I cut my teeth shooting with view cameras, so I’m not an over shooter. But when I photograph a demolition derby, my finger is on the shutter all the time because the action is so fast, same with sports. There’s an interesting and only somewhat related story related in the book Art and Fear where they talk about a pottery teacher who split his class in half. one would receive semester grades based on the total weight of pots they made. The other just had to make one single best pot. And guess who made the best pots? They came from the ones who made a lot. 23000 wedding shots? No way, but it’s the relationship between learning and shooting more, different people may be on different places on that curve.
That's a fantastic example. My logical brain was sure you were going to say the pottery class proved the opposite. I suppose that lends creedence to the 10,000 hours theory. Another example of why "Just Do It" is the best mantra ever, IMHO.
“Art and Fear” is a great book and I take it out and read something from it when I’m feeling stupid. Here’s another story from it. One of the authors is taking piano lessons as a teenager, and after a few months he says to his teacher the music in my head sounds so much better than what comes out of my fingers. The teacher says what makes you think that ever changes?
When I first began shooting digitally, it was very liberating to be freed from that 36-shot-per roll constraint. However, there still needs to be a compelling reason to trip the shutter. I occasionally shoot concerts for a client, and they only want 40-50 quality images, tops. The lighting and positioning of my subjects are not going to change significantly from one millisecond to the next. Even when I go to a stunningly beautiful place like Cinque Terre or a National Park, I only shoot about 1000 frames over a week because I am shooting mindfully and purposefully.
You cannot possibly be in the moment and present in the work you do if you are firing off 10000 photographs at a wedding! To me the worst sound in photography used to be a motor drive. Now it is the sound of a machine gun from a digital camera that is set to sound like a manual camera. There is nothing sexy about that sound. Horrible. I always say to people who have the gear to think about having x number of photographs available to use. A good number is 36 (says the film guy....). Be aware and be mindful. Be prepared to wait for the photograph and be prepared not to get it. Because if you don't get it, the 1000 that were just fired off won't get it either, because the moment never happened!
1000/hour?! what the hell is that photographer shooting? there's no secret that i like shooting rugby, i said it here so many time. i'm going home from a match with a bit over 100 photos, never went over 200. for the entire wedding (12 hours) i shoot just over 1000.
once a client (product shooting) asked me: "if i hire you, how many images i get". i said "one". "one?! you are asking for that money for one image?" "ok, how many images you need for your advertising?". "eerrr, one". "well, i will show you 3 images to chose from and i will give you one doesn't matter how many i take" (i got the job).
i heard one wedding photographer advertising himself as "i'll give you unlimited number of photos". my question was "how is he going to do that?"
i'm not shooting weddings anymore (been there, done that) but i do understand what's involved and how easy it is to go into overkill mode. used to tell the happy couple that at any wedding i'm very happy if i get 3 images right and with them the whole wedding is covered and everybody's happy. i've managed to prove that every single time.
I'm not a wedding shooter, so I'm out of my league even speculating on how it should work, but I would much rather receive 100 great photos (with 5 amazing ones) than 600 okay photos. Signal to noise ratio. I'm surprised more wedding photographers don't try to differentiate by offering a fixed number, even if it's hundreds.
i never offered a fixed number because i know for me a number is just a number and a killer of the joy of taking photos. i'm not taking photos because i have to reach a number, i'm taking photos because i feel that the scene is worth capturing
I know the feeling of overshooting and it doesn’t feel great. I think because we’re aware we are only delaying decisions for later, in the edit, where it doesn’t get any easier.
I’ve never subscribed to the “spray and pray” method, but sometimes I find it hard to know when to say when. There are even times when I know I got “the shot” and yet I continue to shoot, because why not? Maybe it’s greed, or fear, but I find I want that little extra assurance, those 10 additional frames, in case I want to reconsider my choice later.
But just because we can, doesn’t mean we should. And I do believe the sea of subpar images sitting on my hard drive eats away at my soul a little bit each day, and clouds my vision from fully appreciating the exceptional ones.
Setting limits in the modern world… so tricky and yet so vital. I envy the days of slow photography.
That's exactly it for me, too. I think I got it, but just in case... And if you're at a fast frame rate, those few extra shots turn into 30 pretty quickly. I most definitely agree with "just because we can doesn't mean we should." Amen.
