Black Ricco wrote:
Who are the 1%er's? A new breed of digital photographer who lacks the skill, experience,  and knowledge to actually have a preconception of what they want to do, or how they want to approach a project. They come armed with the belief that if you throw enough shit against the wall some of it is bound to stick. They shoot 100 images in the hopes of getting one "keeper" hence the term, 1%er's.

I'm not talking about "event" shooters who are in environments in which they have no control, and shoot thousands of images simply to make sure they covered the event as thoroughly as they could. No, I'm talking about the "machine gunners" who shoot 300 images for each wardrobe change.

Some of these 1%er's even come on internet forums to ask how they can ease their workflows while freely admitting up front that they're going to toss 40 to 50 percent of their images right from the get-go.

The worst thing about a 1%er, other than the fact their work tends to be sub-par,  is they tend to give their work away which is a detriment to all working photographers. The GWC is simply trying to get a quick flash which, although doesn't help our profession, is, I think, less of a danger than the 1%er's who are actually trying to be taken seriously.

Too Funny ,too true !

Black Ricco wrote:
Who are the 1%er's? A new breed of digital photographer who lacks the skill, experience,  and knowledge to actually have a preconception of what they want to do, or how they want to approach a project. They come armed with the belief that if you throw enough shit against the wall some of it is bound to stick. They shoot 100 images in the hopes of getting one "keeper" hence the term, 1%er's.

I'm not talking about "event" shooters who are in environments in which they have no control, and shoot thousands of images simply to make sure they covered the event as thoroughly as they could. No, I'm talking about the "machine gunners" who shoot 300 images for each wardrobe change.

Some of these 1%er's even come on internet forums to ask how they can ease their workflows while freely admitting up front that they're going to toss 40 to 50 percent of their images right from the get-go.

The worst thing about a 1%er, other than the fact their work tends to be sub-par,  is they tend to give their work away which is a detriment to all working photographers. The GWC is simply trying to get a quick flash which, although doesn't help our profession, is, I think, less of a danger than the 1%er's who are actually trying to be taken seriously.

You dont see many REAL photoshoots do you? You know how many thousands of pics Playboy and other magazines shoot in a session with a model just to find 5-6 pics for a layout? A couple hundred is nothing...

Michael Bell wrote:
You dont see many REAL photoshoots do you? You know how many thousands of pics Playboy and other magazines shoot in a session with a model just to find 5-6 pics for a layout? A couple hundred is nothing...

Yeah, I've tried to explain this... every commercial shooter I've ever work with/for/around/has worked for me would be considered a 1%er by his definition...but...whatever.

Michael Bell wrote:
You dont see many REAL photoshoots do you? You know how many thousands of pics Playboy and other magazines shoot in a session with a model just to find 5-6 pics for a layout? A couple hundred is nothing...

Agreed.  Once again we have the "if you don't do it my way you're pond scum" argument.

Michael Bell wrote:
You dont see many REAL photoshoots do you? You know how many thousands of pics Playboy and other magazines shoot in a session with a model just to find 5-6 pics for a layout? A couple hundred is nothing...

if i EVER shoot more than 1/2 dozen images to get a keeper, shoot ME. 15 page editorial... perhaps 120 images.

not sure which REAL photoshoots you have been privvy to.

oldguysrule wrote:
if i EVER shoot more than 1/2 dozen images to get a keeper, shoot ME. 15 page editorial... perhaps 120 images.

not sure which REAL photoshoots you have been privvy to.

I have a lot of respect for you, but I've never worked with you to see how you get 1 in 6 for an editorial or an ad or anything else for that matter.  I mean, I know it's possible, but there's a reason why it's 3 rolls of 120 and not 1 roll of 120 per outfit, and we talked about that in the "What does an average commercial shoot look like" thread.  There's so much money invested in some of these things that great photographer or not, you're going to be taking 100-300 images of each outfit...just for kicks.

AD: hrm...well...this is one of 14 shots I'm doing today, so this setup just set the company back $4,000.... "Could you shoot just one more for me to make sure we got it"

Garry k wrote:

Too Funny ,too true !

dude! that's a fucking awesome shot of wayne wonder and buju banton

Stephen Moskop wrote:
Step carefully.  You, yourself claim to be a product shooter.  I not sure how confident I'd be if I were talking to fashion or lifestyle shooter, if I were you.  I am certainly a 1%er by your definition.  In fact, I guess I must be much worse.  Because not only do I shoot hundreds of frames to get the one, it often takes me days to build the set and pre-light, often with a large crew, but my clients don't seem to mind- they pay me thousands and thousands of dollars for that ONE shot.  So please be careful before you make broad generalizations.

