[CWyatt]

These photos were taken a month or two ago, and almost lost to the mists of time in a misplaced computer folder. They’re not exceptional landscapes by any means (I think anyone standing there with a telephoto lens would’ve taken much the same stuff), but it was one of the rare times when I’ve gone out shooting landscapes and come back with more than one keeper. They’re also interesting because it’s four different ways of shooting almost the same scene.


It just made me think about digital photography - and this point has probably been made many times before - and the dangers of the ability to take almost limitless numbers of frames. I think many times I go out, and take too many frames of a scene I like, say 100 or so, without thinking enough about any one image, and coming back with 100 OK images instead of any really good single shot. I’ve never shot film, but I would say the limited number of exposures on a roll and the costs of developing would perhaps make you think more about exactly what you want with the next image you shoot. I think there’s a danger in digital photography and big SD cards in over-shooting and not thinking enough about composition every time you press the shutter.


This probably relates more to landscape photography than anything else. I would say limitless shots are a big advantage in something like street photography, where in many cases you are trying to capture a more fleeting moment, and with more possible frames, maybe have more chances to do so.


That being said, I’m not giving up my 8 gigabyte SD HC card any time soon.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[causey]

All of them are excellent (I like especially 1, 4, and 2, in this order), but the play of light in 1 is breathtaking. A moment of dark/light/space equilibrium.

[Ash]

All are good, last one is a classic look with the fading mountains in the background, and the first one is a nice effect with the tangential light - would have framed it a little differently, or had it a little wider, to get more of the foreground in the frame.

But well done with all of these.

[THAN THE SWORD]

I did shoot with film for a long time. You are right, shooting with film did require more thought and planning because of the cost.

I even shot jobs with film. The biggest job I had back then was 12 rolls of 36 exposures. Even then I had to think things out.

Maybe my memory is faulty but I think that sometimes the last shot, or that extra bonus shot was the best one of the roll. Not all the time but sometimes. For those who have never shot film - if you loaded the roll just right you could get 38 shots on a roll of 36. Of course if you were sloppy you would get 34 , but that was the charm of film.

Now of course I have a 4 GB card and the ability to down load to a laptop when I need to. I have gone to the same island for the last 9 years for vacation with my GF. Those 9 years bridge the time between film and digital. The first 4 years I shot maybe 30-35 rolls of film. The remaining years are all digital and contain just over 15,000 shots. And that is just the time on that island. I must have another 45,000 from other events and jobs.

But who among us who have shot film ever go back to shooting film? I still have all my Minolta bodies and lenses and have only ever shot 2 rolls since going digital. I enjoy my K10 too much to ever go back. But I would love to give the K7 a try.

I do find that I am shooting less nowadays though. Ever since I got CS4 I realize that the more I shoot the more work it is in PP.