Millismote Loc: Massachusetts

If I am out for an hour or so walking around I will typically take 20 to 50 shots, I keep them all, storage is cheap. I might email several of the ones I like to friends. I probably print one or two shots out of every 500 I take.

joehel2 Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

I think the quality of my photos have improved since I have started to limit myself to 24 - 36 shots per outing, like my film shooting days. Maybe 20% are keepers, 10% I would be comfortable posting here. In the past, I would come home with hundreds and question why I took many of them. Question 2. I like being able to do minor editing and being able to share instantaneously with my children who live in different parts of the country.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

I generally do between 50 and 100 shots. I try to "get 'em right in the camera". I keep most.

I use CaptureNX for, what I'll call, minor touch up. Enhance shadows, tweek saturation, contrast, brightness. When I believe I'm getting 90%+/- "right..." (seldom seeing a need to tweek) then I'll worry about the learning the artistic apsects (the PP).

In my mind I make an analogy to woodworking - a good finish may disguise or detract but won't really overcome poor craftsmanship.

What do I like - its interesting and fun - gives me something to do that I find enjoyable, notwithstanding the frustrating but rather the challenge of overcoming it.

What don't I like - those who present the attitude that there is is only one way to do it - "shoot raw and go to photoshop".

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

#1 I don't really count shots even when I get back to the computer, on some days almost all keepers ,others oh well
#2 low cost per image, ability to auto bracket, better equipment, oh that's three, over the limit, no hates, Bob.

Ugly Jake Loc: Sub-Rural Vermont

I go for walks at noon - depending on what I find - anywhere from2 to 20. I will keep about 60-80% of those, only tossing when I made a mistake, or had movement. (But I am not very fussy)

I like the less expense - once you have a decent camera and lens, you have virtually no more expense until you finally outgrow that initial tool. PP is nice , but less is more, IMO. My biggest problem? HDR, I suppose - most examples of it make my eyes itch - I think it's because the software doesn't exactly align the layers - the eye can detect a difference of 1/1000 ". My software has a button that says "Compare to Original", and many times after a session of "tweaking, i say :Mah" and cancel back to the original!

rts2568

To Racmanaz
From rts2568

You've put it very cleverly in a nutshell Racmanaz.
So few people seem to realize that the film days were so very much the same as it is with digital. Artists were employed to spray paint 1st time photos to enhance the look. Photos were cut up and pasted together and then rephotographed and etc, etc. Digital is done differently, it's easier, it is more flexible, all the artwork is done on a computer more quickly and more easily, it is less time consuming, for the individual it is cheaper but only when they get it right - fo instance, every time a shot is taken, the shutter's life is shortened, the time necessary to reshoot and etc. Of course, an amateur who basically just points and shoots under the mistaken excuse that the camera technology is a better judge of settings than they are so the photo will be better if it is taken on the P setting - with all sorts of varients etc, etc. A pro, especially one on a commission or under contract has to deliver, no failure permitted. They have to account for their costs, petrol, accomodation, salaries etc which most others don't because they have a day job etc. They happen of course, those mistakes do occur, but not very often and the one thing that you can be fairly sure about is that the professional knows his stuff, knows what he has to do because he has been well briefed or he briefs himself before the event, like true professional wedding photographers will have done. They will for example know where the ceremony is to take place, investigate before hand about any restrictions, understand that they are just pawns in an event, they will have already checked out the structure and obtained a very good idea what they will need regards equipment, what exposures they may need to take into account, they'll never arrive at a wedding and not be able to take a photo because the church is too dark for example, certainly not without anticipating this scenario and having contingency plans.

Whether film or digital, the photographic complexities are much the same. Digital is faster than film, but the end result is the photographers' responsibility and if they are proficient enough, then the results will show that fact and there can be no argument. If the results don't pan out when shooting in digital, then there is no excuse at all. All those who try to make excuses, only show themselves up for their lack of understanding of the art of photography.