What's up stephen

James Jackson wrote:

I have a lot of respect for you, but I've never worked with you to see how you get 1 in 6 for an editorial or an ad or anything else for that matter.  I mean, I know it's possible, but there's a reason why it's 3 rolls of 120 and not 1 roll of 120 per outfit, and we talked about that in the "What does an average commercial shoot look like" thread.  There's so much money invested in some of these things that great photographer or not, you're going to be taking 100-300 images of each outfit...just for kicks.

AD: hrm...well...this is one of 14 shots I'm doing today, so this setup just set the company back $4,000.... "Could you shoot just one more for me to make sure we got it"

lol... point taken. as i'm often the art director, i'm notoriously anal on commercial shoots on the setups and whatnot. by the time i'm shooting i know exactly what i want and shoot only that. that never means 1 shot... at minimum i bracket. generally, i will move the model (assuming thats what we're talking about, because product shoots just don't require THAT many images since nothing moves) into a number of interpretations of 'the vision' (maybe 4-6) so i will indeed shoot a roll or near that per outfit... not 100 images though which is where the OP seemed to be going with the thread. i'll add to this that when i'm not art directing i always end up shooting more.

hope this clarifies a bit... there are alot of commercial photographers shooting a substantial number of images per shoot...  i dont think they would ever be confused with the 1%s referenced by the OP. my concern is not that some new form of lower lifeform is appearing... nor do i think of people that way. i sucked when i began shooting. we all have to learn. what concerns me is that the cost of shooting digital and fixit in photoshop frees beginners to be 1%s rather than learning to control their environments and learn their craft. i dont worry about 'pondscum' muddying the waters... i worry about a new generation of photographers that may not have the control necessary to succeed.

cheers!

Black Ricco wrote:
You dont see many REAL photoshoots do you? You know how many thousands of pics Playboy and other magazines shoot in a session with a model just to find 5-6 pics for a layout? A couple hundred is nothing...

These kinda guys crack me up. They get a hot blonde with new tits on a sailboat, something they've done  dozens of times before, use the sun as a backlight, have a flunkie hold a reflector, pound off 3000 shots to get one that doesn't suck, and think they're hot shit.

Try shooting a fully chromed Harley engine and then tell me how much you know about lighting and photography.

John Jebbia wrote:
In a way, I sort of agree with the OP. However, I don't think that being called a ratio shooter is really an insult. A tale of two photographers follows:

1. I have a friend who shoots like a machine gun. Snap snap snap snap. Not unusual for him to shoot 2000 photos in a sitting. He prides himself on that. It's a running joke between us. But the photos in his portfolio kick ass. Isn't that what counts?

2. Photographer #2 (me). Those who have assisted me on shoots can attest to this. I think it drives them nuts. But it's something I learned from another photographer and ever since then it completely changed my shooting style.

Typically, I do not just have the model move around and just snap away hoping to catch the right expression. Instead, I like to mold the model. I get her in a pose. Then I get behind the camera.

"Move a little this way. No. Back the other way. Ok, do this with your fingers. No.. Do that. Ok, freeze. You got a hair... There. Ok.. Ummmm point your toe. Ok umm.." The whole time the model is thinking "TAKE THE FUCKING PICTURE ALREADY!"

Finally, I snap the photo. Keep the same pose for 10-15 shots. Same pose, minor variations. "Say your vowels. Ok, tilt head. Ok.., etc"

10-15 shots then move into a completely different pose and the process starts all over again.

When all is said and done, I usually will shoot anywhere from 150-200 shots in a 4 hr session. Then I TRY to get the best shot from each pose. Some poses simply don't work. Others do. But typically I will choose the best one from each pose.

So, lets assume I shoot 200 shots and each pose consists of 10 photos. To keep the math simple. That means if I like one shot from each pose, that gives me 20 shots to make a proof set from. Wait.. this is bullshit!

FUCK!!! I AM A 1%er!

I am kinda like you, one outfit I tell the model how I want her to pose, and what I want he to be thinking about when i shoot to get the expression i want on her face, if I would take a few shots decide if I like the pose if not I move to the next pose if i do well then that is the shot, here is how a 2 outfit shoot would normally end up for me, around 15 shots one outfit 5 headshots , makeup change, 15 shots another outfit and 5 headshots, total shots 40 that is with light testing

Edit: o yea and recently A few photographers in my area have been calling me a GWC haha

Dexter Fletcher wrote:
hey guys it's pointless to argue with peeps on here about industry type standards. some of them get it most of them dont but at the end of the day most people who come here online dont come on here to learn or make themselves better at what they do either by their art or their practice almost everyone here is a fucking know it all including me but occasionally i read when there is somthing to learn about this industry. These fucking GWC's are like cockroaches they get a digital camera that figures out everything for them and all of a sudden there a photographer because they got a good picture of some internet model crotch or tits, and these models who wants everything raw files included or they post your images online copyright to them. I am tired of seeing these fucking treads about tfp/tfcd/release/ and GWC'S that think because you shoot for agancies and they dont they think that your snob but the truth is they have no fucking clue how the real world works, not no internet modelling or or internet portfolio. Do you ever notice how no one here ever compliment a port honestly, everthing is like, great work, keep it up, your so beautiful, nice port. It's all fucking bullshit. These days I only come here to say hi to friends that i've met online or to learn somthing from some of the people who know what there doing so I can better my art and my business practice.


Give it up it's a lost cause. Stephen Love you man and a lot of respect for you but like the dude told you when you first came on it's a lost cause just what you come here for and keep moving.

I stopped shooting close-ups of models' crotches about 3 yrs ago. I was shooting this model and she had ants down there. A whole colony. Ever since then, I try to point my lens away from that part of the body.

oldguysrule wrote:
what concerns me is that the cost of shooting digital and fixit in photoshop frees beginners to be 1%s rather than learning to control their environments and learn their craft. ... i worry about a new generation of photographers that may not have the control necessary to succeed.

See now, I knew there'd be a logical reason someone wouldn't like the "more is better" method.

Now we need to get just you and Click having this conversation and I'd be all ears.

As far as me, I come from the world of film...and I remember the old arguments...what you're saying sounds a lot like what some of my professors would say when 36 exposure rolls first came out "You'll never learn economy of film!"... of course... them being professors and all they forced me to shoot 12 exposure rolls.

I've long since moved to digital for most of my personal work.  It's fast, it's fun and it is relatively easy...  I also have much greater control frame to frame of what comes out of a shot...no more worrying if the front clip or the back clip is closer to the exposure for the whole roll...  I've found that I personally don't shoot much more than I would if I were shooting for a client, but I find that the digital gives me the freedom to shoot with as much care as if I was shooting for a client.

Now the generation behind me?  I don't know.  Those that have gone to school obviously had some of the same training I did.  Those that haven't gone to school I've noticed 'chimp' their LCD monitors too much to shoot more than 1 or two shots per minute.

Long and the short of it? Everyone gets tired in about the same amount of time...if you're shooting 1000's of images per shoot, there's probably a reason why and it rarely has anything to do with talent.

Dexter Fletcher wrote:
Give it up it's a lost cause. Stephen Love you man and a lot of respect for you but like the dude told you when you first came on it's a lost cause just what you come here for and keep moving.

You're absolutely right.  Thanks for the reminder.  I should know better by now.  Have a great week, Dexter.

Gerrit du Toit wrote:
I find this so interesting. So then I have to asume, that you want everybody that is not already a acomplished photographer to pack up there gear and stop wasting your time. (I am one of those) As they are a bane on the photographic comunity as a whole. I mean honestly how can someone possibly still be learning, what you profess to already know. The cheak of those upstarts. I then have to asume you knew everything before you took your first photo. Also, if someone takes 300 shots to get a great one(I am still trying, but full of hope) and you take only ten, does that make you better. And except for you who is going to know looking at it that you took less shots? I honestly dont think it makes you any better, maybe a bit more economical, but not better. The final product is what you will get judged on not the amount of shots you take. The other option that might also be a posibilaty,(Oldguy excluded, as he know I love his work) is that you might just have lower standards, and what you beleive to be a 1 in 10 keeper, the 300 shot guy will through out everytime. Not saying its the case, but it could be. What I do strongle beleive though is that no matter how much you hate the fact, I will learn to do this, and I hope that when I have, I will leave the guys stil learning to what the do, and just do my thing as best as I can. End of Rant!!!!!!

Nice rant Gerrit.  I have to agree.  I'm seeing a bunch of blogs here saying, if you don't do the way I do, you suck.  Pack it up.  To me it sounds like the old guys (no offense to any old guys) are getting nervous with all these GWC's running around.  That maybe one of those GWC's will figure it out, get the bug that we all have and be a competitor for the next project.  We're all here to strive and do the best we can with what we choose to spend our time doing.  Why is it that there are so many blogs about how crappy it is, for someone in the same profession, to attempt a project with a different approach?  KO

John Jebbia wrote:
1. I have a friend who shoots like a machine gun. Snap snap snap snap. Not unusual for him to shoot 2000 photos in a sitting. He prides himself on that. It's a running joke between us. But the photos in his portfolio kick ass. Isn't that what counts?

2. Photographer #2 (me). Those who have assisted me on shoots can attest to this. I think it drives them nuts. But it's something I learned from another photographer and ever since then it completely changed my shooting style.

Typically, I do not just have the model move around and just snap away hoping to catch the right expression. Instead, I like to mold the model. I get her in a pose. Then I get behind the camera.

"Move a little this way. No. Back the other way. Ok, do this with your fingers. No.. Do that. Ok, freeze. You got a hair... There. Ok.. Ummmm point your toe. Ok umm.." The whole time the model is thinking "TAKE THE FUCKING PICTURE ALREADY!"

I'm both!  The photo studio that I work at only allows a 10-15 shot photoshoot, 3 outfit changes, no more than 10-15 minutes per outfit - headshots, 3/4 shots and full length shots.  It's nuts sometimes when you know you have someone who can give you great outcome, but you're not allowed to keep shooting - get them in, get them out!  Ugh!  The insanity.

However, on my personal shoots, I'll take 50-100 shots per outfit, sometimes minor pose changes, sometimes major changes - angle, pose, lighting, setup, etc..  But I only shoot like this when I have a model I don't have to direct every little pose (although I will sometimes, just like John!  Every little detail...), mostly cuz I know I can probably get 3/4 of the shots as ones I'll like, even if I'm only looking for 5-10 that I want to keep, and 2-3 that I want to edit for finals.

As long as I'm being paid (which at the studio - I hate it when people come in with promo referral coupons and I shoot a whole portfolio for FREE!), it doesn't really matter to me - 10-15 shots, they pick the cream and spend $500-$2000, or 100-300, they pay $500-$2000.  In the end, if you get great shots, whether they're all great, or just those select few that are worthy of your insignia, give them what they want, as long as they pay! 

Dexter Fletcher wrote:
hey guys it's pointless to argue with peeps on here about industry type standards. some of them get it most of them dont but at the end of the day most people who come here online dont come on here to learn or make themselves better at what they do either by their art or their practice almost everyone here is a fucking know it all including me but occasionally i read when there is somthing to learn about this industry. These fucking GWC's are like cockroaches they get a digital camera that figures out everything for them and all of a sudden there a photographer because they got a good picture of some internet model crotch or tits, and these models who wants everything raw files included or they post your images online copyright to them. I am tired of seeing these fucking treads about tfp/tfcd/release/ and GWC'S that think because you shoot for agancies and they dont they think that your snob but the truth is they have no fucking clue how the real world works, not no internet modelling or or internet portfolio. Do you ever notice how no one here ever compliment a port honestly, everthing is like, great work, keep it up, your so beautiful, nice port. It's all fucking bullshit. These days I only come here to say hi to friends that i've met online or to learn somthing from some of the people who know what there doing so I can better my art and my business practice.


Give it up it's a lost cause. Stephen Love you man and a lot of respect for you but like the dude told you when you first came on it's a lost cause just what you come here for and keep moving.

Well I like your port ( honestly ) andwould trade that shot for 10 fashion beauties any day .......

Garry k wrote:

Well I like your port ( honestly ) andwould trade that shot for 10 fashion beauties any day .......

What Shot?

Dexter Fletcher wrote:

What Shot?

Sorry I meant your Avatar ...

Garry k wrote:

Sorry I meant your Avatar ...

I havee a real cool picture of buju when he was just locking hi hair i'll show you in a minute