speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Digital is kind of "free" when it comes to the numbers of shots, but I think it depends on the person who is shooting. Back in the film days, when I was shooting some sort of event (game or whatever), I commonly shot about 3-to 4 hundred pictures, now with digital I shoot more, so for me it really has not much to do with it being digital or film, I shoot the way I shoot and I have always shot at least a few hundred shots per event! With movie it is different, as the cost's of doing that are so high now, that I have mostly stayed away from doing that anymore (and I hate that)!

Photocraig

I used to think that it was ONLY Aunt Millie who would have her eyes closed during the group portraits. Once I had the capability and it was economically feasible with my DSLR, with 4 or 5 exposures to examine, eye blinking was way more widespread than I thought. Aunt Millie, Aunt Susie and Granma Sophie ALL blinked in one or the other of the exposures. So having 5 shots gave me a good chance to have ONE, maybe not the overall best, but a usable photograph that didn't embarrass my favorite sources for cookies and pie!

C

terry44 Loc: Tuolumne County California, Maui Hawaii

I think the answer may be as simple as we can. I was a Navy Photographer in Vietnam and I agree it is the best to get the shot correct right in camera instead of manipulating the shot post process in the darkroom. I think we need to stick with the adage or maybe it's a rule to fill the frame as well as we can. Digital for some reason was harder for me than film (I sometimes still shoot film) for some reason and I am many times guilty of firing off to many shots. Imagine how long our shutters would work if we did as we did in film, as the mechanism goes to 100000, 200000, and more before they are in danger of failure. I am working at this moment to get myself back to filling the frame and getting settings correct in camera it is a great exercise to get back to the basics.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Being careful to only get a proper shot works for some things. Not so much for others.
I do a lot of birds, bursts are my friends. Set it up, focus etc then do a burst. Why? because there is no human on earth fast enough to keep up with all the movement, contortions etc.
Same thing for sports photographers. The poster who did horses jumping, it was a fixed spot. Get set up and then from experience shot at the proper time. Try that with football, basketball, soccer, race cars etc. You would be missing the action on most of the playing field/court. Yes, you could get some great jump shots (as an example) but I am willing to bet that there were a lot of "moments" just before or after the one you get that would be as good or better. With a burst you get a chance and a choice of those moments.
One of the main reason we have the standard types of shots is the fact that film photography dictated the prefocus and time your shot at a spot (like under the basket) and that is what we got used to seeing.

As to those film days. Many NFL and other sports pros used 100' roll film drums and a motor drive, then did more than one drum for an important game/event.

I once read an article by a Nat Geo Photographer who shot nearly 300 rolls of film for one assignment. Results, less than 20 images published in the magazine (I think it was 12 or 13, but I read it a long time ago.)

The ability to use bursts with digital is just another tool we now have. It can be well used or poorly used.

Just thought of a reason to use burst on landscapes (besides our California moving landscapes called earthquakes). Landscape with many people or animals, flocks of water birds comes to mind. Set everything up for a good exposure and then when the birds are taking off or landing use a slow speed burst to get a choice of patterns of the birds as they shift around in what amounts to a cloud of birds. Some of them will be better than others.

blackest Loc: Ireland

I was given a 1D mark II which is still going strong, the shutter count is in the region of 524,000. yes over 1/2 a million shot's my own more modest total from all my photo's is around 16,000 wearing out my camera's is not a worry.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Check sports photography pre- and post- digital and you will see shots now published routinely that would not have been imaginable a few decades ago.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

I was thinking how the pro's are so lucky, that they can get good results when taking "only" 100 shots. I took 2,500 two weekends ago. Might have got a hundred keepers. Maybe two hundred. I did think at the time how it would have been a pain to load that much film.

pendennis

My post was to note that high speed image catching doesn't insure a quality image.

No argument that the speed has increased the likelihood that a good image can be captured, and that the photographer has a better chance of grabbing "the image".

That stated, I've seen just as many crappy images at taken at high speed settings, as the one shot grab. The photographer still has to have his/her eyes open and be alert.

ky4lc Loc: Madisonville Ky.

I used to do weddings and sports pictures. I got burned out on weddings and moved on from sports pictures. I tried to compose my shots carefully and make the best of film and processing on a limited budget. In fact the limited budget was the reason I quit photography all together several years ago, sold all my cameras, darkroom stuff...everything. About 5 years ago my son came in with an Olympus DSLR. I told my wife If I bought another camera, that is what I would buy.... no film processing, and if you don't want to print a picture you have virtually NO costs... Except for equipment. I now shoot hundreds of shots where I would have shot 10 or 20 shots years ago. Everybody is doing it. Watch an NBA game, you will see a large number of cameras sitting on the side of the court, operated by remote, and focused somewhere on the court on the chance that they will get a shot or two that will be worth keeping. And if you really want to see photographic overkill...watch the Olympics. I read that Canon and Nikon supply the photographers with cameras and large lenses just to get their cameras on camera for the advertisement. Gone are the days where a photographer would anticipate a shot and wait to get it. Now the photographer will put the camera on burst and shoot 30 shots and HOPE he gets something. and if he doesn't, well the players will be back down court in about 15 seconds and you can shoot 30 more!! Landscape photography is better but I think that quantity is taking the place of quality. Ansel Adams might take 3 or 4 pictures a DAY, that is IF the light was right, and if it wasn't....he would wait until tomorrow. Now you take a bunch of shots, and if the light isn't right, that's OK, you can always use PhotoShop to fix it. It doesn't matter how good a photographer you are, it matters how good you are at manipulating the image in a program like PhotoShop.

rplain1 Loc: Dayton, Oh.

I do mostly wildlife and they are constantly changing and doing things - just like kids. If you think that one shot you took is all you need that's fine. But sometimes in five seconds the kid or animal will do something even cuter or more exciting than that one you just took. I don't think it is necessary to shoot everything in burst mode for wildlife - most of the time you will just get multiple copies of the same thing. But if you are photographing an eagle or heron capturing his lunch you would probably like to catch the moment of capture and continuous mode will help ensure that you get the shot you want. It has nothing to do with not having the knowledge or skill to get it right the first time. I rarely do sports photography but it would be even more important there as you don't know for example if you are shooting a wide receiver if he is going to catch the ball or if the defender is going to make a spectacular play. Even if you have great timing and can catch the receiver at the exact moment he catches the ball - you just missed the defensive play.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Good question. Perhaps someone from the spray and pray crowd can provide a meaningful answer. It's probably the same crowd that complains about having to do post processing.
--Bob

terry44 Loc: Tuolumne County California, Maui Hawaii

That is fantastic as well as you take good care of your equipment the longer it will last I like to hear things like this.

terry44 Loc: Tuolumne County California, Maui Hawaii

oop's this was meant for the post above or below yours sorry. Oh yeah, I never went out without at least 2 cameras sometimes there were as many as 5 as I would shoot I had a helper loading the empty's for me as we had to record the area before we sent troops in then record the battle and the most important at least to Admiral Zumwalt's staff and the others who were involved in planning and executing the battles so we could survey damage what went right or wrong,
so that we better understood the way our advisaries worked. It was a scary, horrible job but the adrenaline was always pumping.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

My new Reason: BECAUSE WE CAN!!!

dogcokie

I have learned to take fewer. and better subjects. I guess less is more sometimes. but that is what works for me.