Black Ricco wrote:
The discipline is fast disappearing. The preconception, the planning, all going south. That's my point.

There used to be a time the AD would come to you with a detailed layout of what he had in mind. You sat down, held a pre-production meeting, and you both, sometimes along with a set designer and stylist, decided the best way to approach the project. You knew going in what the goal was, and you all worked together in the most efficient way possible to achieve that goal.

Well Ricco, that all still happens most of the time for the people I talk about working with. (not that all photographers *pay attention* in the pre-prod meeting)

Black Ricco wrote:
The point is no one could afford to shoot 300 looks per view on film. The polaroids, the film, the processing, it would be totally cost prohibitive. You'd have to charge your client $400.00 an hour to make a living.

But now, they shoot 300 images per look...14-20 looks per day for somewhere between 7-20 days per shoot.  It's just what happens when you're on location, paying the big bucks for the models/the makeup & hair person, the assistants, the stylist, the producer, the guides, and the rental vehicles...  Once you've laid down all that money, an extra three rolls per look is nothing to complain about.

Heck, we've shot four packs of polaroid on ONE look before...just to get the right feel.  Every time that shutter clicks... $1.10.

But that's the breaks on big productions...

Garry k wrote:

Sorry I meant your Avatar ...

this avatar is buju banton when he just converted to rasta

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.

I never thought someone would finally start a thread about this...Oh So True!

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.

Nice Job on the bike

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

What a presumptuous ASS.  Like you know what "most people" on MM want.

Dexter Fletcher wrote:
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.

The real world?  I am so bloody tired of hearing this phrase.  The world is the real world.  We're all a  part of it.  How dare you guys consistently talk about commercial photography as being the only real world there is.  Photography covers a wide gamut, some of it commercial some not.  Enough with this "real world" crap. If you want to talk about your part in photography, then call it commercial or fashion or land based agencies, or whatever it specifically is, but quit negating the experiences of everyone else in the world who isn't in your REAL world.

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.

Honest to god, I think MM needs to have special a special forum for industry pros.   That way you have a safe space not to be sullied with the likes of people like myself.  With a pro only forum (you'd have to be voted in by other pros) you wouldn't have to tax yourselves with people who aren't in your real world and when you drop from the heavens to educate us pathetic slobs, it can be done nicely rather than shitting all over us like the pond scum we are.  Sound nice?  Then add onto this thread and see if tyler will comply.... https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=30967

KM von Seidl wrote:

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

What a presumptuous ASS.  Like you know what "most people" on MM want.

Dexter Fletcher wrote:
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.

The real world?  I am so bloody tired of hearing this phrase.  The world is the real world.  We're all a  part of it.  How dare you guys consistently talk about commercial photography as being the only real world there is.  Photography covers a wide gamut, some of it commercial some not.  Enough with this "real world" crap. If you want to talk about your part in photography, then call it commercial or fashion or land based agencies, or whatever it specifically is, but quit negating the experiences of everyone else in the world who isn't in your REAL world.




Honest to god, I think MM needs to have special a special forum for industry pros.   That way you have a safe space not to be sullied with the likes of people like myself.  With a pro only forum (you'd have to be voted in by other pros) you wouldn't have to tax yourselves with people who aren't in your real world and when you drop from the heavens to educate us pathetic slobs, it can be done nicely rather than shitting all over us like the pond scum we are.  Sound nice?  Then add onto this thread and see if tyler will comply.... https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=30967

And you are?

Mike Cummings wrote:
Just a couple of observations from a 1%er. Products don't blink, the wind does not blow in the studio, a small shutter lag won't make you miss the shot, and your products stay where you put them. I shoot because I enjoy it, so I shoot with what I can afford. You most likely have more equipment you don't use than I have equipment. You most likely have 1000 times more experience than I do.

So here is your challenge if you have the guts to take it. Shoot with what I shoot. Buy/borrow a Fuji FinePix S7000, use a car shade for a reflector, use a cheap ass strobe, and shoot a model that has had between 0 and 2 shoots.

Impress me get your shots down to a 6 to 1 ratio.

ouch... i'd never take that challenge.

i don't always shoot with a client, have since retiring shot for fun with a few less experienced models, and sure the shot count goes up. but unless i'm shooting sports/action... i'm not just rapid firing and hoping for the best. i have shot with completely inadequate gear. my reluctant investigation of my tolerance for digital deliberately saddled me with a digital rebel (figuring if i could deal with that i could deal with digital). that, a partially broken $35 camera flash and a playing card for deflection has often been my arsenal. it sucks to not have the big toys, and i'm very spoiled. but it is still possible to control the environment enough to keep things well below a 100:1 ratio.

not dissin anyone for NOT doing it my way. i only express my concern that perhaps it is not choice but acceptance of 'the easy way'. if thats not the case, god bless... have at it... cheers!

James Jackson wrote:
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.

oldguys can learn somethin now and then too

oldguysrule wrote:

ouch... i'd never take that challenge.

i don't always shoot with a client, have since retiring shot for fun with a few less experienced models, and sure the shot count goes up. but unless i'm shooting sports/action... i'm not just rapid firing and hoping for the best. i have shot with completely inadequate gear. my reluctant investigation of my tolerance for digital deliberately saddled me with a digital rebel (figuring if i could deal with that i could deal with digital). that, a partially broken $35 camera flash and a playing card for deflection has often been my arsenal. it sucks to not have the big toys, and i'm very spoiled. but it is still possible to control the environment enough to keep things well below a 100:1 ratio.

not dissin anyone for NOT doing it my way. i only express my concern that perhaps it is not choice but acceptance of 'the easy way'. if thats not the case, god bless... have at it... cheers!


oldguys can learn somethin now and then too

I have it down to about a 10 to 1 ratio now of passable photos, 20 to 1 of good photos, and 1000 to 1 great photos. Now if I were able to change lens, a real viewfinder instead of the tint LCD screen and had a faster shutter response, that ratio would improve.

