Do you take TOO MANY shots?

BAK said:

Was this just for you, or was it a community display, perhaps in the lobby of > city hall?

Click to expand...

For me I was just taking the new camera for a spin.

kerkula

Knox / streetkid said:

as you may be aware . . the Hasselblad is a metal box, some gears
and a chunk of glass attatched. The box itself is almost a piece
of art.

Click to expand...

I agree on all points. But I won't worship it. It's a tool. Granted it's wonderfully fit to task, but it's not the tool for every job.

Knox / streetkid said:

A black plastic, battery powered computer, holds no similar
feeling for me.

Click to expand...

A digital camera is also a tool. They're not as finely engineered, but they're also tools which are perfect for some tasks.

The right tool for the job.

And in my original message you'll recall I said I had no idea why some feel the way you do. That's the literal truth. I don't understand your feeling, but I didn't say you were wrong.

Knox / streetkid said:

nor did I say the camera alone created the "meditative" involvement
. . . but the quiet time with the subject and the art of
photography.

Click to expand...

If that's true, the camera shouldn't make one bit of difference...

The great American photographer Gary Winogrand when he died left
3000 rolls of film that had been taken but not developed. He left 3000
rolls of film that had been developed but not examined and 5000 rolls of
film that had been proofed but not printed.

rick . . I am not making myself clear. It is not JUST the 'thing' as in the box itself, it's also the procedure the 'thing' (camera) takes to take the photo. Know what I mean? There are many reasons . . .none of the shooting RAW fix it later, fix the photo in PS / computer . . etc . . . so there is more thought going into the act of taking the photo. Also, the hasselblad does indeed feel (to me) like a piece of art, thus creating a 'head' per se, to create. Frive a vintage Mercedes one way, drive a new Toyota another. Or I shall say, for me, that is the way it feels. Also, as you know . . there are 12 shots on a roll, so thought goes into it for the obvious reason.

Rick Pali said:

Knox / streetkid said:

nor did I say the camera alone created the "meditative" involvement
. . . but the quiet time with the subject and the art of
photography.

Click to expand...

If that's true, the camera shouldn't make one bit of difference...

Click to expand...

--
Knox
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
http://alleycatphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/streetkid

as I'm not a pro. I browse through varoius forums here often reading the threads and this one really hit home.

Why?

I started out with film, but went to mostly using point and shoot digitals a while back.

It's not uncommon for me to take lots of photos of the same scene with the digicams I've owned,, bracketing exposure, making slight changes in composition, etc., especially if lighting is harsh.

Well, I just bought a new playtoy recently, an old Minolta Maxxum 7000. I've started buying some Minolta AF mount lenses over the past couple of months (I've pretty much decided that I'll buy a KM DSLR soon and started buying lenses first), and happened upon a deal that included a lens and this camera for practically nothing.

It also gives me a way to try out the lenses I'm buying until I puchase a KM DSLR.

I went through film so fast the first couple of times I used it, I couldn't believe it.... Then, I realized that I was doing the same thing I had took for granted with digital (lots of photos that are almost identical).

I never used to do that with film (and I still use an old Nikon n4004s from time to time).

So, yea, I take way too many photos. I never used to need to burn through a bunch of exposures to try and get a good shot with film (and shooting film more recently is why I noticed it, since we take this practice for granted shooting digital).

--
JimC
------
http://www.pbase.com/jcockfield

timzee said:

Assumption 1: You started out taking film but now shot almost
exclusively with digital.
Assumption 2: You take more shots now using digital for any given
session than you used to take when using film.

Click to expand...

Timzee said:

c) Assumptions 1 & 2 are incorrect and you take about the same.

Click to expand...

I did start out with film.

But I wouldn't say I always take more shots. SOmetimes I do, and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I'm very careful to pay more strict attention to getting a shot set up exactly how I like and winding up technically better. But sometimes I also just let loose and fire off a lot of pictures just by intuition in a way I would not have with film.

Both approaches can yield some good stuff I think. Digital is a tool that can give you too many nails. but if used responsibly can also be a great asset.

