henryhscheng
Senior Member
nt
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Shotgun photography - feels like a fraud?
- Thread starter mediokre
- Start date
Joe0Bloggs
Veteran Member
But sometimes when you take a camera to a place, there are things and places that you know won't produce 'keeper' pictures but that you shoot anyway. E.g. 10000000000th Shot of the Eiffel Tower by Yet Another Tourist won't ever qualify as a 'keeper' unless you make heroic efforts to make your composition unique (or you're shooting your folks in the frame to show that they've been there), but you shoot it anyway.
Ditto my 893247754908th shot of Kelly Chan by Yet Another Guy Stuck in the Crowd of Fans With a DSLR, but I was there, so why not shoot? I can show it to people and say 'see, I got That Close to her that day' (using a 200mm lens
but I don't expect to draw any artistic merit from the pictures.
I dunno, but sometimes it seems to me that most photos are taken more for the fun of taking them than for 'keeping'...
Ditto my 893247754908th shot of Kelly Chan by Yet Another Guy Stuck in the Crowd of Fans With a DSLR, but I was there, so why not shoot? I can show it to people and say 'see, I got That Close to her that day' (using a 200mm lens
but I don't expect to draw any artistic merit from the pictures.I dunno, but sometimes it seems to me that most photos are taken more for the fun of taking them than for 'keeping'...
CharlieDIY
Veteran Member
I've been told by numerous people that the difference between a mediocre photographer and a top notch photographer is often the size of the photographer's wastebasket.
--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com
--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com
Telyx
Senior Member
I'm nowhere near a pro, but I learned to shoot with film. That alone (not having a huge supply at hand, having to pay for it and pay for processing as well as wait for it) would probably help make you a "more careful" photographer. That said, I don't really think it's that important with digital. You might change your mind about some of your non-keepers anyway. Even if they aren't "art," they are a recording of a scene at a place and a time, and might bring back a memory that a "keeper" wouldn't. With big hard drives being so cheap now, about the only shots I delete are ones that are blurry.
Wayne Larmon
Forum Pro
I think you are talking about snapshots. Where the main difference between a snapshot and a non-snapshot is if the image is likely to appeal to anybody that isn't yourself, a member of your family, or a personal friend. The criteria for "keepers" is radically different for snapshots and for images that aren't snapshots. (For example, many Ansel Adams classic prints would be poor snapshots--there's no people in them.) So it is important to determine which kind of image you are talking about.But sometimes when you take a camera to a place, there are things
and places that you know won't produce 'keeper' pictures but that
you shoot anyway. E.g. 10000000000th Shot of the Eiffel Tower by
Yet Another Tourist won't ever qualify as a 'keeper' unless you
make heroic efforts to make your composition unique (or you're
shooting your folks in the frame to show that they've been there),
but you shoot it anyway.
Ditto my 893247754908th shot of Kelly Chan by Yet Another Guy Stuck
in the Crowd of Fans With a DSLR, but I was there, so why not
shoot? I can show it to people and say 'see, I got That Close to
her that day' (using a 200mm lens
artistic merit from the pictures.
I dunno, but sometimes it seems to me that most photos are taken
more for the fun of taking them than for 'keeping'...
Wayne
Tim the Grey
Veteran Member
I reckoned on a max of 5 from 36 being OK... The rest would fail MY tests, for whatever reason. They may have been wonderful 'record' shots, but they weren't 'pictures'.
Often I would get just ONE image I liked in a whole roll.
So you're not too bad at 12.8%.
--
Often I would get just ONE image I liked in a whole roll.
So you're not too bad at 12.8%.
--
- ######
- ####_O Tim Yorath
- #### />
- #### @ UK.
- ### \
jack stephens
Well-known member
If you take the effort to learn why your unacceptable shots are so then they are part of your learning curve.
Not making gobs of brackets and multiple takes of once in a life time situations with digital equipment for the sake of a better 'keeper' ratio is daft.
Guilt is proper for ethical violations, but is misapplied in digital photography.
God doesn't care if you make a million stupid shots so why should you?
This stuff is for having fun, man. Loosen up!
Not making gobs of brackets and multiple takes of once in a life time situations with digital equipment for the sake of a better 'keeper' ratio is daft.
