drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

Why do a lot of digital photogs take an excessive number of shots? As a professional from film days we made every shot count. These days as a working retired photographer I still live by that untold rule "Make every shot count" Just because we have motors and the cost is down do we really need a thousand wedding shots when 200 actually covers it? I know there are a lot out there that feel the need to do the 1000. From the images I now see in the windows of a good photo studio or in their web site I have found that they are just not making good first shots and that they are just counting on one good one out of many. This is fine if you are a beginner so why shoot thousands when that first 100 should have been made to count?

GPS Phil Loc: Dayton Ohio

While I don't have a quick answer, I am looking forward to some of the answers to this interesting question. Being old and lazy, I love taking just a few shots of a subject like the old days. But I was never a professional and that opens up a whole new perspective.

Phil

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Interesting. During the film era with SLR cameras, you had a maximum 36 shots. An NFL photographer during that time, if he sold his photos, probably shot more than he needed. And the cost of processing that film. When memory cards were in its infancy, they were expensive. Some earlier ones were in megabytes, not gigabytes. Now, we have faster high capacity memory cards, faster lenses, and cameras. Are you not surprised that photographers take more shots than needed? We can just hit the delete button, or reformat the memory card. Bingo, photos gone. It's that easy now. With film, I can remember paying for awful film shots, that I just wish I had never taken. As an amateur, I never shoot a thousand photos when one hundred are necessary. Perhaps some do. I don't miss 35mm film photography whatsoever. It was great, but now, it is out of date. IMO.

GPS Phil Loc: Dayton Ohio

Very well said!

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

I often encounter photographers who shoot everything in burst mode. Even stationary subjects such as architecture and landscapes. I would dread later taking the time to sift through all those near-identical duplicates to determine which to keep and which to delete. But I guess some folks don't mind the task.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Well, whether the number of shots is excessive is really more opinion than an absolute fact. Unlike film there is no additional cost to taking 1 shot or 100,000. One of the main reasons to make every shot count with film was because of the expense of the film and the time to load it, and the time and expense of development. Throwing away large numbers of images was not an option. The beauty of digital is it allows you more flexibility to get the right shot. Ever take a group picture of 20 kids? There will likely be at least one kid looking the other way, closing their eyes, yawning or doing something to impact the result. Now you can easily take a dozen shots or more in a few seconds and up the odds of a good shot. Digital frees you up to take many shots of the same subjects at different angles and different distances and with different settings and in different light. When your doing event photography you don't have the time to set up for every shot and get a single best image, so you take perhaps a few dozen and select the best ones. There are many other reasons, but I think you get my drift. The number of images captured on film was limited by the medium. That limitation no longer exists in the digital world. Of course the down side is the spray and pray approach some "photographers" use which assumes if you take enough shots some will be good. That only proves that having a tool doesn't always mean you know how to get the best from it.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

You used to be a pro and you need this explained?????
What did you shoot besides weddings and portraits? Neither of those move very fast, if they move at all. PRETTY easy to shoot.
Landscape moves even slower.
When shots are un-posed, how do you know you got the best shot if you don't know what is coming up next?
Just by your own admission, if you shot a Super Bowl(you know what that is right?), how many shots do you think YOU would take during that game???
SS

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Everything from washing machines to clocks, telephones, cars, TVs, radios, microwave ovens, and heaven forbid cameras too have changed with new and better technology. Emulating a Luddite is not beneficial nor at all smart.

Shoot with 1960 technique if and only if you are using 1960 technology. Learn to efficiently and effectively use a modern digital camera, and ignore any conflict with how to do the same with older technology. We expect that from a surgeon, from an auto mechanic, and we expect it from a professional photographer too.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

That statement is excessively narrow minded. There are many times when the high speed continuous modes provided on top of the line DSLR cameras are exactly what pays for the kid's shoes.

As an example that is exactly the way to shoot a basketball game, and many other if not all sports and wildlife. Or, it is the way when high productivity is the goal. Proving you can get a single "good" shot during the whole game might be fun, but getting 200 good shots out of which there are three shots that sell is productivity.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

You misconstrued my meaning. Sports wildlife and event photographers often use high speed continuous mode to get the shot. I'm not a pro, but I do too. I wasn't talking about them. I was taking about the amateurs who just shoot anything they see, whether in one shot or high speed continuous, with no plan or thought behind their actions, and just hope for the best. Its something that wouldn't have happened as much with expensive film and a limited number of exposures.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

That is irrational. There is no reason for an intelligent photographer, amateur or otherwise, not to use the low cost of redundancy to attain higher productivity! And you certainly have no knowledge of their "plan or thought behind their actions".

There is just one valid reason to take only one shot of anything, and that is because another shot is not possible.

It makes zero difference that 40 year old technology made that technique too expensive for non-professionals. It was smart then for a pro, and modern technology has made it smart now regardless of operating budget constraints.

Doing something that is not smart today simply because it was learned 40 years ago suggests no ability to learn anything in the last 40 years...

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Even when you put a considerable amount of forethought and planning into each shot that you take, it doesn't guarantee that you'll get the optimum shot every time. There have been many times when, despite thinking and planning carefully, I found that the best shot - the one with that special something - wasn't the first or even the third or fourth shot that I took, but one that I took after several attempts to find the best angle/viewpoint/perspective. Sometimes, after experimenting with composition and exposure, it turns out that the best shot from amongst them was a late afterthought.

Usually when viewing a scene (either directly or through a viewfinder or viewscreen), it's not obvious what the optimum shot is going to be, and you don't find out until you get home and compare them on a monitor with a view to editing them. Digital encourages us to experiment with composition and exposure - which can only be a good thing.

blackest Loc: Ireland

If you use affinity photo for example you can stack images and reduce noise, especially useful when using higher iso images. You can also use multiple shots to remove passing traffic, cars pedestrians although a slow rate of photo's would be best. Although part erased people might be interesting.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

That is so true!

The last two major projects I have just worked on involved producing a bit of graphic art with a specific type of photograph as the background. As a result I went looking through my image archives for examples that would match the need. It can't have ever been sold or displayed publicly, it has to be striking to people who live in Barrow and also representative of Barrow to tourists, it has to be composed so that text and other graphic arts can be added without destroying the essence of the image. None of these are requirements that I could possibly have considered when taking a picture! But with a little time spent reviewing what many would have called "rejects" (they fit no known need at the time they were taken) several images were found to choose from!

The point is that it may be days, months or even years after an image is taken that its attributes will be recognized as exactly what is needed. If that image was deleted at the time it was taken, it won't be available at the time it is useful.

blackest Loc: Ireland

I have seen a handy trick to gain a little headroom in a photo for logo's and text. Mirror the top border it will align perfectly obviously you are limited by how much headroom you already have but it can be enough to get you that little bit more. I deconstructed a pdf leaflet and found an example of this. Partly hidden by some graphic blocks.