--
---> Kendall
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home
http://www.kigiphoto.com/Gallery

I've learned over the years that when taking photos of people, especially GROUPS of people, the more shots I get in a smaller amount of time the higher the odds are of getting that 'perfect shot'. You know it, the one where everybody is looking towards the camera, eyes open, mouth closed and not fidgeting.

I've also modified my workflow to suite my needs; I move the originals into folders based on my first impression of the image. The folders are keepers, marginal, duplicates and discard. If I can't find a shot in the keepers for a particular subject I then check back in the marginal. After the first pass I'll move the dupes to the duplicate folder keeping the 'best' of the particular set.

During downtime I may revisit the marginal/discard to see what happened during the shot; either unexpected movement, bad focus or something I screwed up. I also use it as a learning opportunity to try other things such as tweaking the settings for the same subject to see which one works best for my particular equipment without incurring the additional cost associated with film. Whether its a new lens, filter or firmware.....

Cheers,
Chris

You are merely understanding that there are options with digital that didn't exist before -- just as with the nail gun.

One wonders how people confuse "options" with results as if the "option" to go down a particular path precludes going down the paths one had when that was the only option available.

Sure there are some "spray and pray" folks in the digital world, an option that was prohibitively expensive in the film world.

So what? This doesn't keep people from being meticulous -- as if being meticulous was some kind of virtue.

The thing that matters is being able to consistently get the result you desire. What does it matter if photographer A gets 100 reliably good photos with only 100 shots taken, whereas another photographer can reliably get those SAME 100 photos, but shoots 1,000 to get there?

Lee

CharlieDIY said:

year, and pops off 600 per day is going to have to dig through
150,000 images annually. No thank you. That's not only too much, it
is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much.

Click to expand...

What do you shoot? I shoot events. Weddings, Church events, school events, sports events, family vacations. Any time I take my camera out, I'm going to shoot 200-400 photos.

I use http://www.pixort.com for sorting through the photos in a breeze. I'm shooting on the order of 25,000-30,000 photos annually.

I may shoot 200-400 photos at one of my daughters games (I have 3 daughters). Those will be whittled down do 50-80 or so. But there's 10 or more girls on the time. So I'm getting 3-10 photos of each girl. That's not really so many. I don't shoot every game any more as, frankly, shooting was as much for me to learn the camera as it was to capture specific images. But when I do shoot, I shoot a lot. It's fun. I love the subjects -- I love the photos.

When I shoot a church picnic, again, I'll shoot several hundred photos...like 5 or 600. I'll whittle that down to about 150 keepers. But that's not 150 photos of the same person. There are a lot of people.

When I go out at lunch and shoot flower/landscape photos, I don't shoot 200 photos. I'll shoot 25 to 50...and delete all but 5 to 10.

I shoot so many photos annually, because I shoot so often, and I shoot people shots mostly. I don't shoot 25,000 Ansel Adams' quality landscapes per year.

Lee

I agree with the wedding photographer who stated that his 3500 photos do not come from "machine gunning" and hoping for the best. I do shoot in bursts in some of my sports shooting, but mostly I do not.

I decided to do just that, though, one day -- just to see. I went out for 15min to capture photos of my daughters and a friend playing on slip-n-slide. I rattled off 500 photos in 15min.

I don't see myself doing that again, but it was an interesting experience. I deleted all but 50 of the photos, and made a very fun slideshow:

http://www.photodex.com/sharing/viewshow.html?fl=2323495&alb=0

For those who don't have windows, or don't like running pro show gold slideshows -- here's the photos: http://www.pbase.com/leebase/slip-n-slide&page=all

Could I have captured these photos using the "zen of art" style photography? Not a chance. Could I have gotten similar results without machine gunning? Most likely, which is why I don't machine gun my camera.



Lee

toddmedia said:

If you shoot 2000 shots at a
wedding and start by weeding out .... peinging each and just a
quick glance may take 15 secs each. That is 8 hours just to cull.

Click to expand...

I use Pixort (www.pixort.com) for culling and sorting my photos. I'm in the "about 800" photos per wedding league...and it doesn't take me more than about 30min to cull and sort my photos.

