kymarto wrote:
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.
I think a lot of people are not reading the original question. He is talking about wedding photographers, not sport or wild life photographers. People should read the question before making a statement that has nothing to do with the original post.
" Why do a lot of digital photogs take an excessive number of shots? As a professional from film days we made every shot count. These days as a working retired photographer I still live by that untold rule "Make every shot count" Just because we have motors and the cost is down do we really need a thousand wedding shots when 200 actually covers it? I know there are a lot out there that feel the need to do the 1000. From the images I now see in the windows of a good photo studio or in their web site I have found that they are just not making good first shots and that they are just counting on one good one out of many. This is fine if you are a beginner so why shoot thousands when that first 100 should have been made to count? "
drklrd
robertjerl wrote:
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.
Being careful to only get a proper shot works for ... (
show quote)
I think a lot of people are not reading the original question. He is talking about wedding photographers, not sport or wild life photographers. People should read the question before making a statement that has nothing to do with the original post.
" Why do a lot of digital photogs take an excessive number of shots? As a professional from film days we made every shot count. These days as a working retired photographer I still live by that untold rule "Make every shot count" Just because we have motors and the cost is down do we really need a thousand wedding shots when 200 actually covers it? I know there are a lot out there that feel the need to do the 1000. From the images I now see in the windows of a good photo studio or in their web site I have found that they are just not making good first shots and that they are just counting on one good one out of many. This is fine if you are a beginner so why shoot thousands when that first 100 should have been made to count? "
drklrd
norm4797 wrote:
When photographing wildlife, especially birds or other very active creatures, it is impossible to predict movement of the subject. Taking multiple shots gives insurance that an interesting pose will not be missed. This is one of the great advantages of digital photography.
I think a lot of people are not reading the original question. He is talking about wedding photographers, not sport or wild life photographers. People should read the question before making a statement that has nothing to do with the original post.
" Why do a lot of digital photogs take an excessive number of shots? As a professional from film days we made every shot count. These days as a working retired photographer I still live by that untold rule "Make every shot count" Just because we have motors and the cost is down do we really need a thousand wedding shots when 200 actually covers it? I know there are a lot out there that feel the need to do the 1000. From the images I now see in the windows of a good photo studio or in their web site I have found that they are just not making good first shots and that they are just counting on one good one out of many. This is fine if you are a beginner so why shoot thousands when that first 100 should have been made to count? "
drklrd
mborn wrote:
with wildlife, I take many images you can capture an unusual event get a better head angle etc. Yes, it takes longer to review but you can end up with a better saver. Recently I photographed water coming over the dam in burst mode and caught a herring preparing to jump. If I had not shot in burst mode would not have captured this action
I think a lot of people are not reading the original question. He is talking about wedding photographers, not sport or wild life photographers. People should read the question before making a statement that has nothing to do with the original post.
" Why do a lot of digital photogs take an excessive number of shots? As a professional from film days we made every shot count. These days as a working retired photographer I still live by that untold rule "Make every shot count" Just because we have motors and the cost is down do we really need a thousand wedding shots when 200 actually covers it? I know there are a lot out there that feel the need to do the 1000. From the images I now see in the windows of a good photo studio or in their web site I have found that they are just not making good first shots and that they are just counting on one good one out of many. This is fine if you are a beginner so why shoot thousands when that first 100 should have been made to count? "
drklrd
I think a lot of people are not reading the original question. He is talking about wedding photographers, not sport or wild life photographers. People should read the question before making a statement that has nothing to do with the original post.
" Why do a lot of digital photogs take an excessive number of shots? As a professional from film days we made every shot count. These days as a working retired photographer I still live by that untold rule "Make every shot count" Just because we have motors and the cost is down do we really need a thousand wedding shots when 200 actually covers it? I know there are a lot out there that feel the need to do the 1000. From the images I now see in the windows of a good photo studio or in their web site I have found that they are just not making good first shots and that they are just counting on one good one out of many. This is fine if you are a beginner so why shoot thousands when that first 100 should have been made to count? "
drklrd
mwsilvers wrote:
I'm guessing that most of your images are not of sporting events, races, birds in flight, fast moving wildlife, or other fast moving event photography. Those are the areas where high speed continuous mode come into play. Taking your time and taking a few often doesn't work well when your subjects are moving fast and erratically. You lose the luxury of time for careful composition.
I think a lot of people are not reading the original question. He is talking about wedding photographers, not sport or wild life photographers. People should read the question before making a statement that has nothing to do with the original post.
