Ben Rubinstein
pro member
Cartier Bresson said that he would go out and shoot 2 rolls of film before breakfast. I don't know how many he shot during the course of the day but if we work out the ratio of iconic and great images to the amount he shot..
Ansel Adams was happy with 1 great image a month (or was it a year?) but he shot a hell of a lot more..
What is the ratio of worthwhile images from a sports game compared to the amount of frames shot?
News Photographers shoot zillions of images for that one headliner.
Does anyone know just how many frames are shot on a commercial shoot?
Story goes of a photographer new to the National Geographic who came back from an assignment to shoot a mountain. He handed in his 70 rolls of velvia and was asked if that was all, where the rest were!
This was of course pre digital when the only ones who could afford to shoot this much was pros.
So has anything changed, is the myth of the Leica with 50mm and a roll of film magically making a decisive moment with each frame just an excuse to bash digital?
Is the difference between the pro and the advanced amatuer in getting those iconic images boiling down to just that, the amount of frames shot? Are the greats only great due to extensive cherry picking?
*Flame Retardent Suit on!*
To be honest I don't believe the above, not wholly. The pro has the gear at the time, the pro is taking the photos, the pro has an aim, a goal. However to a certain extent the myth of the greats being great in every frame should be laid to rest, should cease to be used to bash digital, beginners, non pros, etc. The greats were there at the time and had a camera in their hand. And they shot the frames! However possibly their images are not connected to them, to their vision, can a single image out of a shoot of 200 be used as a 'window' into the photographers soul as so many would like to think? Not without the context of the contact sheets....
Ansel Adams was happy with 1 great image a month (or was it a year?) but he shot a hell of a lot more..
What is the ratio of worthwhile images from a sports game compared to the amount of frames shot?
News Photographers shoot zillions of images for that one headliner.
Does anyone know just how many frames are shot on a commercial shoot?
Story goes of a photographer new to the National Geographic who came back from an assignment to shoot a mountain. He handed in his 70 rolls of velvia and was asked if that was all, where the rest were!
This was of course pre digital when the only ones who could afford to shoot this much was pros.
So has anything changed, is the myth of the Leica with 50mm and a roll of film magically making a decisive moment with each frame just an excuse to bash digital?
Is the difference between the pro and the advanced amatuer in getting those iconic images boiling down to just that, the amount of frames shot? Are the greats only great due to extensive cherry picking?
*Flame Retardent Suit on!*
To be honest I don't believe the above, not wholly. The pro has the gear at the time, the pro is taking the photos, the pro has an aim, a goal. However to a certain extent the myth of the greats being great in every frame should be laid to rest, should cease to be used to bash digital, beginners, non pros, etc. The greats were there at the time and had a camera in their hand. And they shot the frames! However possibly their images are not connected to them, to their vision, can a single image out of a shoot of 200 be used as a 'window' into the photographers soul as so many would like to think? Not without the context of the contact sheets....