Getting rid of the obviously bad shots (misfocused, closed eyes, motion blurred) photos is easy. The hard part is when you have several good photos of the same (or near same) moment. Frankly, it's a good problem to have.

Lee

I am a carryover from 35mm film (canon ae-1) yrs ago. So I like to use manual modes, play with exposure, always think of composure etc.

now that digital has relit my interest in photography, when I take pictures before i even turn the camera on I am looking for a good shot. I really enjoy finding something worthwhile to photograph. my feeling is I am too picky at times. but its better than just point and shoot
--
Ed in Arizona...fz2O

http://arizonadaze.smugmug.com

Absolutely. When I have the Nikon D2H in my hand, I treat the thing like a machine gun.

After the wedding, I'm then faced with 800 images to sort through.

Half of those are from trying to get the Sb800s to work right or the camera to get the right WB or exposure.

The rest are the keepers, from which I select the best ones.

I'd say think of those bad ones as the Polaroid test shots we used to make.

I"m wondering what is going on at a church picnic that merits that many photos?

when I take

Ed USA said:

pictures before i even turn the camera on I am looking for a good
shot. I really enjoy finding something worthwhile to photograph.

Click to expand...

I'm projecting the next picture all the time. At weddings one has to do that
in a compressed space and time. It is something I think most photographers
get to if they work fast paced jobs. It is not about just point and shoot, but

really lining up the sequence of your next five or more pictures, quickly getting
a series of them in one location, then moving on to the next location for a
different angle. While doing all this and checking the camera settings for
the next light and hitting the next position whilst moving through a crowd
of people. It is quite a feeling when it comes off right.

We loose maybe 10% for a variety of reasons, most are the quick takes
that have some sky blown etc. Maybe another 10% because of blinks or
other odds reactions.

I don't see losing 1/2 for any reason? Are you exacting on the ones you
keep or is the flash acting up? Time for Quantum flash? If it is a 'polaroid'
thing and you are losing because of exposure, it seems like a big number you
are losing?

Carl Feather said:

Absolutely. When I have the Nikon D2H in my hand, I treat the thing
like a machine gun.

After the wedding, I'm then faced with 800 images to sort through.

Half of those are from trying to get the Sb800s to work right or
the camera to get the right WB or exposure.

The rest are the keepers, from which I select the best ones.

I'd say think of those bad ones as the Polaroid test shots we used
to make.

Click to expand...

--
Find the answer to your photography question here:
http://www.researchetc.com/scanners/2/index.htm

I photograph mostly little kids.... and digital is a revolution for that market! I can take 100 shots and provide the 30 best to my clients. You can't control your shot with kids and candids. So, it's great to know you're not wasting cash by shooting off endless roles of film, for one classic shot.

I've read this thread with some interest. As one who shoots digital and (less and less) with film, I don't know that you can have too many shots.

When I shoot digital, I more inclined to shoot more shots than with film. Either way your limited. In digital your limited by the card(s) & battery(ies) you have. And you go home and spend hour(s) of time sorting/processing. Your costs were done at the beginning when you bought the camera. With film you have rolls of 24- or 36-frames to shoot. So, either you shoot conservatively and hope they come out. Or you shoot away and decide later . . . after you've paid for each roll to develop. One main reason I love digital, no real costs after buying the camera and cards. Sure if the camera breaks, you have to fix it. But you'd have to do that with a film camera, too.

I assist our yearbook staff with sports photos. When I use the school's DRebel, I'd rather give them 200 shots to choose from then 50. When I use my film camera, I choose my shots more conservatively. And I miss a lot with film.

Just my 2cnts

Knox / streetkid said:

rick . . I am not making myself clear. It is not JUST the 'thing'
as in the box itself, it's also the procedure the 'thing' (camera)
takes to take the photo. Know what I mean?

Click to expand...

I understand. The Hasselblad has you take the photos in a certain way, changing the feel of the whole session. I get that. Granted a film camera with 12 exposures forces you to do things a certain way, there's no reason you can't choose to without the limitation being imposed on you. Still, it's harder that way.