Rant: The 1000 frames a day shooter

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

As digital cameras and flash memory cards become cheaper, I see more and more people toting a digital camera with a fairly large memory card, and some even carry those portable HDD storage devices as well. Thus the temptation with most is to just shoot and shoot and shoot, then sort them out at the end of the day. This trend has reached to the point where I get some shooter beaming and proudly exclaiming he's done a thousand frames on that day.

Is that something really to be proud about? In my opinion, save for proving that he has the hardware to store a thousand photos taken in a day, nothing much. Digital photography now has become so painless that people just shoot without thinking. I've always said that this leads to terrible habits in photography, and is actually an impairment to one's education in photography. By shooting say, 20 frames of the same scene and picking the best, one will never fully understand why that 1 shot worked; a user will be more inclined to rely on this crutch and forever just blast a series of frames in the hopes of getting a good shot. The catch here is that this is a hit-and-miss affair. Without knowing what makes a shot work, how can one consistently take good photos?

Secondly, this also tends to breed very poor editing skills. You've seen it or done it at one point: 5 frames of the same subject from the same angle, with only slight changes in either the subject matter or in the technicalities. Sometimes they do work as a sequence, but more often it merely serves to dilute the impact a single photo otherwise would have given.

Also, there's the thing about storing your photos: I dunno about you, but I really don't like having 40gb worth of photos lying around. It's not just about organising them, it's also about viewing them. I mean, you wouldn't want to view that many photos, even those taken by you, right? I personally would get pretty bored after some time..

My viewpoints have been repeated on quite a few forums now, but most of the time they're brushed aside, and people usually think I'm nuts to go against conventional thinking (digital is a great learning tool!). What do you guys think?

[Godsongz]

I think that digital technology has made excessive shooting more convenient, and therefore more of a trap for some photographers. We agree on that. I think it all comes down to the situation though and adjusting your shooting style to be appropriate to the subject matter.

Last weekend our diocese' bishop was visiting our parish and celebrating the Mass on Saturday afternoon. I offered to document the event for my priest, and during the 1 hour of that Mass I probably shot close to 200 photos. Of those I will probably further develop and use 40, so 20%. A new altar was recently installed in our church, and I shot that for the priest also. I spent an hour working on that and took 10 photos. Of those I will likely end up using 2, so 20% again.

So I don't necessarily think shooting 1000 digital photos a day is outragious, IF you are in an outragious situation.

[Gary Sheynkman]

I definatly agree that digital photography has made it more conviniet to take good pictures.

Remember, that there are two kinds of photographers (remember the thread?) Some are pro-sumers/enthusiasts and others are just shooters. If it is more convinient to take alot of shoots and not deal with fine tuning our camera for every shot you take, then thats how most consumers will use a digi camera.

Even pros do it. They store terabytes upon terabytes of photos they took and weed out the ones that are not perfect. This is especially true in sports where nothing is repeated or is stationary for the phtographer to take his/her time

[Suhit Gupta]

I have to admit that I am one of those photographers too that tends to take a lot of pictures. With the high speed shooting abilities of the Canon 10D and my 1GB CF card inside, I tend to go a little crazy sometimes ;-). But then, it is such a royal pain to sort through the images. I have so many raw photos sitting in a directory called 'to-sort', it is scary. I wish there was a nicer program to sort through those multitude of images.

Suhit

[Jason Dunn]

I can see where you're coming from yslee, and I sort of agree, but in every pro photo shoot I've seen, photographers use up an ungodly amount of film or storage. ;-) Taking a whole lot of pictures seems to be the way to get a good one.

I completely agree with you that snapping 100 pictures is no substitute for setting up the shot properly and snapping a few good ones, but it seems to be the way of our culture to take the easy way out. I have to admit that more often than not, I got for the "take lots of pictures and sort them out later". You're 100% right about keeping ALL the photos - I always keep ONE photo of subject, the best one, and delete the rest. Although there have been cases where I torture myself by looking at two, over and over, and I end up keeping two. But to give you an example, when I went to Mexico in December I took around 1600 photos, and I kept about 280.

Perhaps you'd consider writing some guest columns on setting up shots properly? I know I'd love to read more on that subject. :-) If so, send me an email (jason@) and we can set it up.

[Lotto]

I tend to take lots of pictures of an event. only because I don't trust my knowledge of the proper settings. I do try to carefully frame my subject, but if I do manual settings I many times take the same picture in auto mode-just to be sure.

