality is not very important, being there at the right moment and turning your photos around quickly are. That's why photojournalists were switching to digital when DSLRs were still 2 megapixels and paled in comparison to cheap 35mm film in terms of raw image quality.
The bottom line is that if you're going for a certain look, and that look is readily produced by film, then shoot film.
As for shooting "working pro quantities" of film, how about not being a retard. Some pros shoot thousands of frames in a setting. Some shoot two. You think that the commercial photographer shooting billboard ad photos on a 4x5 camera is taking 3500 shots of each subject? The point of my original statement is that most people would do better to plan, compose, and execute a small number of good photos than to hold their shutter button down and wave the camera around hoping to catch something good. No matter which way you slice it, pro or not, a thousand photos a day is a lot. That's a lot of images to sort, store, and back up too. In addition to time spent shooting, you'd be spending hours a day editing, and buying hard drives by the case. There are probably some pros, most likely photojournalists, out there who do shoot that much, but the average photographer never will. Your argument is inappropriate in context and idiotic in concept.
|