Interesting read and all but ... 23000 images in 6 hours !?! And on a 'slow day' about 1000/hr ?!? Hope she's got a mirrorless system otherwise she needs a new DSLR body every 6 months because the mirror is gone 😂
Anyway, a while ago we visited a zoo and I took 400 photos in about 4 hrs; pretty much the first time I used burst mode on my Fuji X-T5 and I already thought it was a bit much 😉
Great topic! Years ago when I still photographed people for certain large sportswear companies, I would be sure to have AD on set and we’d shoot 50 poses and review quickly, then shoot another 50, etc and it helped get the creative more focus for what they need/wanted. I tried to limit it to 150/per look, etc and we’d rotate another model in. A fair amount of ADs would push back and id make the argument for less editing and fresh “legs” on the models - as they would often go stale after a bit of bouncing around. I still occasionally photograph people and this system works great for me. Now on the still life/ product side, I’ve gone from lighting and photographing 3 shoes a day on MF digital with movements (think SInar X) to 6 shoes 3 angles each, but it still is a finite goal and potentially doable depending on the scope. It’s true, “photography is progressing” mostly for the bad IMO, because advertisers don’t need high quality crafted imagery, they need CONTENT, meh.
You have perfectly describe the particular expertise that an experienced photographer has with working within a given niche. And those things — models who aren't exhausted, for instance — translate to a much better finished product. If the photographer doesn't know to do that, the work suffers and the client is unsatisfied.
Back when I was starting out in the 90s I used to assist for an exceptional photographer who would creatively and methodically set up photographs for his client work. He would complain to me about fellow photographers who would enter a job “blasting away” and shoot hundreds of photographs to his dozen. Occasionally getting a shot worth keeping. Usually needing to “fix it in post.”
He would say “give a baby a typewriter and eventually it will type word, but it will not know how to read it.” This applies even more these days.
I find that with more experience (especially experience being *deliberate*) I arrive home having taken fewer photos. Improving signal to noise, I think no matter the creative activity, takes experience and time. A lot of time. A lot of being-deliberate time. That said, part of being deliberate is employing the best tactic for a given circumstance. Yesterday I took 11 photos over several hours. For a given landscape scene, one or two of exactly what I envisioned was sufficient. But if it's a wildlife or other fast-action circumstance, the best tactic might instead be to employ burst mode (these days for me a short burst of three to 12-ish depending on the situation). My trick is to as soon as practicable review the bursts on-camera, from end to start, marking the first "ooh, this one!" as protected and then skipping on to the next burst sequence. Then delete all images on the card, leaving behind just the protected images. Presto-magico, 5 or 10 good images that caught what I had in mind — easy to decide later which if any to keep. I think selective burst can be a good tactic. Spray-and-pray, which is creativity-numbingly inefficient, is not.
I cut my teeth shooting with view cameras, so I’m not an over shooter. But when I photograph a demolition derby, my finger is on the shutter all the time because the action is so fast, same with sports. There’s an interesting and only somewhat related story related in the book Art and Fear where they talk about a pottery teacher who split his class in half. one would receive semester grades based on the total weight of pots they made. The other just had to make one single best pot. And guess who made the best pots? They came from the ones who made a lot. 23000 wedding shots? No way, but it’s the relationship between learning and shooting more, different people may be on different places on that curve.
That's a fantastic example. My logical brain was sure you were going to say the pottery class proved the opposite. I suppose that lends creedence to the 10,000 hours theory. Another example of why "Just Do It" is the best mantra ever, IMHO.
“Art and Fear” is a great book and I take it out and read something from it when I’m feeling stupid. Here’s another story from it. One of the authors is taking piano lessons as a teenager, and after a few months he says to his teacher the music in my head sounds so much better than what comes out of my fingers. The teacher says what makes you think that ever changes?
When I first began shooting digitally, it was very liberating to be freed from that 36-shot-per roll constraint. However, there still needs to be a compelling reason to trip the shutter. I occasionally shoot concerts for a client, and they only want 40-50 quality images, tops. The lighting and positioning of my subjects are not going to change significantly from one millisecond to the next. Even when I go to a stunningly beautiful place like Cinque Terre or a National Park, I only shoot about 1000 frames over a week because I am shooting mindfully and purposefully.
I too have transitioned to being much more conservative on travel photos, I look back 7-10yrs ago and I’m like “what was i thinking?!?”
You cannot possibly be in the moment and present in the work you do if you are firing off 10000 photographs at a wedding! To me the worst sound in photography used to be a motor drive. Now it is the sound of a machine gun from a digital camera that is set to sound like a manual camera. There is nothing sexy about that sound. Horrible. I always say to people who have the gear to think about having x number of photographs available to use. A good number is 36 (says the film guy....). Be aware and be mindful. Be prepared to wait for the photograph and be prepared not to get it. Because if you don't get it, the 1000 that were just fired off won't get it either, because the moment never happened!
1000/hour?! what the hell is that photographer shooting? there's no secret that i like shooting rugby, i said it here so many time. i'm going home from a match with a bit over 100 photos, never went over 200. for the entire wedding (12 hours) i shoot just over 1000.
once a client (product shooting) asked me: "if i hire you, how many images i get". i said "one". "one?! you are asking for that money for one image?" "ok, how many images you need for your advertising?". "eerrr, one". "well, i will show you 3 images to chose from and i will give you one doesn't matter how many i take" (i got the job).
i heard one wedding photographer advertising himself as "i'll give you unlimited number of photos". my question was "how is he going to do that?"
i'm not shooting weddings anymore (been there, done that) but i do understand what's involved and how easy it is to go into overkill mode. used to tell the happy couple that at any wedding i'm very happy if i get 3 images right and with them the whole wedding is covered and everybody's happy. i've managed to prove that every single time.
I'm not a wedding shooter, so I'm out of my league even speculating on how it should work, but I would much rather receive 100 great photos (with 5 amazing ones) than 600 okay photos. Signal to noise ratio. I'm surprised more wedding photographers don't try to differentiate by offering a fixed number, even if it's hundreds.
i never offered a fixed number because i know for me a number is just a number and a killer of the joy of taking photos. i'm not taking photos because i have to reach a number, i'm taking photos because i feel that the scene is worth capturing
I know the feeling of overshooting and it doesn’t feel great. I think because we’re aware we are only delaying decisions for later, in the edit, where it doesn’t get any easier.
I’ve never subscribed to the “spray and pray” method, but sometimes I find it hard to know when to say when. There are even times when I know I got “the shot” and yet I continue to shoot, because why not? Maybe it’s greed, or fear, but I find I want that little extra assurance, those 10 additional frames, in case I want to reconsider my choice later.
But just because we can, doesn’t mean we should. And I do believe the sea of subpar images sitting on my hard drive eats away at my soul a little bit each day, and clouds my vision from fully appreciating the exceptional ones.
Setting limits in the modern world… so tricky and yet so vital. I envy the days of slow photography.
That's exactly it for me, too. I think I got it, but just in case... And if you're at a fast frame rate, those few extra shots turn into 30 pretty quickly. I most definitely agree with "just because we can doesn't mean we should." Amen.
This morning I went out and shot three frames in 45 minutes, that felt productive.
Interesting read and all but ... 23000 images in 6 hours !?! And on a 'slow day' about 1000/hr ?!? Hope she's got a mirrorless system otherwise she needs a new DSLR body every 6 months because the mirror is gone 😂
Anyway, a while ago we visited a zoo and I took 400 photos in about 4 hrs; pretty much the first time I used burst mode on my Fuji X-T5 and I already thought it was a bit much 😉
Oh and even in digital you can limit yourself to 36 shots, if you're a bit tech-creative: https://leongssns.substack.com/p/36-digital-frames-like-film-part ;-)
I like the idea of using a tiny SD card to limit yourself. Of course I would fill it up and then miss a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. :-|
Ha, yeah the photographer's curse ;-)
Great topic! Years ago when I still photographed people for certain large sportswear companies, I would be sure to have AD on set and we’d shoot 50 poses and review quickly, then shoot another 50, etc and it helped get the creative more focus for what they need/wanted. I tried to limit it to 150/per look, etc and we’d rotate another model in. A fair amount of ADs would push back and id make the argument for less editing and fresh “legs” on the models - as they would often go stale after a bit of bouncing around. I still occasionally photograph people and this system works great for me. Now on the still life/ product side, I’ve gone from lighting and photographing 3 shoes a day on MF digital with movements (think SInar X) to 6 shoes 3 angles each, but it still is a finite goal and potentially doable depending on the scope. It’s true, “photography is progressing” mostly for the bad IMO, because advertisers don’t need high quality crafted imagery, they need CONTENT, meh.
You have perfectly describe the particular expertise that an experienced photographer has with working within a given niche. And those things — models who aren't exhausted, for instance — translate to a much better finished product. If the photographer doesn't know to do that, the work suffers and the client is unsatisfied.
Back when I was starting out in the 90s I used to assist for an exceptional photographer who would creatively and methodically set up photographs for his client work. He would complain to me about fellow photographers who would enter a job “blasting away” and shoot hundreds of photographs to his dozen. Occasionally getting a shot worth keeping. Usually needing to “fix it in post.”
He would say “give a baby a typewriter and eventually it will type word, but it will not know how to read it.” This applies even more these days.
I find that with more experience (especially experience being *deliberate*) I arrive home having taken fewer photos. Improving signal to noise, I think no matter the creative activity, takes experience and time. A lot of time. A lot of being-deliberate time. That said, part of being deliberate is employing the best tactic for a given circumstance. Yesterday I took 11 photos over several hours. For a given landscape scene, one or two of exactly what I envisioned was sufficient. But if it's a wildlife or other fast-action circumstance, the best tactic might instead be to employ burst mode (these days for me a short burst of three to 12-ish depending on the situation). My trick is to as soon as practicable review the bursts on-camera, from end to start, marking the first "ooh, this one!" as protected and then skipping on to the next burst sequence. Then delete all images on the card, leaving behind just the protected images. Presto-magico, 5 or 10 good images that caught what I had in mind — easy to decide later which if any to keep. I think selective burst can be a good tactic. Spray-and-pray, which is creativity-numbingly inefficient, is not.