Jerry G Loc: Waterford, Michigan and Florida

I shot film years ago and recently renewed my interest in photography. I found the freedom digital has brought to photography has made me lazy. When I shot film I would spend a good deal of effort on each photo, often not taking a shot if I wasn't satisfied, now I just take the shot and a couple more for good measure. I know this is a personal problem but was wondering if others have fallen into the habit of taking shots they are not happy with and what you do while you are shooting to resist being lazy.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Don't worry those who are shooting thousands of photos to get maybe one are calling themselves artists. Just don't be an artist.

SonyA580 Loc: FL in the winter & MN in the summer

You can get lazy shooting digital. If I have the time, I still like to "set up" a shot before I hit the shutter button. But there are definitely times when I know what I'm shooting will have to be worked over pretty good in PP. The BIG difference is the PP now does not involve a film developer tank, an enlarger, trays of solutions, dryers, working in the dark, etc., etc. I enjoyed it back when and and I enjoy it even more now.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

It's hard to be deliberate with digital when you can snap snap snap all day and then look for gems while relaxing in the comfort of the hot tub or by the fire. I prefer the bolt action rifle approach instead of the spray and pray of a semi-automatic.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

I am sure that in the film day there were a lot of photographers who just dropped their film at PhotoHut instead of developing it themselves. Or maybe they just relied on one speed of film. Or thought, "Hey, I don't need to get it in one take on the photographic plate. I have 36 shots available, so i can just shoot away!"

Most of photography has to do with having an idea of what you want to shoot, planning for it and being prepared. The number of times I can press the shutter in a second is only one consideration and it is not now and never has been the most important. The number of shots I can take just means I can be more prepared, but it does not replace the vision and preparation. This also depends on the subjects you shoot. In sports shooting I can plan for where the action is likely to be and compose in my head before the shot. The digital camera just means I am more ready to do what I planned. I think Landscape still takes just as much planning and preparation as before. In the digital age as in the film age, most of it is planning and preparedness.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

I shoot more with digital than film too. What is interesting is I end up with over 90% good pictures and have to pick out the best while a lot of the digital age photographers end up with 90% junk.
I shot slides and it was $.50 each squeeze and if it was not focused or cropped or everything it was no good and Instill think that way.
So enjoy the freedom and keep your mind set.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

A big advantage of digital is being able to take lots of shots. I saw an instructional video from Lynda.com, and the guy emphasized "working the shot." Shoot from various angles with various settings. Film was limiting, and that's not a good thing. With only thirty-six shots per roll, you had to wait, and wait, and wait to get everything just right. Then you had to hope that it turned out right. Don't look on digital's unlimited shooting as something bad. With digital, you still try to get a good shot, but you're not limited in your number of attempts.

DaveC1 Loc: South East US

I generally try and only take one shot at a time and still shoot some film. I do like the freedom of being able to correct things in post, however.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

I grew up on film. My grandfather was a professional photographer and we spent hours shooting film and more hours in the darkroom developing rolls of film, making contact prints, enlarging, drying etc. As I grew up, I was the Publications Photography Editor for a large Oklahoma City area highschool. I was responsible for asigning photographers to events, going over their contact sheets, helping them with enlarging, doing my own photography, developing, printing and publishing all of the photos. Then I moved on and became a public relations officer for a local fire department and did all of their fire assingments. Over this time, I went to college and continued to do photography, got my degree in Electrical Engineering/Computer Design and went to work for a major insurance company in Hartord Connecticut. During all of this I maintained a good film darkroom and started dabbling in the early digital camera. I finally progressed to a Nikon D70s (was the top of the line "Pro-am" camera at the time and have now retired that camera and have a Nikon D7000, D7100 and a Nikon D610. I am heavily into Adobe Lightroom and occasionally Photoshop. Yes, I spent hours in the darkroom but now, with Lightroom, I can use the "auto" to get close and then fine tune. Sure, I could spend hours on each digital photo and probably would come up with NEARLY the same photo that I generate now. And, I can export the RAW/NEF photo to jpg, gif, psd, pdf and about any other file format or I can print them myself on my b&W laser printer or on my inkjet. I can also send them to one of the photo labs that I use and get the prints in larger sizes. I even have a local image printer that I can take the images to and he will custom print them to my specification.
My point to all of this is NOW, I can spend more time taking photos and less time processing and still get similar results.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I do shoot a few more than I did with film, but I keep thinking that I don't want to have to go through dozens and dozens of shots of the same thing to pick out the best.
I do take more shots of different things though, because I don't have to "ration" film.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Jerry, I work with both film and digital. My last two major outings were The Grand Canyon and Canyon De Chelly. The Grand Canyon netted a total of zero photographs. I didn't even take a camera out of the case. The circumstances just didn't warrant the waste of time. The Canyon De Chelly trip netted a total of 6 photographs. Two each were taken with different filters. So, essentially we're down to 4 photographs. One was taken of the hotel in which I stayed. That was just for fun, personal reasons. The series of photos that were taken at the canyon were all very usable and I've prints of them hanging in my office.

A trip to a tourist venue a few years ago netted two photographs. Both were printed. It's quality that I'm after. I could mention several other trips where I took perhaps 7 exposures each. All were eventually posted on UHH, printed, or both. Again, quality not quantity. So, don't fall into the trap that one can just bang away with the shutter release and hope to salvage one of a thousand exposures. If what is being photographed just doesn't do it for you, don't take the photo. Practice is good, but practicing incorrectly only reinforces bad habits.
--Bob

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Yes, since digital is free (so to speak), so why not take several if not 10. How many group photos have you taken with film where at least one person has their eyes closed or a weird expression on their face? With digital, just ask the group to pose and will your at it shoot away. One of the pictures is bound to be great.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Just because some people who call themselves artists are lousy artists doesn't mean nobody should aspire to be an artist. Some people who call themselves artists are indeed very good artists - follow their example.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

I have a somewhat similar background, but I have found that I am doing exactly the opposite of your last sentence. I have so many more RAW (in both senses) images to work with that I sometimes can't choose which one to work on, and sometimes see things on my computer screen that I didn't see in the field. Post Processing (f/k/a "Darkroom Work") is so easy and portable now that it's even more fun to play with an image. I might have spent a couple of hours working on one single negative back in the seventies, but now I can see the various ways to treat it in about a half hour, and with no expense except for my time. So in that sense, I'm spending less time processing, and theoretically more time shooting.


But when I look at the actual hours spent, I find that I have so many images to choose from that my overall "darkroom" time has gone up significantly! I'm much freer in expending pixels than I ever was with Kodachrome or Tri X!


Now I'm not complaining - I produce much more work today that I like and enjoy. And, both the shooting time and processing time is quite enjoyable, in a somewhat different way than it used to be. I still take out film gear on occasion, just to help slow down my thinking and approach, but I'm afraid my darkroom stuff will just continue to gather dust. Kind of sad in a way, but I'm very happy with my photography today.


Andy

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

I think I'm not an artist. I think your not an artist until some one with knowledge calls you an artist and then I'm not sure. I am asked to show (sell) my pictures at "Art Shows" and I look at some of the painting and sculptures that at the show and they are artists. I just capture the picture.