Taking too many pictures?

[Art Rodriguez]

I bought my DRebel in March of this year and just recently went over 11,800 pictures taken. That's almost 2,000 pictures a month on average. I have been taken about 300 pictures every Saturday night for the past 4 months at our local race track. That has a accounted for the majority of the pictures.

I was just wondering if I'm over doing it or is that pretty normal for someone who likes taking pictures?

Art

[mikeisbeast]

can you really take too many pics? lol if you love your hobby there isnt too much

[Andy_T]

I'm taking too few pictures and surfing the forum too much. That's worse.

Best regards,
Andy

[Hellashot]

If you shoot RAW you can take too many pictures. At my fastest pace I can go from opening a RAW file to closing the TIFF of it in about 3 minutes. Which puts me at a pace of only 20 images per hour, if all are keepers. Which means even fewer shots processed per hour if I find I want to delete some.

There's been a few weekends when I've taken 225 shots or so on one of the days that it takes me evenings most of the week to process them all. I'm at the point where I am several shooting days behind. I guess that's what fall and winter are for - processing images.

[robertwgross]

Maybe some people just like to take photos. I guess the more you shoot the more you like it.

On the other hand, I prefer to measure things by the number of keepers I get.

Which is better, to shoot 300 and get only three keepers, or to shoot only five and to get three keepers?

Don't get me wrong. I have plenty of computer resources here, so I can store lots and process lots, but still that takes time. I prefer to keep the quantity moderate and go for quality instead.

---Bob Gross---

[JBillings]

Don't get me wrong. I have plenty of computer resources here, so I can store lots and process lots, but still that takes time. I prefer to keep the quantity moderate and go for quality instead.

---Bob Gross---

Bob,

I couldn't agree more. That said, I'm shooting lots more images, but primarily sports.

I typically take what I shoot, move it to the computer, and start deleting. I'm thinking that I want to control my workflow by being very critical of my shots while in Bridge. Throw out the trash, and keep the keepers, and backup! I've been able to keep my basketball shoots down to about 30-40 good images per game. What I consider to be a managable amount.

I try for the quality, and do limit my landscape images down to a just a few per shoot. But with sports its an entirely different game!

[TammieO]

I figure as long as I have time to post process them, I can keep shooting.

[Art Rodriguez]

If you shoot RAW you can take too many pictures. At my fastest pace I can go from opening a RAW file to closing the TIFF of it in about 3 minutes. Which puts me at a pace of only 20 images per hour, if all are keepers. Which means even fewer shots processed per hour if I find I want to delete some.

There's been a few weekends when I've taken 225 shots or so on one of the days that it takes me evenings most of the week to process them all. I'm at the point where I am several shooting days behind. I guess that's what fall and winter are for - processing images.

I have just recently started shooting all my pictures in RAW except for the pictures at the race track which I shoot in JPEG. I really like the control I have in post processing when shooting RAW. Of course I only work on the ones that I will keep or print. Yes, it's time consuming, but I feel it is worth it when someone tells me they really like a picture

Art

[Art Rodriguez]

Maybe some people just like to take photos. I guess the more you shoot the more you like it.

On the other hand, I prefer to measure things by the number of keepers I get.

Which is better, to shoot 300 and get only three keepers, or to shoot only five and to get three keepers?

Don't get me wrong. I have plenty of computer resources here, so I can store lots and process lots, but still that takes time. I prefer to keep the quantity moderate and go for quality instead.

---Bob Gross---

Yea, I really like taking pictures. I keep about 90% of my pictures because they are basically for me only. Of course, my family members get irritated at me for taking so many pictures, but when they see them, they want copies. Go figure:)

Art

[kwsanders]

Just as long as you have them backed up to an archive somewhere, then you can probably never take too many pictures if you really enjoy it. I went out last evening with my camera about an hour before dusk and got some pretty good shots. I did not really shoot anything major, but it was practice for me with my week+ old XT.

[PhotosGuy]

I'm taking too few pictures and surfing the forum too much. That's worse. :D Me, too!
While you might still be shotgunning a bit, your keepers posted here are pretty good, so why worry about it? As time goes by, you'll become more selective if that's what you want. 'Till then, keep the good stuff coming! ;)

[cmM]

one a busy weekend I take 1,500 in a day... :-P

[ghettoFOBulous]

i fill my 512 card and then go home. Getting a 1 gig so I can stay out later. Typically though I keep very few of my shots. I usually click off 3 at a time for every shot.

[PineCone]

if you're covering an event i don't think there's such a thing as taking too many pictures.. unless of course one feels each and every still taken is a sure winner... but if you're a pro-wannabe like me, i feel it's safe to take several stills at a time as a precaution

[weka2000]

Are you learning to improve your shots by taking so many?

[adam*]

I've taken c.5000 shots since I bought my 350D at Christmas time so I think i'm going at a fair pace :p

When I'm taking photos for the student website for nights out I can expect to take a few hundred- quickly adds up. When I'm out taking photos in my spare time I average around 200, when my computer can handle RAW I expect that i'll be taking significantly less photos.

[Sean-Mcr]

Maybe some people just like to take photos. I guess the more you shoot the more you like it.

On the other hand, I prefer to measure things by the number of keepers I get.

Which is better, to shoot 300 and get only three keepers, or to shoot only five and to get three keepers?

Don't get me wrong. I have plenty of computer resources here, so I can store lots and process lots, but still that takes time. I prefer to keep the quantity moderate and go for quality instead.

---Bob Gross---

I have to disagree with you their Bob my friend

Shooting more teaches you more, the mistakes you make often teach more then the things you get right. Most of the people that have made their name in the is art were relentless, it's one of the things that separated them from mere mortals, people from Robert Capa to To Diane Arbus shot at a super human work rate

Gary Winogrand left 350,000 unexposed shots when he died. Bresson shot three rolls of films everyday before breakfast. They believed that to get what they wanted they had to work harder then everybody else, when Mike Johnston was allowed to see Breesons contact sheets, he was relieved to find that Bresson had many many misses, he was no one shot man.

Even if we don't get it right, it's aids our vision, the eye's a msucle and it needs flexing

Says it all for me
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/practice.shtml

[tim]

Not much point arguing with Bob, he's not around any more. I agree that taking more photos means you're probably going to improve more quickly, but once you reach a certain point (in both experience and number of photos taken of something) I think it's a matter of diminishing returns.

[Sean-Mcr]

The people i spoke of above, never belieVED that Tim, that is one of the things that separates most of us from them. They shot shot and shot again, geniuses that knew theIR talent had to be matched by work rate

Diane Arbus said, "i recognise that which i have never seen before" You shoot less you've got less chance of seeing that, i really believe that Tim

[jfrancho]

I think it can be easy to fall into a "spray and pray" routine with some the faster cameras that are out there now. If every shot has a purpose and some forethought, then I don't care if it takes 2 shutter flips or 1000 to get the shot. When I shoot bands, I easily get about 400 shots per hour. I spent about 3 hours shooting in Canada this Saturday, and came back with about 180 files - and many of those were redundent, bracketed images. As for success rates, the musician clients are less discriminating than I. They usually take home about 40 pics. In my opinion, about one out of a thousand approaches good. I'm not sure that I even mind that rate, or wish to improve it. If I'm not there snapping, I may not be there for that one shot.

[IndyJeff]

In an average sporting event I will shoot between 200-400 shots. On some occasions when covering more than one game I will shoot an average of 50-75 a game to get what I need for publication.

[Sean-Mcr]

I'm not so much talking about shoot the same subject a 1000 times, which i have no problem with. I can't do that with my street and candid shots, it's more the ethic of shooting the world, to keep moving to keep seeing...

I'd rather be out for hrs and shoot 300 shots of differnt subjects coming home with one shot, then shoot something 20 times and come home with 2 keepers

[jfrancho]

I really admire sports shooters. It's all about the definitive moment, and if you miss it, it's over. I imagine repetition prepares you for that moment.

[DocFrankenstein]

The more time you spend with the camera, the more you learn...

As long as you take time to analyze what you did wrong and learn from your mistakes.

[weka2000]

I shoot less now but look and think more. Keeper rate has improved.
But thats landscapes.

Many of us need to slow down and look at the scene. Sports and other types of photography may not have that "time" but the end result is that after looking at what you have taken you should be able to come away having learnt something or a different approach to the same subject.

[Art Rodriguez]

I would like to be a portait photogpher, at least on the side. I have a 1GB and 512MB cards. I always shoot in RAW except when photographing sports. On the rare occasions I shoot portraits, I like to fill up both cards, which gives me about 210 pictures. Is that too many or not enough? If I'm lucky I get about 5 or 6 good shots. I would like to go out a shoot as many portraits I can to practice, but I have a hard time finding someone who is willing to pose for me. Can any of us take too many pictures? I don't know.

Art

[weka2000]

Let me pose this. Why out of 210 pictures are you only geting 5/6 good ones. What is wrong with the other 98%.

[jfrancho]

Merciless culling. Keeper rate is no measure of quality.

[Sean-Mcr]

You could easily ask are any good at all, how's he got 5 or six. Really you have to be your own hardest critic. Continually questioning & pushing yourself

I think this line taken frOm the below article (which is very good) sums it up

Aesthetic decision and aesthetics do not follow mathematical formulas

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/keepers.shtml

[Art Rodriguez]

Let me pose this. Why out of 210 pictures are you only geting 5/6 good ones. What is wrong with the other 98%.

I am still learning the basic working of my camera. On most of the pictures I either don't like the composition, the lighting, the backgound, etc. I am also not very good at PP at this time. But the best example I can give you is that I have a very young cousin who wants to be a model. So when we get a chance, we get together and take pictures. As we are both at the beginning stages of what we both want to do it is a learning curve for both of us. She is a very shy person and is just getting comfortable in front of the camera. For example, on most pictures she will have a good upper body pose but her feet or legs or in an awkward position. Or her lower body has a good pose but not the upper body. We are still both learning and it will take some time.

Art

[Sean-Mcr]

Michael Reichmann who runs arguably the most informative photography site in the world (luminous landscape) is a very well respected & experienced photographer in the photography world.

His expedition to Bangladesh, where he shot 5000 photographs resulted in 75 photographs that he deemed worthy. That's a 1.5% success rate, which he was very happy with. This a is a guy that knows you have to work work work to get it right.

[condyk]

Michael Reichmann who runs arguably the most informative photography site in the world (luminous landscape) is a very well respected & experienced photographer in the photography world.

His expedition to Bangladesh, where he shot 5000 photographs resulted in 75 photographs that he deemed worthy. That's a 1.5% success rate, which he was very happy with. This a is a guy that knows you have to work work work to get it right.

I shot 21 on Saturday and will keep 15 :lol: :lol: I still shoot film style tho ;) Compose, expose, wonder if it is worth it or not, then shoot or not. It really is, as Bob mentioned way back, about the number of keepers. For many, slowing down will allow them to get better results. Choose to use manual mode and MF really does slow you down. Folks should try it for a day ;)

[Sean-Mcr]

Shhh Dave don't give up all your secrets Reichmann might be watching

[weka2000]

I understand about your portrait shots. There are so many issues to have to deal with and the persons pose is a big one.

With landscape slowing down and taking the time to look and ask questions. I will spend 5 min looking around before turning on my camera. Its amazing how much more you see when you stop, look and think :)

[Sean-Mcr]

It's sheer presumption to think that those that shoot a lot are going too fast, as i said Gary Winogrand left 350,000 unexposed shots when he died, that is besides the countless 1000s of shots he had published that graced the world, that broke the mold, he shot "film style". What he knew, just as great boxers, great footballers. great writers & musicians know Is that nothing good ever comes easy, making something look easy is normally the end product of what others do not see. Dedication, persistence, and a relentless drive.

[PhotosGuy]

Are you learning to improve your shots by taking so many? No. I've learned to not miss a possible shot by not taking it. By the time a client has paid for me, airfare, hotel, etc, film was the cheapest part of the process & I'm not going to tell him "You should have seen the killer shot I missed!" ;)

For other stuff, shooting is a process for me. Someone once said that if you have an idea, write it down & that frees up your brain to come up with more. Same for pics. Shoot anything to start. Chimp. Move around. Shoot some more. Chimp some more. As ideas come to you, shoot them. Chimp. Move around. Shoot some more, Etc. I usually "plan" on throwing the first 80% away. It's the process that counts. When you know you have it "in the can", shoot some more. Sometimes it's that last shot that really does it!

But it's not the only way. Years ago, I took a trip to the zoo when I was a full-time pro. I'd been going out on assignment & shooting a minimum of 60 rolls per day & bracketing like crazy to be sure that I came back with good exposures & I wondered if I had lost the ability to shoot selectively. (Bracketing also gives you extra shots for the portfolio, & allows you to split up the processing runs so that if you lose a roll in the lab, you have only lost one situation) ;)
So I went to the zoo with a 50mm, a 1,000mm, & one 20 exposure roll of B&W film. (Color can save your a**, but B&W is more demanding).
I came back with 4 shots that I liked enough to blow up to 16" X 20.

So, there is no one way. Try them all & see what works for you at the time.

[johnnybfan]

My problem isn't that I take too many pictures...it's that I don't delete any from the computer:confused: :confused: .:lol: :lol: :lol:

[weka2000]

My problem isn't that I take too many pictures...it's that I don't delete any from the computer:confused: :confused: .:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes I never know when my photoshop skills maybe able to save a photo.