Thank you for making so much sense in such a short, but constructive, mind bending short entry. You didn't "...just saying..." you broke the nut right down the center.


rts2568

Herbnapa Loc: Napa, California

I don't think it's an either or question When I bought my first computer (with an eight megahertz CPU,btw) my typing skills began to decline because it was so much easier to correct mistakes. The same danger can be said about shooting digital, with the exception that I still have control of my objective for taking a picture, the ability to discipline my technique, and then the freedom to "work" a shot without worrying about film costs and swapping rolls. I don't shoot professionally. Digital gives me the opportunity to experiment and practice. Digital also gives me the abiliity to work in a digital dark room where I can try to express myself with so much freedom.

I was told by an artist friend that painters paint "miles of canvas" to learn how to paint. Shooting digital allows me to shoot miles of pixels, but I still obligated to use "the little grey cells" if I want to take a good one and learn frm the bad ones. so I try to think first then shoot and shoot and sh....

acutance Loc: New Hampshire

My, this is a large question. As a sports shooter, I might take 2,000 photos in the course of a game, and feel good if I have two dozen keepers. As a walk around traveller It might be 200 a day, with a dozen keepers. Back in the day, one good shot per 36 exposure roll was good, and just a few "portfolio additions" per year was good.
I developed (no pun intended) a skill as an exhibition printer that digital has rendered obsolete. I hate the fact that modern life, including photography, means so much time in front of a computer screen (even as I type this!). And there is an expensive "obsolescence factor" to digital equipment that is a far cry from the old "give me one good Leica, and I'm set for life."
Likes: "chimping" is great for those tricky exposure situations. No film costs means shoot away. Verify on the set that you've got the shot. No darkroom chemicals, and one slider adjustment is worth a dozen slow-developing test strips. I love the fact that the internet has become a great source of information and equipment. I think the whole level of photography has gone up with the exchange of information and images. eBay lets one buy used, and then sell used, so the cost of trying different lenses and cameras goes way down, not to mention finding exotic bits of gear immediately that in the old days would have taken forever. One more problem: preserving those digital images.

heyjoe Loc: cincinnati ohio

about 100 50% keepers
i started late,did not use the film type camera

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

If he painted each one in 1/250 of a second, he'd be lucky to have that many keepers. :D

violet.shelley Loc: Edinburgh, Scotland

Good reply Jerry. Made me laugh.
:)

JeffT Loc: Central NY

Tough first part to answer. As others have mentioned it depends on the purpose for shooting that day. After thinking about it a bit I will offer the following. On my first trip to the Forum in Rome I shot two film rolls of 24. Six years later after switching to a digital camera, I shot about 10x that number in about the same amount of time. As for keepers, I kept a greater percentage of the film shots since I already had them as prints. Once on digital, I printed fewer total pictures, but kept more that the 48 I had from the film shoot.

As for what do I like about digital, I think there are two related things. They are the ability to experiment at low cost along with the ability to go back to a photo and look at the EXIF data. In the film days one had to keep a notebook to write down the aperture, shutter speed and film speed (ASA at the time). If you were shooting B&W film you might also write down what color/type of filter you had on the camera as well. It's great not to have to write it all down any longer.

As to what is not as nice: I have to agree with the comment about watching a print slowly take shape in the developer tray. I had not thought about that for a long time and how much excitement was involved in seeing the image appear on the white paper. The other thing is that our perception of what is a good photo has changed over the years (IMO). Great photos are still great photos, but with social media, the content (whose in the picture, what are they doing, etc.) seems to be what is most important these days. Regardless of focus, composition, and lighting, as long as the people are at least recognizable it's now a "Great pic! Love the photo!".

violet.shelley Loc: Edinburgh, Scotland

I started late in photography,but don't by any means consider myself a photographer, so don't know much about film, but when I look at old prints I do have I kinda think what the ...., if that was now I would bin those. I prob keep around 50 - 60%. Never do any more than a little crop and straightening of horizons. Sometimes get carried away and just want to capture the photo. There's nothing I hate and loads I love. :)

Chris

This about sums it up for me also except I don't PP

filerunner Loc: Michigan

Back in the days of film, it would have been nice to have digital available for learning purposes only. To see how all of the settings come together to create an exposure.