How many shots do you shoot?

canonagain123 · Dec 30, 2013

If your DSLR has a rotating LCD (many don't), that might help with the ball-head or the fluid head, but I get wanting to see through the viewfinder. I hate to use the LCD too, I want to have my eye on the viewfinder, but since LCDs are invented and mounted on the cameras, sometimes they can give the extra flexibility you need. If you find hand-held easier though, then you should shoot hand-held. It's just that hand-held+telephoto+a subject moving unpredictably at a high speed = not the most stable combo. I can understand how that would increase the failure rate. Like I said, certain situations mean more failed photos, that can't be helped. Proper preparation can still keep the number down, and I think we both agree on that.

edit: See LightPath48's reply, how many shots he took of his granddaughters sledding, and how many he kept. That's what I consider normal.

Lee Jay · Dec 30, 2013

canonagain123 said:
If your DSLR has a rotating LCD (many don't), that might help with the ball-head or the fluid head, but I get wanting to see through the viewfinder.

I also need to to use the phase-detection predictive autofocus.

Member said:
I hate to use the LCD too, I want to have my eye on the viewfinder, but since LCDs are invented and mounted on the cameras, sometimes they can give the extra flexibility you need. If you find hand-held easier though, then you should shoot hand-held. It's just that hand-held+telephoto+a subject moving unpredictably at a high speed = not the most stable combo.

I don't find that I can use a slower shutter speed when using the fluid head than when I'm going purely handheld. I have tried it. 2-axis IS is amazing.

canonagain123 · Dec 30, 2013

Lee Jay said:
canonagain123 said:

If your DSLR has a rotating LCD (many don't), that might help with the ball-head or the fluid head, but I get wanting to see through the viewfinder.

Click to expand...

I also need to to use the phase-detection predictive autofocus.

Lee Jay said:

I hate to use the LCD too, I want to have my eye on the viewfinder, but since LCDs are invented and mounted on the cameras, sometimes they can give the extra flexibility you need. If you find hand-held easier though, then you should shoot hand-held. It's just that hand-held+telephoto+a subject moving unpredictably at a high speed = not the most stable combo.

Click to expand...

I don't find that I can use a slower shutter speed when using the fluid head than when I'm going purely handheld. I have tried it. 2-axis IS is amazing.

RedFox88 · Dec 30, 2013

darklamp said:
I recall on one occasion being in London on a visit and just doing a casual bit of shooting on walkabout. I came across one buy with a tripod and DSLR setup waiting patiently and not shooting. I understood he was waiting for the light to be just right as the sun went down, but all around him everyone was firing off shots with phones, P&S and DSLRs at a heck of a rate, instead of waiting for the right moment.

And those phone and P&S "pics" will look like average snapshots... on facebook on someone's phone to maybe look at once, then never again. Getting a good photo is all about the right place, at the right time, with the right light.

darklamp said:
The right moment for people these days seems to be immediately.

If you learned on film the one thing you were always conscious of was the amount of shots you had left. It also took a lot of time and/or money to develop and/or print the shots you took. You learned to be disciplined and patient. Wasting shots was not an option.

The rise of digital means that you can easily take 200 shots and review them relatively quickly.

If someone is taking 20 photos of the same landscape in front of them, I really doubt they would have the diligence to discern one photo being better than the others on the back of a camera, so I disagree.

darklamp said:
There's no reason to develop patience and restraint.

Again completely untrue. If you want to stop taking photos you end up deleting you'll learn not to take photos that will be blah and trashed on your computer.

darklamp said:
Rather like burst mode. Good action photographers learned to time the moment they shot. Now you just reel of an endless stream of shots and hope one of them gets what you want ( OK, pros still aim for the right moment ). I've a very old fashioned view of burst mode - it's just machine-gunning - zero aim and minimal control.

That's ok for action sports, but not for landscape or portrait although I've heard of "photographers" shooting portraits in burst mode to try to get a good photo. If you have to resort to that, you won't be in business long.

darklamp said:
Keepers ? I'm usually happy with a few keepers out of thirty or more shots if I was shooting casually ( i.e. without due care or attention ) as a lot of the shots are usually me trying things that aren't really sensible anyway ( e.g. hand held pano sequence of macro subject ). I like about 50% when I'm taking care ( e.g. extended family gathering when I'm intending to get as many shots as possible and come equipped for that exact purpose ).

But you didn't answer what you do with your "keepers". Keep them on your computer to rarely look back on?

RedFox88 · Dec 30, 2013

chkproductions said:
I would interested to hear from those that shoot that much and why they do; out of what you shoot how many are "keepers" in your opinion; and then what you do with all those pics - save em, dump em?

I very much like your thinking. I've read on here of someone taking 7000 photos while on a vacation, with 1100 keepers! I thought, my goodness what would or even could you do with 1100 keepers? Way too many to print in an album or even put in an online album. Any visitor would leave after probably 30 photos if too many were too similar to the previous one!

I feel a photo should not be a keeper if it's not a photo you would print in some manner be it 20x30, 8x12, or 4x6, or 2x3. Whatever photos you haven't printed will be tossed when you die. A bunch of photos on hard drives, DVDs, etc. sitting in a box will probably not be accessible in 20 years and your descendents may not have the time or interest even if they can be accessed to drudge through 100s of folders with 10,000s of photos.

RedFox88 · Dec 30, 2013

canonagain123 said:
1000 pictures a day is insane. At that rate you'll go through a shutter in 3-6 months. How can you take that many pictures a day, unless it's specifically for a client?

I've read of wedding photographers taking 5000 to 10,000 photos during a wedding and showing their client 800 edited photos. Way too many taken and edited. You can't have 800 keepers from a wedding. Keep the photos that are really needed to tell the story of the day.

Martin.au · Dec 30, 2013

I've been trying to put some numbers on this. It's rather hard.

I do take a lot of shots lately. 5000 in the last two months, since getting the E-M1, and about 15000 per year with the E-M5, so around 1000-2000 per month, I suspect.

However, it's very dependant on what I'm shooting. If I'm messing with bokehramas, or birding, then I'll blow through hundreds of shots in a very short space of time. If I'm photographing sports then I'll usually go through 100-300 shots in a day. If I'm travelling or just doing general photography, where I have time to consider each shot, then perhaps only 10-50 shots in a day, perhaps up to 100 or so depending on how much cool stuff there is that I spot.

RedFox88 · Dec 30, 2013

canonagain123 said:
The photos I keep are the photos I include in my portfolio when I send it to potential clients for review. What makes you say I'm on a different parallel? I don't understand.

What he may be inferring is if you put your 70 "keepers" (you say) out of 100, you should be able to line up 10 and say "this one or two are better than all the others". And "keeping" 2 or 3 photos that are nearly identical to each other should not be kept. This would be the "burst" mode aka spray and pray. Make it simpler for your client. You have the skilled eye to tell the good from the bad. When given too many choices, it'll be more difficult for your client. Keep it simple and present the ones which are the better ones, not just if you happened to get the focus and exposure right!

RedFox88 · Dec 30, 2013

Lightpath48 said:
I may never use them all, but hard drive space is cheap. I'll probably replace the unit long before ever filling it.

So you're going to keep 62% of the photos because you can. That would be a hoarder. I bet if you really try you could work those 120 down to 20.

Member said:
I rarely take more than two exposures of anything. It's simply less work at home to not have dozens of redundant files.

I don't understand this. You this that for landscape, wanting less work at home, but you don't for people and keep 62% of files because you can. Something to think about.

canonagain123 · Dec 30, 2013

I should keep 20 photos of 70 subjects? That's kind of impossible.

If 20 photos is enough for you to display indoors/apartment/house sales style photos, portraiture, product photos, landscape photos, abstract and concept photography, foot photography, high-speed photography, and smoke photography, that's great. For me, it's that right now I'm collecting photos for a database: I arrange them by subject and/or style. Then, if a client wants pictures of food, I can show the client the photos I've taken of dishes, and go from there. That means I have to have an archive of many different subjects, unless I want to pick up a camera every time someone wants specific examples of my work. Rather than use the same portfolio, I can tailor the portfolio to each client. That said, am I going to keep the same rate up? Of course not. After I feel like I have enough of a database, I will cull it even further (I do that regularly anyway) and only add the very best of the new photos to it. I'm not at the point yet where I feel like I have a database that's big enough. I gave my answer based on that. If all of the 70 photos could be printed and could potentially be bought by someone, but I don't feel like I want to sell them as stock photos and I decide to later cull them to 7 photos, is it wrong for me to say 70% instead of 7%, speaking of the current situation instead of a future one? I hope that cleared it up some more.

RedFox88 · Jan 2, 2014

Taking odd circumstances and calling it the usual isn't the way to discuss generalities. Have a good one.

Marx81 · Jan 2, 2014

I like your interesting portrait series at the website .

I feel there is a defining moment in every situation : so I usually don't go for thousand shots .

I'm not a pro but I do some freelance work for magazines .

For a recent work , for example , I got around 200 shots . 40 been selected by a motorcycle magazine . Rest is part of my archive and on my website .

Marcelo

Explore Marcelo’s 597 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

skyglider · Jan 2, 2014

On scenic vacation, about 30 shots per day.
At a special event like an outdoor wedding + indoor reception maybe 40-50 shots total.

I like to enjoy the activity with my eyes, rather than through a viewfinder. Learned that lesson many years ago when I saw a Disneyland + Mexico vacation through the viewfinder of a Sony TRS101 camcorder (the first compact Hi-8 camcorder which was cutting edge at the time).

Sky

Osvaldo Cristo · Jan 2, 2014

When at middle of 1990´s I decided to go "seriously" to Photography, my first readings on the subject were three books I bought at once from Amazon. All of them were great and the top recommended on the occasion.

One of them was "The Art of Outdoor Photographer - Boyd Norton", and I remember his recommendation for film amount was 10 rolls per shooting day - although he could go to 40 in some special day in a safari. It means 370 to 1,000+!

Of course he stated the usual disclaim "it will depends... from your style, tastes, etc."

On the occasion I used 3-4 films per shooting day, but when at 1998 I went to digital I used his numbers to dimensioning my CF cards.

Yes, I am prepared for 1,000 shots a day. Perhaps it can sound strange to most of people, but I prefer 500 per half shooting day as sometimes when travelling I do not have a chance to shoot all the day.

My actual shooting is 500 shots for half day when travelling or wildlife. 200 shots per half day for landscape, including macro (and focus stacking!) when I use tripod. 500 shots per event at my local church, per example. Usually I trash around 60% to 90% from my shots.

Bottom line: I make around 500 shots per half shooting day. Although it is more than I used when shooting film, it is a par with some photographers even using film.

Regards,

--
O.Cristo - An Amateur Photographer
Opinions of men are almost as various as their faces - so many men so many minds. B. Franklin

Search

How many shots do you shoot?

canonagain123

Guest

Lee Jay

Forum Pro

canonagain123

Guest

RedFox88

Forum Pro

RedFox88

Forum Pro

RedFox88

Forum Pro

Martin.au

Forum Pro

RedFox88

Forum Pro

RedFox88

Forum Pro

canonagain123

Guest

RedFox88

Forum Pro

Marx81

Forum Enthusiast

Marcelo

skyglider

Veteran Member

Osvaldo Cristo

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts