Why take so many shots of a subject?
Nov 2, 2012 12:46:47 #
What a delightful shot this is! In my country we do not have snakes, and so I am really afraid of them. But this is a beauty! And indeed, go shooting till you think you have your shot. So take enough fast cards with you. And if you use continuous shooting, your cards are full very fast.
Marijke
Marijke
Nov 2, 2012 12:47:37 #
bull drink water wrote:
it's the times and the ability. in earlier times ... (show quote)
Bull Drink Water,
I have been a photographer for many years, I have used plates also box cameras, and 35mm cameras. With todays cameras I find far too many people becoming lazy as they shoot lots of photos so they can pick one. I am a working Fashion and Runway photographer, I still try to see the shot and then set the camera to get it. Most of the fashion photographers I know never have a model move and shoot burst to get the shot, its a total waste of time. I may shoot tethered, or not, it all depends on how quick I have to deliver the finished product. I never hope for a good shot, I know that most of my shots will be good, what I look for is the exceptional shot, I am not satisfied with just a good shot. I deliver those exceptional shots so I get paid better than most of the photographers around.
George
Nov 2, 2012 13:07:08 #
mrawie wrote:
In my country we do not have snakes
If Amsterdam is still in The Netherlands, yes, you do have snakes there. However, the Common viper (Vipera berus) is the only poisonous snake there.
Nov 2, 2012 13:29:08 #
Agreed,take plenty with different angles and reckon 10 % is a bit high for keepers. Recall asking a chief photographer for a local paper how many usable shots out
a 36 roll of film,he reckoned 2/3.
a 36 roll of film,he reckoned 2/3.
Nov 2, 2012 14:00:27 #
I agree we can take a bunch but depending on the subject it is a good idea to move ---side to side--up and down etc etc. To take 3 or 4 shots of the same rock from the same angel doesn't make much sense.
However I may take 3 or 4 shots of the same flower from the same angle because of the wind.
However I may take 3 or 4 shots of the same flower from the same angle because of the wind.
Nov 2, 2012 14:13:56 #
Nov 2, 2012 14:16:38 #
George H wrote:
quote=bull drink water it's the times and the abi... (show quote)
What do you mean by exceptional shot ?
Nov 2, 2012 14:26:59 #
Robeng
Loc: California
K30,
When I shoot wildlife, I usually put my camera in continuous mode and blast away. It's not uncommon for me to shoot 300 or 400 hundred images on a photoshoot. The subjects usually are moving and don't hang around.
If you want you can check out my pics at www.robeng.smugmug.com
When I shoot wildlife, I usually put my camera in continuous mode and blast away. It's not uncommon for me to shoot 300 or 400 hundred images on a photoshoot. The subjects usually are moving and don't hang around.
If you want you can check out my pics at www.robeng.smugmug.com
Nov 2, 2012 14:37:21 #
An exceptional shot is one that would impress me. I see lots of shots that are very good, it is rare that I see a shot where I go WOW. I have seen those shots on UHH, not many but they do happen. Photo editors today are beginning to accept mediocre shots as the norm, I am sorry but that should not be.
George
George
Nov 2, 2012 14:48:40 #
I find I have to take at least 300 shots during a shoot, out of that I might get 10 photos Im happy with. The more photos the better....
Nov 2, 2012 14:57:59 #
JR1 wrote:
Regardless of shooting in studeo or out, unless it... (show quote)
Love it, :thumbup: :thumbup:
Nov 2, 2012 14:59:45 #
saichiez
Loc: Beautiful Central Oregon
I consider digital cameras the AK-47 of camera gear. By the same token, I consider my large format film and medium format, the long, muzzle loading rifles used in the civil war, when one could discharge only one round every 40 seconds to one minute.
The analogy holds on effectiveness. The body count in the Civil War was huge compared to the number of rounds or volleys fired on the battlefields.
AK 47's used in modern combat deliver an extremely poor body count considering that one AK 47 is capable (and often used) to deliver a cyclical rate of 100 rounds per minute, and a sustained rate of 15 to 20 RPM (due to heat).
