"jimkramer" <Newsreader1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ftrh4c$ig0$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> What was your keeper rate when you were just starting/learning?
Actually, pretty high, it was a long time ago. I had a fairly strict
teacher
(RIP).
> What happens to your keeper rate when you are experimenting with a new
(to
> you) technique or piece of equipment or a new film?
Perhaps because of my early teacher, my research efforts are pretty
extensive, so again, same answer. As an example, some time ago, I acquired
a
Bowens Front Pro system. This is a combination slide projector/strobe and
a
special reflective background. Whatever slide you put in it is projected
onto the background and becomes a part of the finished ****trait. For
example, I have slides of all the local high schools. High school seniors
can have a ****trait in front of their school without leaving the studio.
The
intensity of the slide can be varied, the intenisity of the studio
lighting
can be varied, and the camera f/stop can be varied. I spent several hours
with flash meters before running thru any film. I did one test roll, with
+2, N, -2 bracketing, with N being what my metering tests predicted. My
final results were exactly that, +2, N, and -2.
> Again from a creativity / learning stand point the instant feed back
from
> digital is a clear winner.
Not so clear, IMHO. Instant feedback teaches you that mistakes don't
matter.
Film teaches you to avoid mistakes and make every shot count.
>
> If you already know how to use a camera (Granted for a lot of people
that
> is a rather big if) and you know what you want to do then it really
> doesn't make any difference which you shoot, as long as you get the
> results you (or the person paying you) want.
> Jim
Except if you want to consider the better resolution that film can provide
over digital. Or if you want to consider the longevity of a silver print
over an inkjet print. Or the permanence of a negative over a disk file.
Other than that, I guess it doesn't matter.
|