" Why do a lot of digital photogs take an excessive number of shots? As a professional from film days we made every shot count. These days as a working retired photographer I still live by that untold rule "Make every shot count" Just because we have motors and the cost is down do we really need a thousand wedding shots when 200 actually covers it? I know there are a lot out there that feel the need to do the 1000. From the images I now see in the windows of a good photo studio or in their web site I have found that they are just not making good first shots and that they are just counting on one good one out of many. This is fine if you are a beginner so why shoot thousands when that first 100 should have been made to count? "
drklrd
You are correct, to me photography is creating a work of art. Setting a pose setting the lights, putting your ideas out for the world to see, not sitting and waiting for something to happen. I can't live on hope. Hope does not put food on my table. Hard work and knowledge does. You reap what you sew. I go out and create to make money and show the world my art. There are a lot of equipment rich and knowledge poor photographers out there giving those of us who depend on what we do for a living as apposed to those hobby shooters who have jobs to support them. Look at the history at the great painters who starved doing what they believed in. If it wasn't for them there would not be great photographers. Learn from the masters and make a statement and not be a snap shooter, master your craft. Ask yourself do you know that digital has more latitude than film? Did you know that photographic paper has less latitude than either? So what do you do shoot for the latitude of film or digital can do or what can be projected on to paper? My Mother was a photographer because she had a Kodak Instamatic camera I am a photographer be cause I know the limitation of film, digital and paper limitations are and work with those limits. I create what I see in my mind not what the camera sees. I have worked too hard and too long only to have what I do belittled as a photographer because people can afford smart cameras. As I stated before anybody can take a picture but that does not make you a photographer. I'm done with my rant, those who can know what I'm talking about and those who don't will continue to be snap shooters and call themselves photographers and lower the expectations of paying customers who think more is better. Garbage is garbage, lets see who is remembered for their work and who is not.
JCam wrote:
I don't think anyone here is advocating "Pray and Spray", but under certain photographing conditions, burst is a good tool to have available and use--even better is to have a high and low speed burst options. The circumstances will dictate which, if either, burst to use, but the photographer should only hold the shutter button down as short a time as required to capture the moment. If two or three seconds will suffice, why keep the button down longer and suffer the additional time culling? It may not cost any $$$ to take five seconds of shots @ 8 shots per second, but it sure costs more in time than shooting at say five/second for two or three seconds.
I don't think anyone here is advocating "Pray... (
show quote)
Thank you. Glad you under stand the point I'm trying to make.
whitewolfowner wrote:
It's not putting anyone down. Keep in mind that when many of us started out in photography, most never had motor drives and had to rely on our skills to get a shot on a one shot deal. That was the days when you really had to be a photographer and not a shooter with a good camera as so many are today. Hell, most don't even understand the simple basics of shutter and aperture and how they interact.
That is my point exactly. Money does not replace skill. Only time will give you that not money. I've seen some people that spend $6,000 on a camera and think they are a professional now. It's not the camera but the brain behind the camera that makes a photographer.
ppage wrote:
Because we can. I take a lot of shots but I am ruthless with the delete button. Since I shoot wildlife, I shoot in burst mode because of BIF shots and even perching birds are constantly moving. I get more choices regarding expression, head angle, beak open or closed, wing flapping and so on. What I can't abide is photographers posting many shots of the same subject on Flickr and Instagram when one or two of the very best are all that's needed. It becomes a parade of snapshots. In complex shooting or moving subjects, lots of shots are justified for development, but not for posting, not at all. I even see that on this forum.
Because we can. I take a lot of shots but I am ru... (
show quote)
Please don't get me wrong. There is a time and place for shooting in burst mode and you are right it becomes a parade of snapshots. What I'm saying is the camera is a tool and does not replace knowing your subject and knowing what to expect. Some times less is more. Speed does not replace knowledge. Know your subject and be prepared and expect the unexpected not pray and spray. Every one gets lucky now and then. A professional will make sure the odds are in their favor.
whitewolfowner wrote:
They put up with a lot of bull too. They are well paid and besides that and the the travel, they do not have much of a life. They can just finish a long tiring assignment, just get back to a hotel, just lay their head down for much needed sleep and the phone rings and they are told to get to the airport in 30 minutes to catch a plane to their next exhausting assignment. If they reject, they are gone and left stranded where they are.
I don't know what kind of job you have but these guys know what is required of them before they accept being hired. They are not covering world changing events most of the time. If they are on a shoot it's because they can get the job done and know what they are doing not because they have a camera that can shoot 11 fps. All I'm saying is it's easy to over shoot when cost is not a factor. I turned down a job with them because I had just got married and didn't want to be away from my new wife for extended periods of time. Looking back after 15 years of marriage I think I made the wrong decision. LOL
ppage wrote:
Because we can. I take a lot of shots but I am ruthless with the delete button. Since I shoot wildlife, I shoot in burst mode because of BIF shots and even perching birds are constantly moving. I get more choices regarding expression, head angle, beak open or closed, wing flapping and so on. What I can't abide is photographers posting many shots of the same subject on Flickr and Instagram when one or two of the very best are all that's needed. It becomes a parade of snapshots. In complex shooting or moving subjects, lots of shots are justified for development, but not for posting, not at all. I even see that on this forum.
Because we can. I take a lot of shots but I am ru... (
show quote)
I'm glad to see we are on the same page. What I don't agree with is using automation in stead of using your brain
Of course a Nat Geo photographer will shoot 800 rolls of film when on assignment. What you also can say is a Nat Geo photographer does not pay for the film and processing. They don't even review their shots before submitting them. The magazine covers the cost and the editor selects the best shots. I wouldn't want to shoot under some of the conditions these guys do but then again they get to go places that the average person can't afford to go and they get paid to do what they do and they get paid well.
You are right!. Unfortunately digital cameras have come down in price where just about everyone can afford one. Now they call themselves a photographer because they have a Dslr. Remember A- means amateur, P- means professional, S- means slow and M- means mommy help me.
get it right the first time and save your batteries for when you really need them.