(AUGUST 14, 15, 2010) WHAT IS UNDER 50?
SOME ANSWERS:
* The number of Republican U.S. Senators presently , in Washington
* The number of people Sadie and I see on the Riverwalk every morning
* The number of miles I walk every week
* The number of pictures I took on our walk each day on Saturday and Sunday
All of these are true. The main reason for this entry, however, relates to the last answer.
A few months ago, I mentioned to a friend that I took from 300-600 pictures everyday on the Riverwalk. I then said that out of those 300-600 pictures, "I would get, maybe, 8-10 that were pretty good, and, maybe, a couple that would be extraordinary."
My friend replied. "Out of that many pictures taken, you're bound to get some that are good. Even a blind person could take that many pictures and get some good ones."
I told him that he was probably right.
Back in the days of negative film photography, each shot was made as perfect as possible since the cost of film was, well, costly. Also, with a camera that would hold, at the most, 36 shots, it was important to conserve the film for that really great shot. It was frustrating to see a great shot and be out of film. I have a memory card that holds nearly 6000 pictures, so I just have to make sure the battery in my camera remains charged.
Now, with digital photography, I have enjoyed the luxury of taking a half dozen shots of one subject, thinking that, perhaps, one may be a good shot. I have become spoiled, so I decided that this weekend I would limit myself to no more than 50 shots each day on the Riverwalk. That is what I did, and I posted the best shots above.
On Saturday morning I took 46 pictures; on Sunday morning I took 49. It was difficult to NOT click away as I saw a beautiful great blue heron standing near the shore, but I refrained from shooting 3 shots a second to shooting . . . pausing . . . shooting . . . pausing and then shooting one last shot.
The pictures I got each of the last two mornings were not the best shots I've taken, but some were fairly good. Of course, I still have the advantage of seeing my pictures the morning that they were taken. I didn't have to send them off to be processed and printed and wait for a week or so for them to come back. Even then, I may not have any pictures I liked.
I recall back in the summer of 1980, we were traveling through the mid-west. I ended up taking over 10 rolls of film (36 shots per roll), and out of those rolls were only two really good shots - one was a seal swimming underwater at the Cincinnati Zoo and the second one was a mountain goat that had fallen asleep on a faux mountain at the same zoo; the second shot won a blue ribbon in a local photo contest that year, and I still have the print hanging on my wall.
I think that I will go back to taking many shots tomorrow on the Riverwalk. It was a good experiment, but it surely encumbered my style. Had I been using film, the pictures would have equaled at least 3 rolls, and the cost would have been around $20 just to see what I had; with digital, the cost was nothing.
It was another two good mornings on the Riverwalk.
No comments:
Post a Comment