Ah my point was that I don't have to worry about the film costs.
The problem with the audience has always been there, and I've always taken a
lot more shots than I would use - it just used to cost more. I used to
reckon on around 6 good shots per roll.
Easy rule, if you take two shots each time (different composition, focus
etc), half of the time the second shot will be better, so you immediately
improve half your images - think about it... Take three shots, and two
thirds of your images will be better..
My last trip out there was for a week on safari and a week in Zanzibar. I
took 40 rolls (1400 shots), which cost me UKP150 to process (special deal)
plus the film cost, and I had to keep rewinding films and reloading while
shooting. What I love with digital is not only the cost reduction bit, but
also I can dump them onto the PC and filter down to the useful 15% within a
day or so.
I've also found I can get prints done (and only of the ones I want...) for
20p for 7x5s, online; so I don't even have to go down to the processing lab
any more!! Fantastic.
The prints I get are as good as my old negative based ones, and of course I
can crop, recolour etc before submitting if I want to.
No contest - digital it is for me.
Incidentally I used two cameras - a Nikon D100 SLR, mostly for Safari; and a
Canon Sureshot S50 (compact) mainly for Kili. I was amazed that the quality
of the compact shots was as good as the SLR (5Mps versus 6Mps).
The SLR now sits on a shelf, unless I need the big lens, or the macro. (oh
yes, and my 300mm is now effectively a 420mm on the digital as well).
Ah - happy man.
Charles
--
www.wildviews.com
Natural History Photography
"Hans-Georg Michna" wrote in message
news:cifhqvsr2h4bqmb6t2f5s7fjgm78e2g9o6@4ax.com...
> "Rydale" wrote:
>
> >Thanks for your comments Pat and Hans-Georg.
> >I try!
> >
> >As I've just 'gone digital' this year (these are my first serious
efforts)
>
> Charles,
>
> me too.
>
>
> >I confess to taking an awful lot of shots on the basis that it costs
nothing
> >extra. The ones on the tomalin.org pages have been filtered down from
around
> >600 pictures...
>
> It does cost something extra. It costs you your audience. Got to
> be selective, otherwise nobody will want to keep looking at your
> many photos. I think you did that very well.
>
> Exactly because photography is now so cheap and easy, we get a
> flood of poor photos. If you want yours to be seen, you have to
> make photos that stick out. Which isn't actually that difficult,
> because most people are not ambitious and merely take photos
> because it's fun to take them and because they want to catch and
> remember the moment. Once you decide to take photos for a
> general audience, there's your ambition.
>
> Hans-Georg (http://www.michna.com/kenya2003/)
>
> --
> No mail, please.
|
