Quote:
Originally Posted by pressld2  I remember reading once that it was not unusual for a National Geographic photographer on assignment to take several thousand frames for a published article that would have no more than 12 pictures in it. I don't think they took quite that many in the days of film but with digital the only cost is the time spent wading through them afterwards.
In the advertising world it is also fairly common to take many hundreds of shots just to get the one image that will be used in the final advert. I believe that they did used to do this in the film days too, on the basis that the film was dirt cheap compared to the hire of the studio, the models, the make-up and wardrobe, etc.
. |
i think it probably was as common generally for pros and semi pros in the film days , you just couldnt take as many due to the limitations of time reloading film (which is also time with your eye away from the viewfinder) and the fact that even a fast motor drive wast the same as the buffering we have these days
I remember covering a 20/20 cricket final once before i went digital where (using two slr bodies one with a long lens and one wide angle) i spent just over £120 on film and D&P - buying in bulk that equates to arround a fiver for 36 shots , ie 24 rolls - , allowing for some rolls being only partially used before they were rewound (to change iso, or to change from colour to b&W) that equates to between 700 -800 shots. which is a lot , but a fraction of what i take these days with DSLR