I do find many times 'events' are not good experimental learning times. You are either trying to get the best shot or trying to get the best settings for a particular shot.

You really don't learn much unless you take the time to review what settings change in your pictures. Sometimes if you don't understand the changes, it just doesn't sink in. So many factors to play with, as well as those mother nature hands us with lighting etc.

I'd love to see here someone willing to teach us more about the settings and how they effect the end results. Perhaps this can be done through a series of weekly challenges that help us explore our camera's functionality.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

godsongz: I agree with you on different situations requiring shooting different amounts, but some people are just so trigger happy. 12,000 frames in 6 months, anyone?

Suhit: Hehe, unfortunately there's no simple way to sort out photos. I remember I once went and took 200 photos for fun on a Nikon 995, boy, did I regret it later. -_-

Gary: I'm not really referring to the average consumer, but I get what you mean. I'm thinking more of the schmuck who spends a few k on camera, lenses, and accessories, fancies himself as a photog, but still shoots like some newbie. Why bother then, I wonder?

I'm not sure if it's confined to a few countries, but the few pros I know don't store terabytes of images when they shoot. Both shoot sports, and hell, one of them is still with film, does very well with shooting a whole lot less than the digital SLR people, and brings in good dough on a regular basis.

Normally I shoot with an eye towards not boring my audience. Generally I feel that if I've shot to the point I'd bore a group of reasonable people who have an slight appreciation towards photography (note: average Joes and Janes tend to get impressed way too easily), it's time to move on. Typically I'm fairly strict; it should take no more than 1 photo to convey an idea, 2 at most in certain circumstances, unless I'm doing a sequence, but the concept is there.

Jason: Yea, way too many people take the easy way out. As I always like to say, it's easier to spend money on equipment than developing one's skills. Typically true in countries where the people are affluent and the equipment is cheap (like my country and the US).

Setting up the shot properly can span a very wide range of subjects, and hell, I suppose with enough experience (and I consider myself to be at the beginning of the learning curve), one can write a book even. =P I'll email you later on that.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Ah, I missed your post, Lotto. You make some very good points. Typically I've seen way too many people trying to act pro and fiddle with the apertures and shutter speeds without having any idea on what the heck it does in an attempt to be (appear?) cool/professional/whathaveyou. Usually the results are mediocre to say the least.

Events are certainly terrible times to learn basic photography principles, and I find events a terrible time to shoot. If it's a public event, you're jostling with the crowd, and worse yet, other (very inconsiderate) photographers, and if it's a private event, there's a good deal of stress to deliver, and if one is just beginning, it can be enough to overwhelm you (if it doesn't, either you're a prodigy, or you don't care if you churn out crap).

A great point made is that one doesn't learn much unless one takes the time to review your photos. And not just the camera settings, but also, things like how the shot was frame, what were the elements in the photo, how were they placed, what the lighting was like, etc. By understanding what makes a photo work, it's a step towards getting good shots on a consistent basis, which also means you can shoot less and get more. That's one effect of shooting too many photos; you really don't have this want to review all your mistakes, since it is very tiring to review a few hundred of them.

A point I also want to make is that it doesn't matter if you come back at the end of the day with 30-50 photos and have nothing to show. Too often I've seen people whine the didn't have a good day, their photos were terrible, and that they will shoot more next time to ensure a good photo. Don't fall into that trap! Just because you didn't get a good photo, doesn't mean you can't learn from it. As important as it is to learn what makes a good photo work, it is also important to learn what does not make a photo work.

[Gary Sheynkman]

extremely well writtin post and if i was a pro i would be with you 100%....but im no :lol: so ill stick to my tried and true ways of takin lots of shots 8) :lol:

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Ah, but that is the point you see. Since you aren't a pro, do you know why you're taking so many shots, and for what? My little rant was aimed at amatuer photogs who wish to improve their photography skills. I'd say a knowledgeable pro has no need to read my post. =P

[DrtyBlvd]

In the final analysis, my 4G MD and F828 allow me to take the thousand photos just for the 10% that I orignally wanted; like everything else in life, it's a matter of time and priority - I'm learning as I go - and that is the point your well scribed comment misses - Until I figure out what makes those shots the good ones, I'll have to take the scatter-gun approach! :D

Also, I like having those bracketed-type shots - to me they carry the nuances of the children, that to a spectator means little - so another aspect worthy of mention is - are the photos a person takes for the photographer, or for others?

If others, I get to choose what you see - ergo you miss all the 999 rubbish ones :lol:

db

[Bob12]

When I was first learning basic photography, my mentor told me, "Take lots of pictures. Even Ansel Adams didn't get a good picture every time." And, sure enough, a couple of years ago, I purchased the book "Ansel Adams at 100". In it, it describes how he took many pictures of the same subject then picked the best to further process.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Yes, but if you continue to take many many shots, will you really learn? The best photogs learn under careful thought. Ansel Adams used the 8x10; a camera that requires careful thought when setting up the shot. I mentioned earlier in this thread; it's not just learning what you did right; what you did wrong counts as well. And thus, how do you learn from a few hundred photos? Better to learn from a few harsh lessons than from a hundred little ones.

[Bob12]

Well, to each his own. There are many situations where many shots is preferable to a few, even for those of us who know what we're doing. That's one of the beauties of digital.

[SassKwatch]

My little rant was aimed at amatuer photogs who wish to improve their photography skills.
I understand your point, and mostly agree. And it's not just in the number of shots/day where you see the excess. If you hang out around sites like dpreview.com and visit some of the online galleries people have, it's easy to tell some (certainly not all) are trying to impress via quantity rather than quality.

All that said, it really comes down to the individual, IMO. Digital can be a great way to learn a lot about photography in a comparatively short period of time. And there are undoubtedly some out there who can shoot gobs of pics at a time and absorb the lessons to be learned from such shooting. Heck, I've shot 40-50 shots of one pile of cinder blocks, taken that batch home and analyzed what I did right/wrong, and went back and shot *another* 40-50 of the same pile. In the end, I wound up with 1 or 2 I thought worth keeping....if I'm lucky. Sometimes when I do that, I wind up with nothing, and *hope* I've learned something. I guess what I'm trying to say is shooting quantity doesn't necessarily negate shooting quality. But neither does it insure same.

All in all, it seems to me entirely too many people spend entirely too much time attempting to duplicate the technical quality of an Adams or a Weston, but seem all but totally unaware photographers of such stature are about a *whole* lot more than technical achievement. You can be the best technician in the world, but if you're visually illiterate, it won't matter in the long run.

[Gary Sheynkman]

All in all, it seems to me entirely too many people spend entirely too much time attempting to duplicate the technical quality of an Adams or a Weston, but seem all but totally unaware photographers of such stature are about a *whole* lot more than technical achievement. You can be the best technician in the world, but if you're visually illiterate, it won't matter in the long run.


beautiful man :!: :D

i think we are coming to a point where film is being phased out (we have digital disposables now!) and the art of taking a picture on the consumer level is fading fast....lets hope that people stay true to the art

[Wiggin]

yslee
Interesting rant, but I feel the need to stand on the other side of the fence on this one. I've been shooting for 30+ years, and even in the good ol' days of film, I would take many photos of my subject (as many as circumstances & finances allowed anyway), modifying a host of factors in order to end up with the "shot" I was looking for. Digital technology has freed me up to expand on this behavior, not because I do not understand the art, but because it is free to take as many pics as my memory capacity allows. What I find I vary most is the composition of the picture, and less the exposure settings. Sometimes, I let the ambient light change over time (say 10 minutes), and take a new picture every minute or so.

So for me, Digital equipment has actually freed me up to take more chances, be even MORE creative in my options, and do it all with zero impact on cost and film capacity. :D

But to each their own, and we each pursue that "perfect shot" in our own crazy way, n'est pas?

Cheers :way to go:

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

What I find I vary most is the composition of the picture, and less the exposure settings. Sometimes, I let the ambient light change over time (say 10 minutes), and take a new picture every minute or so.


Wiggin, I think my rant doesn't include you. =) Given your experience, I'd say you would know what you're doing. As I said earlier, it was directed more towards those new to the craft or those less skilled who want to improve their skills.

SassKwatch: Exactly. Too many people forget it's both art and science. You have to do well in both.

[Wiggin]

Wiggin, I think my rant doesn't include you. =) Given your experience, I'd say you would know what you're doing. As I said earlier, it was directed more towards those new to the craft or those less skilled who want to improve their skills.

Despite the tenure, I still consider myself as someone trying to improve my skills, so the rant does apply to me. Your original post also had this....

By shooting say, 20 frames of the same scene and picking the best, one will never fully understand why that 1 shot worked; a user will be more inclined to rely on this crutch and forever just blast a series of frames in the hopes of getting a good shot. The catch here is that this is a hit-and-miss affair. Without knowing what makes a shot work, how can one consistently take good photos?

Secondly, this also tends to breed very poor editing skills. You've seen it or done it at one point: 5 frames of the same subject from the same angle, with only slight changes in either the subject matter or in the technicalities. Sometimes they do work as a sequence, but more often it merely serves to dilute the impact a single photo otherwise would have given.

I will be the first to admit that I still get frustrated with mediocre results that sometimes occur on a "one shot" approach when I carefully set up a subject, take utmost care to execute correctly, and then click the shutter.

I would not use hit-and-miss to describe my style, but I will admit to taking multiple frames of the same subject matter, making small variations to try and "find" that magic shot.

I'm not trying to mince your words, I'm merely saying that your rant does apply to me, perhaps appropriately so. But, if I capture 300 shots on a snowy day in Central Park (NY city) looking for those 2 -3 b/w shots that will look great framed on my wall, I am not going to feel lazy at all, and I will not be abusing the technical advantages of my Canon 300D.
:way to go:

[sublime]

Yesterday I took around 300 shots and saved three of them: one because it was my first picture ever, and two other ones because I liked the look of them. However, I can say that every shot I took was different from the last; though their subject was identical the effects were different. I hoped to learn a few things about these different effects and can now say I have.

However, I would love to know how to set up shots properly. I feel as if I should humble myself and not aspire to taking the nice looking shots I see in Photography magazines, since my equipment isn't as fancy as theirs. Those cool pictures where the small thing close to the camera is in focus along with its distant background so that both may look the same size is something I'm still working on, but purely through trial and error since I have no clue how to go about doing it. But I'll stop ranting. My point is that I'd love to learn how to set up shots and I would be very thankful to anyone on this site who would provide a few tips and tricks (in layman's terms) as Jason has suggested.

[Bob12]

What you describe is called "Depth of Field". When you use a fully automatic camera, or that setting on an adjustable camera, a lot of things go into the resulting depth of field but you asked about forcing it.

If you switch your camera (if possible) to Aperture priority, you can determine how much of your picture is in focus. The smaller the lens opening, the more depth you will have in focus. The lens opening is determined by the f-stop and the higher the f-stop number, the smaller the lens opening. And the reverse is also true - if you want only your subject in focus, choose a very low f-stop.

[David Prahl]

Does anyone know of a good "photography 101" type of website? Some place were young photo-geeks like me can get schooled? :?:

I've found that much of it depends on the camera I'm using. When taking shots for a Pocket PC Thoughts review, I need snap two hundred or so if I'm using a cheap 2 MP camera, and far fewer if its nicer. In my opinion, knowledge and patience combined with a good camera and setup makes the most efficient and beautiful shots.

[SassKwatch]

Does anyone know of a good "photography 101" type of website?
Seems like there oughta be a zillion of 'em, but right off the top of my head, I can't think of one that addresses thing in a 'classroom' like format.

One possibility might be the 'HP Learning Center'. They have free online classes on a variety of topics and I *think* I've seen one listed for digital photography. It probably seems like an odd place for things like that, but I signed up for an 'Excel 101' several yr ago after I felt like I was already reasonably fluent in Excel, and the lesson plan for that seemed like it would be halfway decent for someone new to Excel.

I've found that much of it depends on the camera I'm using. When taking shots for a Pocket PC Thoughts review, I need snap two hundred or so if I'm using a cheap 2 MP camera, and far fewer if its nicer.
The camera itself shouldn't make *that* much difference for such purposes. A halfway decent 2mp flavor should be more than sufficient.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Neither can I. I picked up some basics from dad, and the rest from a hodge podge of articles online, using good judgement to pick the wheat from the chaff.

[SassKwatch]

Neither can I. I picked up some basics from dad, and the rest from a hodge podge of articles online, using good judgement to pick the wheat from the chaff.
I wonder how hard this would be to do in a series of articles here?

Maybe breaking things down into broad discussion headings such as 'shutter speed', 'aperture', 'depth of field', 'white balance', etc...a short lead in article with any 'discussion' that follows might add up to something.(??)

Just food for thought.

[backpackerx]

It might actually be better to check out a library book or buy one at a bookstore. I only say this because there are many books written for beginners and it's usually faster to flip through a short book for the info you want than to surf through a website that may or may not contain what you need.

That's what I did anyways with several books and found it to be very helpful.

[David Prahl]

Thanks, guys. I'll pick up a few books at the library (or 'lie-berry' up here), and keep my fingers crossed for a "DM 101" section.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Well, I did explain a little on aperture and shutter speed in one of the threads here. Let me know if it's too confusing.