Keeper Of Time Documentary Download
Amy Sumler
Keeper of Time is not a fast-paced film. And though the viewer is keenly aware of this fact, as it moves slowly and pointedly through a deep wellspring of information about watches, historical clocks, ancient methods of timekeeping, and the nature of time itself, it also swiftly and gracefully traverses the globe to tell that tale.
From Geneva (the Mecca of horology) to Seattle to Prague to New York (HODINKEE's dominion) and even the Isle of Man (where Roger Smith rules supreme), we're introduced to a variety of characters within the universe of time. Most faces you'll be familiar with as you've come across them both in video and written form here on HODINKEE. We're talking such luminaries as Gary Shteyngart, William Massena, Roger Smith, Philippe Dufour, Eric Ku, Michael Friedman, and Maximilian Büsser. We have some of our own very well-represented in the film, as well, such as Technical Editor and HSNY Executive Director Nick Manousos, and HODINKEE founder Ben Clymer. It's a real "who's who" of the watch world.
But watches are only half of what this movie tackles. We get voices from those whose job it is to maintain and repair fascinatingly cool automata, and historically important clocks, in addition to ruminations on alternative forms of timekeeping and the very nature of mortality.
You get the distinct sense you're on a journey with Culyba, whose voice can be heard off-camera asking questions of his subjects. Even if you know everything there is to know about watches, it still feels like you're learning alongside him. "By the time we filmed Philippe Dufour, which was late in production, I was way more knowledgeable and really was conscious of the fact that I was in the presence of a living legend."
Of course, you can't cram everything into a 90-minute runtime. "Personally, I'm fascinated with the intricacies and technical side, but for the film," he says, "I couldn't break down how a tourbillon works in a five-minute segment, as much as I'd enjoy that, myself."
While continually producing bespoke timepieces, such as the Caliber 801 and the Pennsylvania Tourbillon, RGM has kept the great traditions of fine watchmaking in focus. Modern manufacturing co-exists with antique, hand-operated machinery. Hand-blued screws and hand-polished components are at home among the close tolerances afforded by automated machines. Our goal is to offer not only the finest watches made in the USA, but the finest watches available, and we believe this requires equal efforts to improve current methods while at the same time preserving tradition.
A couple of weeks ago Director Michael Culyba and Director of Photography Ben Wolf were here at RGM filming for a new independent film called Keeper of Time. Keeper of Time is a feature length documentary film currently in production that explores the history of horology, mechanical watchmaking, and the very concept of time itself.
Even today I try to not take so many photos but rather to take good photos with the ones I take. So, if you were to go on a one day outing anywhere and you may sell and/or keep some of the photos you take, how many photos would you normally take, and how many "keepers" are you hoping to get out of that?
I don't buy that premise or the 400 roll ratio story,sorry. A keeper likely meant one selected by a photo editor for publication out of the lot submitted. Same goes for many of us..film still was cheaper than time and effort and opportunity cost. Never did the stats or was too darn rich:-)
When I have shot for magazines, I have to say that generally I get more shots used per roll shot than this, but I learned a long time ago that what the magazine finds important to illustrate their article is not generally what I feel are the best images. So you shoot and cover all aspects of the assignment, not just what you think is going to be a great shot.
I don't ever look at a "success" rate or only shoot great photographs when I shoot personally. That is a sure way to remain pretty ordinary in your work. The genius shots are many times those you are drawn to but don't know why, you shoot them and later there is the WOW moment. In my personal work, I generally shoot one piece of film per shot (large format) and I can tell you almost without exception, that when I started out and shot more because I thought there was a great shot there, it never saw the light of the enlarger or scanner--except when I proofed it.
The percentage of keepers is irrelevant. The number and quality of keepers is. National Geographic has a lot of concerns besides "a good picture". They need pictures that tell the story clearly and in concert with the text. One's idea of a "keeper" is another's reject. This is one of those questions that has no clear answer. If you're gleaning over one keeper out of 300 or so exposures (over years), either you've set the bar woefully low, or, you're one of the best photographers that ever lived. Unless you're a wedding or sports photographer, where the action is somewhat predictable, and the bar isn't as high as it is in the art world. Lots of variables in this.
I see this sentiment expressed fairly often, but it seems it never comes from people who actually do produce great shots. Getting a great photo isn't like throwing a thousand darts at a dartboard and maybe hitting a bullseye a few times. The overwhelming majority of great photos are not stationary targets that you might hit by shooting at them again and again and again. It's more like trying to hit the bullseye on a dartboard that appears intermittently, for a second or so at time, in a wide variety of places.
I have been glad of that as new (digital) technology made something more like a silk purse out of some old sow's ears slides that I kept. In addition, I find it pays to go back sometimes and look at the "seconds". As time goes by, and my own skills and taste change, I sometimes find more interest in the alternatives than the one I chose to project the first time around.
The old timers shot a lot, not so they could cull out the few good ones, but for the reasons already discussed. In cases where we can see what's what, most of the ones not chosen look much better than some tyro's best shots.
Sometimes I believe it is useful to operate a bit like the large format photographer, whose film is limited on any outing. Nice thing about digital is that you can "waste" many exposures and in a shorter time frame than available to the LF photographer. My film medium format camera is sometimes used when the accompanying digital camera and its exposures clarify in my mind what I am looking for. It's maybe not the best approach, but like the LF case, it allows lesser numbers of film exposures in the same situation and my keeper rate tends to increase.
Another thing I find is that my keeper rate increases over time, with the same developed rolls of film. On re-appraisal, some previously put aside images speak a little differently than when first viewed, or I may be (in B&W film use) thinking a bit differently about how I might print those negatives, and what sort of character I should try to give them.
As said by others, storage is cheap and getting cheaper and smaller all the time. I throw away only a few things. Ones that were clearly wrong--like hitting the shutter before you focused --then only if it is really lacking in content--or the duplicates I make in brackets or the "safe" duplicate to be sure focus was right on. Otherwise today's "clunkers" are not tossed.
The level of scrutiny those photographers are going to have to meet to get a crack at 3:12,000 is much higher than what we'd individually deem as "keeper" or not. The sheer demand and competition of getting in to that exclusive group of people is going to be enough to require some arbitrary decisions from the start. A lot of those decisions may have nothing to do with an individual "good" photo or not. There's some other stuff in there.
What I call a keeper over here is simply not going to hit National Geographic or Getty or Magnum Photos unless some lightning strike lottery success occurs. Odds on being struck by lightning are something like 1:72 million; which is about how many competitors each one of those brand name photographers have, in some sense. We can do well, but that doesn't mean that we're going to make the cut on the brand name publications. It's just not reasonable.
My common, conservative, bare minimum keeper ratio is about 15 to 30 minutes investment into a photo (before camera, not counting labs). I can do about four good photos in an hour's worth of behind the camera time.
If you can get the picture fundamentals done right, consistently, at will, then I think it's time to move on to other sets of standards. We probably all had that beginner phase when we saw ourselves making hundreds of photos that were headed for the garbage. Sometimes we still do. Then, it's time to hit the reset and get back to basics.
So it kind of depends on your definition of "keeper". In my case, of the 90 I kept, probably half were "I was at the Grand Canyon and here's the proof!" related, and the other half stuff I'd consider for exhibition.
WatchBox's C'Quon Gottlieb sat down with director Michael Culyba for a discussion on his new documentary film Keeper of Time. The film touches on watchmaking, history, and the concept of time and features interviews with industry giants like Philippe Dufour, Max Büsser, F.P. Journe, and more. Culyba talks about the process of creating the film, charting the journey from inception to premiere, and shares what he hopes the audience will come away with after watching.
df19127ead