DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I did not keep statistics when I shot film but I did try to keep the cost down. With digital, the pictures are free once you get past the capital expense (unless you print them). So I shoot away.

I shoot events, and it's not uncommon to come back with 400-800 shots from a days shooting. The keeper rate is probably around 10%. The number of good photos is probably much less than that.

Sometimes it's good to be able to take a lot of shots. In some of the meetings I shoot, people are speaking at a podium. It's amazing how much people can distort their face while speaking. I generally take 4-10 shots of someone to avoid unflattering facial expressions (the photos are used for PR). There are at least two guys with such mobile faces that I have to take 50-100 shots of them to get one good one. I am not able to anticipate a good expression, so it's just chance.

For group shots with flash, I generally shoot a burst of 3-4 shots. That avoids finding the one person who always blinks at the preflash so their eyes are closed in the picture. In a burst, they have usually recovered from the blink by the 3rd or 4th shot so I can get a good one.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I also shot film, for about 40 years, but I don't think I have gotten any lazier with digital. When there is time to carefully consider each shot, like with landscapes or any static subject, I still shoot like I did with film. But when I shot moving subjects with film - sports, performances, or just candid shots of people, I used to ration my shots so as not to waste film. Now with digital, if I am shooting subjects like that, which would benefit from taking lots of shots, I feel free to do so. I feel my photography has improved with that capability.

Photocraig

Photography, I used to say in E6 days was all in the wrist. Get 36 slides back and rejoice if you kept 16. Today, while the Digital keeper ratio is similar for me, I find I can rescue a few of the previously wrist flicked shots with post processing that is vastly more accessible than what was required back in those days.

I think working a scene is essential. even better is to have a vision AND a story in mind. While you're doing the horizontal, vertical, near, far thing, set the scene, add tight detail shots thing a story, sometime different than the one you started with will emerge.

I still gotta scan those keepers. I wonder how critical the ol' wrist will become after the slides have been in the archival sheets and boxes all these years.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Its true that I take less shots when shooting medium format, but when shooting 35mm, I shoot and been shooting just as many frames, as when shooting digital with my 5D's, well heck, the digitals of mine can't hold a candle to my film camera in bursts!

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

With film you probably worked the shot before the shutter....and then walked away! With digital you can work the shot and the shutter - in post processing you can take the best out of two or even three images to create a combined image that captures what you wanted.

With digital as well as in post processing you can broaden your vision - capture the essence rather than the whole - the 'art' rather than reality. You can learn to see as well as look - all for free. Broaden your vision, try new ideas, get out of the rut and get 'off the wall'. You have the freedom to experiment!

Your computer has a handy keyboard 'keeper of secrets' called DELETE .....
'Honestly, the image just jumped out at me'....

People may know your shutter count.....but they only see your final images.

have fun

Jerry G Loc: Waterford, Michigan and Florida

Thank you all for your comments, they are much appreciated.

therwol Loc: USA

Being lazy is a choice. You can put some effort into your digital pictures and still take advantage of the ability to take many more pictures easily when the situation requires it. You are more likely to get that perfect shot with digital, but that doesn't preclude setting up things carefully before you press the shutter button.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

That's how I did film ..... and that is how I do digital.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Jerry, I've only read through page 1 but it seems to me that you are more concerned with your photo-taking technique than what most folks here are thinking. You have become "lazy." You no longer take the time that you once did to "create" the shot. An easy trap to fall into given how "easy" digital is. Something that works for me: These digital wonders have so many more settings than my Nikon F4 and FM3 did. Use them. I shoot RAW + Jpg. For the Jpgs I take multiple shots changing the White Balance, the Picture Control, the ISO. I try to create different "looks" of the same scene. Yes, I know that I could shoot one RAW image and do all of that in POST. But doing it my way gives me the feel of shooting different slide films out in the field to get different interpretations of the same subject/scene.

This may not work for you. But it cures my laziness and makes it more fun when I open the images on the PC at home and "discover" what my creative efforts have produced.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I completely understand where you are coming from. BUT, I have found just the opposite. When shooting landscape I tend to chip and shoot A LOT. I find that I like to see many possible final images, and then, reposition my tripod, lower my camera angle, increase or decrease exposure, increase depth of field, change focal lengths.
Yes, I shoot more than I did with film. But my final picked image is much better than when I used to shoot with film.

johnst1001a Loc: West Chester, Ohio

What's the big deal with shooting tons of pictures. I do, and will continue to. If I am on a trip, like a cruise, the tour groups are moving all the time. I don't have the time to set up shots perfectly, getting angles that might get the lighting a bit better or eliminate having a fire hydrant in the picture. I want pictures of my trip. I am going to Alaska for 2 weeks on a cruise/land tour, and fully expect to take 2000-3000 pictures, of which maybe 300 will be of the quality I like. I will print maybe 50 after processing just for kicks, and maybe get 10 that I might blow up for a frame. I am not shooting for a magazine. Let me give you an example of pro's, a professional photographer at a pro football game uses cameras capable of 12 frames per second and will shot 1000's of pictures in 60 minutes of play time, and maybe sell 1 to 5 "perfect" shots. With digital, I contend we have are more beautiful shots than ever. So, click away, it's fun, and it's essentially free fun other than the cost of the equipment.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

All this romancing the stone on film makes me wonder. If you were a darkroom artist I could understand. I shot video and stills recently at a sports running event. Shot 75 gigs with 3 cards never thought about will I have enough film.

duane klipping Loc: Bristow iowa

I shoot mainly HDR and noticed that my image count has fallen off now and my keeper count has increased proportionally. There are times shooting wildlife you need to rapid fire.

HallowedHill2

Exactly. If I generally have an idea of what I'm going to shoot, when I'm going to shoot it, etc. then planing is the way to go. However, if I have limited time, multiple options, etc. why not explore, shoot away and sort it out later. Sure a bunch will be junk, but among the junk there will almost always be some gems. Now if your just taking snap shots, but taking 1000 of them, well then....

joehel2 Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

I have my most productive shooting days when I tell myself that I only brought a roll of 36 exposures with me. I find I get more keepers this way than when I take 300 shots and weed them out in post processing.