Guilt is proper for ethical violations, but is misapplied in digital photography.
God doesn't care if you make a million stupid shots so why should you?
This stuff is for having fun, man. Loosen up!
shoot often, delete many.
i try for about 100 or so keepers per month.
resist the temptation to hold on to redundant, mediocre, "maybe-type" images that you WILL never use.
k.i.s.s.
flame away, if you must.
i try for about 100 or so keepers per month.
resist the temptation to hold on to redundant, mediocre, "maybe-type" images that you WILL never use.
k.i.s.s.
flame away, if you must.
people say this, but there's also the management of those images. and the fact that you probably won't touch most is a good argument to delete most.
even the best, most prolific photographers are defined by only a handful of their images.
even the best, most prolific photographers are defined by only a handful of their images.
rgmoore
Senior Member
The one thing that I've found is very useful is to develop a sense of when a picture just isn't going to work. One of the easiest ways of taking a lot of non-keepers is to keep working on a scene when the conditions aren't right. There's a strong temptation to keep snapping away in the hopes that somehow one picture will be good. You may get one that's better than the others, but that won't make it a keeper. If the contrast is too high, the light is coming from the wrong angle, or there's an obstruction that you can't frame out then taking more exposures won't solve your problem. You need to recognize that there's a fundamental problem with the picture you're trying to take and do something else instead.
--
As with all creative work, the craft must be adequate for the demands of expression. I am disturbed when I find craft relegated to inferior consideration; I believe that the euphoric involvement with subject or self is not sufficient to justify the making and display of photographic images. --Ansel Adams
I would agree with this - and I think it's good advice. Looking back at my stuff after reading all the posts carefully, I would like to correct a statement I made re: 90 percent keepers - it's no where near that high. I admit I've been keeping things for sentimental reasons, and/or because I don't want to throw anything away - perhaps a holdback from film days.
To rgmoore's comment I would add there may also be the temptation to keep shooting because "I have to do some shooting today".
--
Glenn NK
Victoria, BC
Frankied
New member
Here is the siimplest and the best tip I can give you - take every shot and treat every composition as if it is going to be a keeper. Exposure is always the most common problem so if you are going to take dupes, change the exposure (+1., +.5, -1) and then choose the best one.
Hope this helps.
Frankied
Hope this helps.
Frankied
Frankied
New member
You can find it without trouble - just make sure strict filtering is off.
good advice. i caught myself doing the same.
look for the dramatic light, or even/diffused light. if it's not there it's more than likely a waste of time.
look for the dramatic light, or even/diffused light. if it's not there it's more than likely a waste of time.
CharlieDIY
Veteran Member
It's known as bracketing, and most pros do it when not in a studio situation. Some do it in a studio situation.
--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com
Joe0Bloggs
Veteran Member
...I think my original point was that when you are a tourist going to all these touristy places (like the OP was) you are going to take all those touristy shots just like everybody else (with or without people in them) and even when you are taking them you know you aren't going to sell any prints unless you really are Ansel Adams...
I think you are talking about snapshots. Where the main differenceBut sometimes when you take a camera to a place, there are things
and places that you know won't produce 'keeper' pictures but that
you shoot anyway. E.g. 10000000000th Shot of the Eiffel Tower by
Yet Another Tourist won't ever qualify as a 'keeper' unless you
make heroic efforts to make your composition unique (or you're
shooting your folks in the frame to show that they've been there),
but you shoot it anyway.
Ditto my 893247754908th shot of Kelly Chan by Yet Another Guy Stuck
in the Crowd of Fans With a DSLR, but I was there, so why not
shoot? I can show it to people and say 'see, I got That Close to
her that day' (using a 200mm lens
artistic merit from the pictures.
I dunno, but sometimes it seems to me that most photos are taken
more for the fun of taking them than for 'keeping'...
between a snapshot and a non-snapshot is if the image is likely to
appeal to anybody that isn't yourself, a member of your family, or
a personal friend. The criteria for "keepers" is radically
different for snapshots and for images that aren't snapshots. (For
example, many Ansel Adams classic prints would be poor
snapshots--there's no people in them.) So it is important to
determine which kind of image you are talking about.
Wayne
When I've been to the "touristy" spots, I've always strained to NOT take the shots that the tourists do. I try different angles, or zoom into a closely cropped part of the scene that "gets into the heart" of the place. Most people "see" these aspects, they just don't "recognize" them. Example: I live in a tourist city - the tourists take full pics of St. Anne's (a former convent) - I take pics of the bell tower against the blue sky. To me, the bell tower is the "essence" of the 1800's architecture.
--
Glenn NK
Victoria, BC
So much to buy - not enough time and money - too much GAS.
K1000Photographer
Veteran Member
Sometimes you have to zip off a few frames to get a really good one. I found when shooting kids and some fast action, burst mode saves the day. I found with digital, I can see the shot and quickly retake it if I see a way to improve it. The first one(s) may be keepers but sometimes you need to go for the better shot. Working on improving your technique and shooting more frames may not increase your keeper ratio, but you will have more keepers.
National Geographic photographers - surely among the most competent on the planent - and supplied with the best equipment made - used to shoot an average of 3000 chromes to produce an average story with around 10 to 12 images.
"Overshooting" is usually criticised by "arty" types - the same folks who brag they
use the full frame and don't modify the image in any way. The latter claim proving only that they do not understand the nature of photographic reproduction and/or the way human vision works.
People who sell photographs - or even photographers who actually value images even if not sold - usually seem content to do whatever it takes to get the image desired. Sometimes its an 8x10 tripod chrome - but nowadays I for one always shoot freehand with multiple exposures My minimum shot is 3 exposures; just routine. Often in people shooting I will have 8 to 10 images.
I find this often produces images that could have been obtained in no other way - because human expressions are surprisingly fleeting, and the telling experssion may habe come/gone far too fast for reaction on the part of my finger.
I remember quite well when I was using a Leica 30 years ago, practicing "rolling" the advance knob with my forefinger to speed up the shots. We all did before the lever came in. And when we used the lever, I remember some cameras required more than one throw, which was anathema...cant remember which one, tho.
So as far as I can see a great value of digital is unlimited shooting at no cost ...
Your mileage, of course, may vary.
--
God bless all here - rennie12
"Overshooting" is usually criticised by "arty" types - the same folks who brag they
use the full frame and don't modify the image in any way. The latter claim proving only that they do not understand the nature of photographic reproduction and/or the way human vision works.
People who sell photographs - or even photographers who actually value images even if not sold - usually seem content to do whatever it takes to get the image desired. Sometimes its an 8x10 tripod chrome - but nowadays I for one always shoot freehand with multiple exposures My minimum shot is 3 exposures; just routine. Often in people shooting I will have 8 to 10 images.
I find this often produces images that could have been obtained in no other way - because human expressions are surprisingly fleeting, and the telling experssion may habe come/gone far too fast for reaction on the part of my finger.
I remember quite well when I was using a Leica 30 years ago, practicing "rolling" the advance knob with my forefinger to speed up the shots. We all did before the lever came in. And when we used the lever, I remember some cameras required more than one throw, which was anathema...cant remember which one, tho.
So as far as I can see a great value of digital is unlimited shooting at no cost ...
Your mileage, of course, may vary.
--
God bless all here - rennie12
(snip)
I've thought about this a bit from time to time.
It might be a fraud (to use your phrase) if you relied strictly on luck, without regard to building your skill.
But I believe I've improved my skill in new areas faster than I ever could have with film. And not because I have instant feedback. Shoot, the only thing I use the LCD for is a quick glance at the histogram if I have a weird lighting situation.
The very fact that "digital sets you free" means I can experiment with technique and setups (some odd-ball) without concern for expensive of film and processing.
Back in my slide days, I considered it a busy day if I shot two 36 exp rolls of film when trying something new. With digital, I might shoot 5x that amount. Very little of that is shotgunning. I consider every shot, just as before. Only now I'll take more chances.
So not only has digital given me the freedom to experiment more, but since it is digital, then I can rescue a problem image much more easily in CS2 than I could in the darkroom (and I've spent plenty of time in the darkroom) which increases my yield over slides.
I'd be lucky to get 5 good shots from a roll of 36. But with digital, I'm finding my keeper count higher.
Digital has reawaken my interest in photography because of the wonderful flexibility I have.
--
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/digirob
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum