Do We Shoot Too Much?

[Al Kaplan]

Even those of us still shooting film think nothing of shooting several 36 exposure rolls for that one good picture, but as I go back through my old contact sheets I find it hard to believe how little we really shot forty years ago. In the late 1960's I met some young teenagers, kids really, that had "a garage band" named Fantasy which played some local rock clubs. They were signed by Liberty Records. For the album cover (and they were 12 inches square back then!) they decided to use a painting by singer Billy Robins incorporating high contrast B&W photos of each of the four people in the band. I shot them against a black background with my Minolta Autocord using a single umbrella with strobe, then made a positive and internegative on Kodalith Ortho to drop out all the middle tones.

I was looking for the pictures because recently the Miami Herald had an obituary about the famale vocalist, Jamine Miller, who'd died in her mid-fifties in Tampa. She was fifteen or just turned sixteen when I did these shots and I hadn't seen her since the early seventies when I shot their second album cover. When I located the contact sheets I realized that I'd only shot four frames of each of them, 16 pictures total.

I was happy with the photos as were the members of the group, the producer, and the art director. I started getting called for shoots of established performers. Anyway, I just posted (today's date) two of those four frames on my blog http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com

According to the obituary Jamine never liked performing live but everybody loved her voice. She recorded with just about every major rock group, but it was all in the studio, not live performances.

[Andrew Sowerby]

I've never been able to shoot a couple rolls of the same thing. I get bored. Luckily, I don't get paid to take pictures so I can pretty much do as I like.

[notturtle]

I know what you mean, but I find that 'enough' is a very personal thing and varies according the the aim and moment. I think I shoot far less than many and continue to shoot less as time goes by rather than more. However, whenever doing something new to me, I tend to shoot more until I gain expereince with whatever it may be. Digital is a different matter and there must be many very casual amateurs wearing out shutters...

In India the most I ever shot was 90 frames in a day. The average was about 50 per day and I considered this at themore excessive end. I think after settling in, an average of about 30-40 frames a day would probably result. Here I shoot in fits and starts, but prob average about 20-30 frames a week. Maybe. Just. I go with the flow, but I would suggest that some regard it as 'more professional to burn a serious number of rolls' which I think is silly. I see no correlation between the number of frames shot and the number of keepers.

[shadowfox]

I think good and experienced photographers shoot less regardless of the era, or medium.

Beginners and non-confident (or careful) photographers are the ones who take more photos.

Ordinary people shoot less because they don't really care about the outcome.

Digital photography tends to create the illusion that we shoot too much, but I venture to submit that the actual number of "keepers" remains the same compared to 50 years ago.

Just some random thoughts...

[BSchall]

I ran across this quote from Frans Lanting that, to me, sums up what photography should be (and what I strive to meet): "photography is a process of saying 'no' most of the time so that you can say 'yes' with an exclamation mark a few times".

What I've told people when I taught a beginning photo course (it's amazing what you can talk your way into in the adult education programs) is if your finger isn't quivering with excitement on the shutter button when you go to press it, than the picture probably isn't worth taking. Basically, feel the excitement of the moment. If it's not there, move on.

[nksyoon]

Maybe due to the accounts of National Geographic photographers shooting several hundred rolls over a couple of months for a story?

[wray]

I think good and experienced photographers shoot less regardless of the era, or medium.

Beginners and non-confident (or careful) photographers are the ones who take more photos.

Ordinary people shoot less because they don't really care about the outcome.

Digital photography tends to create the illusion that we shoot too much, but I venture to submit that the actual number of "keepers" remains the same compared to 50 years ago.

Just some random thoughts...
H-m-m, I don't think this is necessarily true ...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3052/3115910170_f000ccc7b2_o.jpg

[Al Kaplan]

Ray, I like frame 7A best.

[Darkhorse]

Frame 8A recently sold for $400k.

[shadowfox]

H-m-m, I don't think this is necessarily true ...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3052/3115910170_f000ccc7b2_o.jpg

I assume you're trying to say that good photographers like Diane Arbus did take a lot of pictures of the same subject, am I correct?

In this case it's a little different, she's exploring different possibilities, creative possibilities. There is not a limit that you can put on exploring creative possibilities in terms of how many tries, painters would do the same if it were that easy to reproduce a painting.

But notice that she wasn't bracketing for focus, exposure, or other technical aspects. I think that's what separate good photographers vs beginners or non-confident ones, which was my point.

Btw, thanks for linking the contact sheet, I always thought that the famous frame 8A is a bit creepy, now that I found out the settings, it's much less disturbing than I thought.

[Double Negative]

I don't know but I'm shooting more film these days than I ever have...

[wray]

Yes, you are correct.

[marke]

Back when I got my first "good" camera, an Argus STL 1000, and began developing my own film, my dad used to ask me why I took so many shots of the same thing. All I can remember is that I didn't know how to answer him. I guess I was just trying to see what it (the subject) looked like in each possible way I could imagine. Buy you know, back then I really didn't shoot as much film as I do today.

Today, I probably shoot ten times the amount in an average month than I did 35 years ago. I can easily fire off half a dozen rolls in an hour or less, if the subject matter matters. But I have to confess, that I wish I would shoot less than I do. I think that 10+ years of shooting digital has left me with a mindset that the more I shoot, the better my chances of getting that special keeper will increase. And even though "burst" mode on my DSLR has been a true blessing when it comes to getting that perfect shot of some wildlife behavior, it is also a curse for me at times. I have often considered getting a Rapidwinder for my Leicas, but then I come to my senses and stop myself, realizing that it's the slow, intentional shooting that these cameras require that makes me appreciate the time I spend shooting them. In the end, they have cheaper than a therapist.

[Chris101]

I don't shoot nearly enough.

Damn! I was gonna say Ray, that your new style looked familiar!

[Pickett Wilson]

I shoot a lot because I never know how the subject is going to resolve itself. Most of the time, I start shooting when I see a potential photo developing and keep shooting until either what I hope for happens or the action collapses to nothing. You can't get back the one that got away. I try not to give it a chance. Much of the time it goes nowhere. But, when it does, there's the magic!

[wray]

I don't shoot nearly enough.

Damn! I was gonna say Ray, that your new style looked familiar!
Well, I could change my name to Diane but then again ...::rolleyes:

[Chris101]

Would you pronounce it Dee-ahn?

[sleepyhead]

If I'm just walking about with my camera and see something interesting, then I usually take 1 to 4 frames of it, typically 2.

That's how it's always been for me (since 1978 when I got a Minolta HiMatic E for my bar-mitzvah). Since adding an Epson R-D1 to my kit, this habit hasn't changed (why waste more time sorting through many pics on the computer).

As a reult of this, I've shot only about 20-30 rolls of 35mm film per year, consistently for the last 30 years. If I get 1 or 2 keepers per roll then I'm happy.

But I'm only a hobby-ist - if I were a professional doing assignments (such as photojournalism), I'm sure I'd shoot more in order to make sure I got a winning shot.

[pachuco]

I am always pushing myself to take just one or two more shots of a subject but my style is sort of a hit-and-run approach so it does not always work out for me. I do wind up shooting many rolls of film but I always wish I shot more.

[aniMal]

I remember getting seriously into photography in the early nineties, doing lots of concerts. 3-4 rolls a night got to be the normal, which was waaaay over the average amount at that time.

I had some years almost completely off photography just when digital really got going, and I find it very interesting to re-learn everything now, but on a digital basis.

When I was at my best in the mid-nineties, I worked with M2s and M6s - and got to a really decent level where what I saw and what I got started matching for real. What I mean is that focus, movement, lightning and everything else was controlled by me, and not left for seeing the developed film. What happened then was that I started shooting progressively less, and keeping more images... But it really takes a lot of training - and also a lot of nerve.

These days I tend to shoot far more with the M8. But do I get more keepers? In a way I don´t think so, on the other hand I see that I have trouble re-learning that intense and focused way of shooting that I managed to get into... It is just too easy to keep checking the display, and that makes me loose the edge in seeing the picture I guess... Still, the M8 asks for more hands on control, and has made me slip into the old way of working with an M at times.

I recently got a second hand M7 as a back-up, but I tend not to use it too much. Which is a pity, as it is a really good camera alongside the M8. On the other hand I have started carrying a small 4X5 alongside the M8, which is really a good combo. The histogram of an exposure on the M8 is the perfect light measurement, almost like a zone system on its own.

What I feel is the bottom line, is that digital has taken that edge away from my shooting to a certain degree, but it has also given me a more organized approach. I hope that I will be able to fuse the two, as I would like to be able to both shoot spontaneous things in the "old" M-style, as well as working more methodically on getting more conceptual and still-standing things captured with the best possibilities of digital + film.

Look at flickr - it is loaded with millions of photos. I use it as a research tool every time I travel somewhere, and find it very useful in that way. But most times when I find the locations covered, I can see that there are more interesting angles if one looks before just shooting away... :)

[kshapero]

H-m-m, I don't think this is necessarily true ...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3052/3115910170_f000ccc7b2_o.jpgI like them all.

[bmattock]

I never heard of anyone getting better at something by not doing it.

I am fascinated by the idea that anyone thinks they have a bead on how many photographs are 'enough' for someone to take, and how many constitute 'too much'.

@shadowfox: Wow. You get to decide if a person is a serious artist (tm) and therefore allowed to 'explore creative possibilities' or if they're just a typical duffer, clearly shooting too much?

[oscroft]

I think good and experienced photographers shoot less regardless of the era, or medium
Hmm, I shoot far more now than I've ever done over the past 40 years, so I guess that means I'm getting worse and forgetting what I've learned :D

In reality, most of us shoot what we can afford to. When I was young I could barely afford to buy a handful of rolls of film, and now I can afford to keep a freezer full - that's what really makes the difference.

[DougFord]

Personally, I go through periods of photographic activity/inactivity.
Whether the inactive periods are the result of a lull in my interest in the hobby or lack of inspiration or perhaps a combination of the two, I’m not sure.
How much is ‘too much’ or how little is ‘too little’? You’re on your own with that one.

[trph_2000]

Well,
I can think of two ways to look at the issue. I once read a photography
critique in the NYT which complimented an exhibit by noting
that the photographer was known to be careful about his picture taking.

"it is a waste of eye to shoot faster than the mind can think" was the
critic's phrase.

On the other hand, I have read that Salgado may sometimes take up to
1500 shots per day ! ( ~40 rolls x 36...)

Take your choice......

[travelingman]

I dunno, I find I shoot far far more with digital especially at first and get far less shots i want to keep, simply because its digital so it doesn't really cost me.

With film I'll think about the composition and all that before taking a shot because I don't want to waste the film, and I don't want to have to spend more of my time developing more film and having to buy loads of film. I dunno over the past year I've shot about 30 rolls of film(24exp.) with I'd say 2-4 keepers a roll. I just take better pictures with film.

[Chris101]

Yes, you are correct.

Heh! (snort!)

[Chris101]

Like Dee-Ahn, I try to get at least half the pictures on any roll to be pictures I like. And I usually succeed. But do "they" listen?

No, they do not.

But you f... nevermind. It's a joke that is probably not appropriate here.

But the metaphor is, that you rarely please the masses with what you, yourself like. Finding the elusive 8A that "goes viral" takes a mindset, talent, representation and luck that we just don't pop into all that often.

Which reminds me: Are there any rich women out there who want to hook up with a needy, self absorbed, physically failing, artsy type guy? You might just hit the big one with me, cause there are European art chicks who think I should be discovered too! And I'll probably like you drunk better too!

ps, you MUST be well connected in the "art world" and be able to get me into the best galleries. I wouldn't mind a gift to a respected museum or two, but I mean big time, not podunk; K?

[J. Borger]

I do not know if we shoot too much, but we for sure do not edit enough!

[TWoK]

I do my best to follow Eggleston's mantra of 1 shot for 1 thing, but it's much harder to do with digital. On film I normally stick to it unless I absolutely know I screwed up the first shot.

[xxloverxx]

I limit myself to 3 rolls (36) a month, simply because my preferred films don't come cheap. I've found that the simpler the camera is (think: fully mechanical, no metering, no auto-focus, just nothing), the more I think about the shot, and the more aware I am of the decisive moment.

Shooting 3 rolls every month (in some cases, only 2 rolls) isn't hard - wandering the streets, I usually only find 1 or 2 remotely good compositions/subjects.

In fact…I only just got home…I'd been out for almost 2.5 hours in a very busy area of HK shooting. I came home with 2 photos, and I have doubts that the 2nd one's actually that great.

If I were shooting digital, I'd definitely have shot more, I admit, but when shooting people, one needs to keep a certain sense of awareness and not just go snapping madly…in the past, on vacation, I used to shoot ~500 photos (digital) a day! Sometimes even 1000…and looking back on them, I find I was only wasting hard disk space and time - I never had the time nor patience to process, sort and edit them. Which is why I'm almost completely on film now; it saves me time in the end, and produces images of amazing quality (assuming for reasonable technique)

I know my grandpa, when he went on vacation, shooting either 120 or 135, shot 1 roll a day and brought 1-2 rolls extra (so for a week's vacation, he'd bring 8-10 rolls), which, if you think about it, is plenty.

[btgc]

I used to shoot ~500 photos (digital) a day! Sometimes even 1000…and looking back on them, I find I was only wasting hard disk space and time - I never had the time nor patience to process, sort and edit them.

You already did great job by just looking such amount of pictures a day!

[Bob Michaels]

I shoot a lot because I never know how the subject is going to resolve itself. Most of the time, I start shooting when I see a potential photo developing and keep shooting until either what I hope for happens or the action collapses to nothing. You can't get back the one that got away. I try not to give it a chance. Much of the time it goes nowhere. But, when it does, there's the magic!

Like Pickett, I find that frequently subjects evolve as I shoot. Additionally, I find that my vision evolves as well. There is a "warm up" period for me where I need to start shooting to begin to make things start happening.

Additionally, I find myself not working for "good" photos (a relative term) as I have too many of those. Instead I shoot for that "really great" photo (again a relative term). That means a lot of different or high risk shots, the ones that most often do not work at all but knowing that every once in a while there will be the one that makes all the stinkers worthwhile.

[henri klein]

By looking inside - instead of outside (or after a new camera, lens...) you KNOW what and how much to shoot.

[skibeerr]

Lately I find myself taking three shots of the same image. This because, for a reason unknown to me sofar, I am seing more and more motion blur in my pictures when shooting my m6.
So yes I agree with the poster who states that the less confident try to make up with quantity. My aim is to be a conscious photographer.

When it gets to hard to be a conscious photographer I drink 'till I'm an unconscious one , next morning, for a reason unknown to me sofar, I am seeing more and more motion blur in my pictures when shooting my m6.

[bmattock]

How many times have you looked at a photograph and decided you liked it because the photographer did not take 'too many' photographs, or decided you did not like because the photographer did take 'too many' photographs?

As a viewer, do you know how many photographs the photographer took? Do you care? If you do care, why?

The question itself is insipid. It's just another thinly-veiled anti-digital screed. The implication is that:

a) There is such a thing as the correct number of photographs. "Do we take too many" implies that there is a number, beyond which is 'too many'. What is that number? Who decides what that number is? Is your number the same as my number?

b) using a digital camera forces one to take more than that number.


c) therefore, digital is bad.

The question itself is boring and banal.

And, it's old. If one chooses to read really old photography magazines, one finds 'Letters to the Editor' that make the same angry sputterings from outraged medium-format photographers, complaining about the 'miniature' camera users (35mm) who burn shot after shot, because they have a whole 36-exposure roll to play with. "Why, they're not proper photogaphers at all," the 'real' photographers complained bitterly.

It's a recycled argument, it's boring, it's tedious, and it illuminates the prejudices of an angry person.

Take as many photographs as you feel are proper. There are no rules regarding the proper number of photographs to take, and taking more or fewer photographs does not in itself make one a better or worse photographer. Film or digital, it is the same. If one truly cannot control oneself when using a digital camera just because the digital will permit one to fire away for thousands of frames, then one has a problem - and the problem is not the camera. That's like blaming the bottle because one cannot stop drinking from it.

[Al Kaplan]

Stop Bogarting that joint!

If I'm shooting at very slow speeds (1/8 or longer) hand-held I'll sometimes shoot three frames. Other times "The Moment" has gone by, so why bother?

[nikonhswebmaster]

As a viewer, do you know how many photographs the photographer took? Do you care? If you do care, why?



The discussion is about being cheap (I can't afford film)
and
self control (I have no control over my own mind)

I too find the discussion silly (avoiding the word insipid). I have thousands of slides from some of my projects. Pentax gave me a 250 motor drive when I got an art grant, and I shot and printed thousands of frames, and left them uncut on the rolls.

Shoot whatever you want.

[Al Kaplan]

We each have our own style, and when we first start out we haven't yet discovered what it will be. When I first started out in the early 1960's a lot of the older photographers, those who'd cut their teeth on 4x5, were still trying to figure out how it was possible to go out on a news assignment and use up all 12 shots on the roll of 120 film in their Rolleiflex!

[bmattock]

Stop Bogarting that joint!


Never touch the stuff.


If I'm shooting at very slow speeds (1/8 or longer) hand-held I'll sometimes shoot three frames. Other times "The Moment" has gone by, so why bother?

Why on earth would it matter to you how many photographs other people take?

[mackigator]

Shoot too much of the wrong thing, yes. Then the one dman thing comes along that I should have shot 'around' for an hour and I have only one frame of it. I think it's because my mind is all sloppy with other thoughts, distractions. The camera begs me to give in and explore with it all the time, but I can't. Yet.

[travelingman]

a) There is such a thing as the correct number of photographs. "Do we take too many" implies that there is a number, beyond which is 'too many'. What is that number? Who decides what that number is? Is your number the same as my number?


That's not what I think or was trying to say at all. I'm just saying when I shoot film I think about it more and therefore take more good shots percentage wise then if I was taking it with a DSLR. And secondly I really have not bias against Digital, I admire and envy those who are better with digital then with film. I started taking serious photos with a DSLR before taking a B&W class and my film shots are just immensly better. And I find I get image fatique with Digital not neccesarily when shooting but when reviewing all the photos. I'm just better at seeing what photos I like and editing them in film. But yeah I don't think your comment was aimed particularly at me but i figured I would let you in on my thought process of why I like digital.

And this is from the perspective of someone who has grown up with the development of DSLRs and all digital cameras. = )

[bmattock]

That's not what I think or was trying to say at all. I'm just saying when I shoot film I think about it more and therefore take more good shots percentage wise then if I was taking it with a DSLR.


That's perfectly valid. My statement was directed to the subject line of this thread, which is "Do We Shoot Too Much?"

Each of us has to find our own way with regard to how we shoot. Some will practice shot discipline and others will not. Some will find they can practice shot discipline better when shooting film than they will with digital. Those are all personal choices, and whatever works for you is what works for you.

The question of the subject line "Do We Shoot Too Much" implies that there is an answer. Yes or no. For there to be an answer, there has to be such a thing as 'too much'. I question the validity of the question itself, because I do not think there is such a thing as 'too much'. You said it yourself - what works for you. I have what works for me. Who is to say what is 'too much'?


And secondly I really have not bias against Digital, I admire and envy those who are better with digital then with film. I started taking serious photos with a DSLR before taking a B&W class and my film shots are just immensly better. And I find I get image fatique with Digital not neccesarily when shooting but when reviewing all the photos. I'm just better at seeing what photos I like and editing them in film. But yeah I don't think your comment was aimed particularly at me but i figured I would let you in on my thought process of why I like digital.

And this is from the perspective of someone who has grown up with the development of DSLRs and all digital cameras. = )

I grew up on film, and I use both and enjoy both. I even dare to argue that film is still much better than digital at a whole raft of things, but that it doesn't change the fact that film is being displaced by digital at a rapid rate. I'm not tied or emotionally invested in the survival of film - or digital. My statement with regard to this type of question have more to do with the fact that this kind of thread is started fairly frequently, and in my opinion, is reflective of the point of view of the person who started it.

In answer to the question of the OP's subject line, "Do We Shoot Too Much," I have to answer no we do not; because there is no such thing as 'too much'. If a person thinks they personally shoot too much, perhaps they should cut back a bit if that would please them. If they think I shoot too much, they should go soak their head.

[travelingman]

Ah I pretty much agree with you. = )