When you see newsclips of battles with these newer automatic weapons, they are often only pointed in the general direction of enemy (and sometimes friendly) combatants.
So the civil war combatants had to take time to load, aim carefully, and slowly squeeze the trigger, quite often leading to a "kill" as a result.
Much the same as film, and resulting in a higher keeper rate.
Modern war combatants spray bullets all over the place, often not using the sights, jamming the trigger and holding it, and so often from behind a wall, holding the weapon above the wall and simply spraying bullets in a general direction of the enemy. The result is that "kills" from small arms do not often take place, compared to the body count of an IED or Suicide Bomber.
The result is that Millions of dollars worth of Ordinance, often do not hit the mark or result in keepers...(enemy kills)
I have no problem seeing this analogy in the makeup of current day photography.
Many simply point the camera and hold the shutter down, based on the belief that somewhere in each 100 captures, there simply must be one or two keepers, ten that can be post processed into something keeper-like, and 88 that are simply a waste of time, to capture, to load to the computer, to fuss with and review, and then to discard.
These numbers don't really change much, other than by intent to slow down and capture the best images, much as many "used" to do with film.
I don't get into discussions of film vs digital for quality, but I have strong opinions about "shotgunning" for a small number of keepers and the absolute waste of time involved. If you charged yourself an hourly rate for each "keeper" and counted all your shotgunning, transfer, review, post processing and discard time, you could never sell the keepers for enough individually to make a good income.
It's a damn good thing it's just a hobby for most.
The analogy holds on effectiveness. The body count in the Civil War was huge compared to the number of rounds or volleys fired on the battlefields.
AK 47's used in modern combat deliver an extremely poor body count considering that one AK 47 is capable (and often used) to deliver a cyclical rate of 100 rounds per minute, and a sustained rate of 15 to 20 RPM (due to heat).
When you see newsclips of battles with these newer automatic weapons, they are often only pointed in the general direction of enemy (and sometimes friendly) combatants.
So the civil war combatants had to take time to load, aim carefully, and slowly squeeze the trigger, quite often leading to a "kill" as a result.
Much the same as film, and resulting in a higher keeper rate.
Modern war combatants spray bullets all over the place, often not using the sights, jamming the trigger and holding it, and so often from behind a wall, holding the weapon above the wall and simply spraying bullets in a general direction of the enemy. The result is that "kills" from small arms do not often take place, compared to the body count of an IED or Suicide Bomber.
The result is that Millions of dollars worth of Ordinance, often do not hit the mark or result in keepers...(enemy kills)
I have no problem seeing this analogy in the makeup of current day photography.
Many simply point the camera and hold the shutter down, based on the belief that somewhere in each 100 captures, there simply must be one or two keepers, ten that can be post processed into something keeper-like, and 88 that are simply a waste of time, to capture, to load to the computer, to fuss with and review, and then to discard.
These numbers don't really change much, other than by intent to slow down and capture the best images, much as many "used" to do with film.
I don't get into discussions of film vs digital for quality, but I have strong opinions about "shotgunning" for a small number of keepers and the absolute waste of time involved. If you charged yourself an hourly rate for each "keeper" and counted all your shotgunning, transfer, review, post processing and discard time, you could never sell the keepers for enough individually to make a good income.
It's a damn good thing it's just a hobby for most.
Nov 2, 2012 15:02:29 #
George H wrote:
An exceptional shot is one that would impress me. I see lots of shots that are very good, it is rare that I see a shot where I go WOW. I have seen those shots on UHH, not many but they do happen. Photo editors today are beginning to accept mediocre shots as the norm, I am sorry but that should not be.
George
George
Where can one see your work ?
Nov 2, 2012 15:20:49 #
Nov 2, 2012 15:29:19 #
PhotoArtsLA wrote:
When shooting nature and animals, generally there ... (show quote)
Fantastic pics. You wouldn't have had a lot of time to bracket a hundred or so either ;)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.