Black Ricco wrote:
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.

I used to see top German catalog shooters in San Diego each winter delivering mailbags full of 120 rolls to the pro shop.  They certainly were shooting hundreds of images for each one used.  It was their method.

While I prefer to make only one photograph of each viewfinder image, sometimes I stretch it out to two, just to be sure.  That's my method.

Seems to me if their method works with the tools they have, why shouldn't they use it?  I mean, digital does make it free and easy to do that, so why not?

-Don

Manny Desalamanca wrote:
I shot a Lot Of Soccer !!!!...On Film.... 1 Game 80 Rolls of film, @36 per Roll...Do The Math, But at 5 Frames Per Second A roll goes Quick......


Some Photographers have to shoot so Much, That doesn't mean They Suck !...Worst Is The Phototgrapher That Shoots forever and Realizes there is No Film In The Camera......LOL....

Manny D.

Try a Wedding 20  (1)Gig Cards,....3 mb files...Maybe That's what The 196's should Shoot ? Not Bad....Let's get a club Going, That will give Us Pros More Fine Girls To Shoot !!!!!!!

I'd like to be a charter member of the 1% club.  I was always told "film is cheap", but I know 1 Gig cards are cheaper.

Dave Wright Photo wrote:
My question is...

WHO CARES how many shots it takes to get the good shot?

People who need validation.

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.

I think maybe you should try shooting babies for Pampers some time. Just try getting a 3 month old to smile for the camera or do anything but cry for that matter.

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.

OH Man....that is nice!!!!......and Yes.....I agree.....shooting chrome really takes some skill.....all those hotspots.......but if done right...like your example ....it just looks so smooth.....can't tell you how much satisfaction you feel when you know you got that shot......

Damnnn.....this one really impresses me....

Scott Meyer wrote:
I think maybe you should try shooting babies for Pampers some time. Just try getting a 3 month old to smile for the camera or do anything but cry for that matter.

They don't do much of anything after you put the vodka in their bottle... except, just kind of lay there and look cute. LOL

Studio36

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.

pretty good, but I think the logo should be lower. did you get any others?

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...

Actually, most of their shots would be what we'd consider "usable."

There-in lies the difference.  They are looking for the 1% that's ABOVE & BEYOND the awesome-ness of all of their other pics.

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.

here here!
TIME IS MONEY.

Zach Watkins wrote:
maybe its not how much you shoot, and how much is used from that particular shoot, but how much of that is usable?

you may only need 5-6 shots but if you have a few hundred more? stock use? maybe?

now if you're shooting like crazy and only 1% is useable, there might be a problem.

cheers!

Dave Wright Photo wrote:
My question is...

WHO CARES how many shots it takes to get the good shot?

I care when I end up editing them.

Jigo wrote:

People who need validation.

Yeah, this is an interesting thread....there are actually more professional photographers that make (or have made) their living in commercial or fashion photography than I have seen on any other thread....so maybe my 1% comment is truer than I thought.
BTW guys, good to see you here.........

Ann Marie wrote:

I care when I end up editing them.

I doubt, very highly, that any of us 1%ers are editing the other 99% of our photos. It is not in our blood. We shoot the rest to get THE shot.. not practice our photoshop skills.

frequency13 wrote:

Try shooting it while it's moving.



mark brummitt, all rights reserved.

papa-rotzzi wrote:

I doubt, very highly, that any of us 1%ers are editing the other 99% of our photos. It is not in our blood. We shoot the rest to get THE shot.. not practice our photoshop skills.

Yes, you're right.  1%ers DON'T edit their own work. They send us models a DVD with 500 full-sized pictures on it for US to edit. 

Ann Marie wrote:
Yes, you're right.  1%ers DON'T edit their own work. They send us models a DVD with 500 full-sized pictures on it for US to edit. 

Well, when models INSIST that they get EVERY shot from a shoot... Maybe they should re-think their demands.

(becareful what you wish for..)

markcomp wrote:

Try shooting it while it's moving.

nice shot mark.  if that point and shoot wasn't in the composition you wouldn't even know what era the photo had been shot in.

I love motorcycle and car guys who work on older motorcycles and cars...it's like seeing a part of history right there in front of you.

DarioImpiniPhotography wrote:
Only results at acceptable cost matter.  As the cost of "film" is no longer an issue, it doesnt matter how many shots it takes to get the one.

I agree entirely with the first part, and somewhat with the second.

Cost-effectiveness to get the needed results varies by genre. Product, portraiture, sports, weddings, fashion, forensics--they all have different costing methods.

When I shoot product, I tend to shoot tethered, and be much more deliberate in how I light, set angles, and so on. The first dozen or so shots taken will be to establish balance and double-check specularity, reflections, shadow detail, and the like, as tuning takes place.

It's much slower "per shot" than portraiture, and enormously slower than for sports or weddings--yet it's as appropriate for the work being done as the "overshooting" in sports or concerts is, while the carefully measured pace in traditional portraiture is more appropriate than the more in-depth approach used for editorial portraiture/celebrity portraiture.

It's not a one-size fits all; each genre has some practices which tend to work best--but they're not always 'best practices' for everyone.

Planning ahead should be done, sometimes to the point of knowing exactly what the desired final image is, but more genre don't work well when done to that level.

James Jackson wrote:

nice shot mark.  if that point and shoot wasn't in the composition you wouldn't even know what era the photo had been shot in.

I love motorcycle and car guys who work on older motorcycles and cars...it's like seeing a part of history right there in front of you.

That is one sweet ride.

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.

1%ers, that's funny. I make sure that all I throw out is 1%!!!