UdoR wrote:

I think we have a similar ratio.

I usually get 16/17 distinct images (pose, expression etc.) per about 20 frames that could be used and are part of the later selection process. Closed eyes, strobe didn't fire etc. are deleted immediately.

What I have to critizise with some photographers, even commercial ones, who proudly announce the gargantuan amount of frames they were shooting and using the highest number as a measurement how "hard" they were working.

Shooting in burst and hoping to get a lucky shot is not how I measure work, but the quality, meaning how many useable images are being produced.

I think that in my case, it's the result of shooting film from childhood on, and the development of photos was always expensive... and I never had much money, so I trained myself not to hit the shutter until I "felt" the image.

thats what i admire about film photographers. I have admittedly never touched a film SLR, but I've been taking steps to reduce my dependency on the newer devises, such as the LCD screen, by shutting it off.  By slowing down the process, my brain is allowed more time to think and compose properly We live in a world where "fast = better" but i don't see the point if these devices operate faster than the operator.

Black Ricco wrote:
You just described a David LaChappelle shoot.

David LaChappelle is a no-talent, Photoshop junkie, hack fad punk who's already over...

thank God.

Paris Hilton in a luxury suite giving the finger lit by ambient light. Wow... ooh... genius.

He got 30 minutes of fame instead of the usual 15.

Dude, i checked out your port, you should slow down.

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.

In my engineering days, I remember there were software jocks who thought they were the shit because they wrote in assembler, very close to the very arcane language microprocessors understand.  Along came higher level tools that allowed another group of software jocks to write conceptually, getting away from the nitty gritty details.  There was some tension between these two groups, as if one was somehow better than the other. 

Yeah, the conceptual software guys didnt get into the details, but it allowed them to think on a higher plane -- it freed them to experiment and work toward greater levels of functionality than the detail oriented guys.

Photography is on a technical path of innovation.  Cameras and associated technologies will get cheaper.  Ultimately it wont matter what your skill with the equipment is, but can you deliver the goods at acceptable cost.

Thats if you want to make it a business.  If you wanna fuck around as an artiste, sit in your studio and shoot with a pinhole camera and make fun of everybody else who pushes a shutter.

This hits closet the mark for me.  As I have said, i am no photographer, i beleive that there is such thing as a "photographer" who knows exactly how to control light, knows the correct ratio between apeture settings and iso, knows how to capture, develop, and print techinically perfect photographs.  I'm not one of these.  some of you are.  I am, however, a visual artist, and, although you may not be able to tell from my port, i use the newer technology to replace knowledge that it would take years and years to be able to increase the technical spect of photogaphy.  I am more concerned with creating an aesthetic, not what my light meter reads, not whether there is to much contrasty light in a room, not whether or not the picture will be a micron sharper if i stop down one step.

I think this is where the difference lays.  an artist's shooting ratio may be high compared to the technically gifted - mine isn't i should say - but that does not mean they do not deserve respect if they are producing quality images.  Images with soul.  I have seen ALOT of images on this sight that are technically stunning, but haven't got one little spark of life, and i have seen blurry oversatureated blownout snaps that take my brath away.

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.

In my engineering days, I remember there were software jocks who thought they were the shit because they wrote in assembler, very close to the very arcane language microprocessors understand.  Along came higher level tools that allowed another group of software jocks to write conceptually, getting away from the nitty gritty details.  There was some tension between these two groups, as if one was somehow better than the other. 

Yeah, the conceptual software guys didnt get into the details, but it allowed them to think on a higher plane -- it freed them to experiment and work toward greater levels of functionality than the detail oriented guys.

Photography is on a technical path of innovation.  Cameras and associated technologies will get cheaper.  Ultimately it wont matter what your skill with the equipment is, but can you deliver the goods at acceptable cost.

Thats if you want to make it a business.  If you wanna fuck around as an artiste, sit in your studio and shoot with a pinhole camera and make fun of everybody else who pushes a shutter.

This hits closet the mark for me.  As I have said, i am no photographer, i beleive that there is such thing as a "photographer" who knows exactly how to control light, knows the correct ratio between apeture settings and iso, knows how to capture, develop, and print techinically perfect photographs.  I'm not one of these.  some of you are.  I am, however, a visual artist, and, although you may not be able to tell from my port, i use the newer technology to replace knowledge that it would take years and years to be able to increase the technical spect of photogaphy.  I am more concerned with creating an aesthetic, not what my light meter reads, not whether there is to much contrasty light in a room, not whether or not the picture will be a micron sharper if i stop down one step.

I think this is where the difference lays.  an artist's shooting ratio may be high compared to the technically gifted - mine isn't i should say - but that does not mean they do not deserve respect if they are producing quality images.  Images with soul.  I have seen ALOT of images on this sight that are technically stunning, but haven't got one little spark of life, and i have seen blurry oversatureated blownout snaps that take my breath away.

Experimental Photoworks wrote:
"Yada yada yada I'm better than you blah blah blah"

When will people realize that  in addition to creating images a photographer also has to be able to work with people and possable have some type of social skills.

I don't care if it takes you 5 or 500 shots to get the one you need, If you are an asshole no one will want to get close enough to you to buy it.

Uh oh.. You weren't here for Black Ricco's coming out party..

Whoof.. I smell a cat fight.. Someone's gonna have blood in their stool tonight!

.....

...Nope can't think of anything grosser than that.

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.

In my engineering days, I remember there were software jocks who thought they were the shit because they wrote in assembler, very close to the very arcane language microprocessors understand.  Along came higher level tools that allowed another group of software jocks to write conceptually, getting away from the nitty gritty details.  There was some tension between these two groups, as if one was somehow better than the other. 

Yeah, the conceptual software guys didnt get into the details, but it allowed them to think on a higher plane -- it freed them to experiment and work toward greater levels of functionality than the detail oriented guys.

Photography is on a technical path of innovation.  Cameras and associated technologies will get cheaper.  Ultimately it wont matter what your skill with the equipment is, but can you deliver the goods at acceptable cost.

Thats if you want to make it a business.  If you wanna fuck around as an artiste, sit in your studio and shoot with a pinhole camera and make fun of everybody else who pushes a shutter.

The fond term of endearment for the detailed guys in Engineering now is "anal retentive".  So I guess in photography there may be only 2 types the "1%ers" and the "anal retentives".  I haven't heard an in between.

Rich Davis wrote:
The fond term of endearment for the detailed guys in Engineering now is "anal retentive".  So I guess in photography there may be only 2 types the "1%ers" and the "anal retentives".  I haven't heard an in between.

The ones in between are called the "taints" or "tainters" or "tainteithers" or "the taint". You get no where with the taint.

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"

Good point. 
For Portraits I shoot 3 rolls (different flavors each).  Not just for safety,  but for choice.  People like choice and plus not everyone agrees a what a good image is.

Now if you are shooting still life, then only a few shots is needed, but people... the mood changes in an instant.

Experimental Photoworks wrote:
"Yada yada yada I'm better than you blah blah blah"

When will people realize that  in addition to creating images a photographer also has to be able to work with people and possable have some type of social skills.

I don't care if it takes you 5 or 500 shots to get the one you need, If you are an asshole no one will want to get close enough to you to buy it.

very good point, actually it is rude to point, it reflects poor social skills.

John Jebbia wrote:
Bump. I'm just being a prick.

And you are very good at it

I guess I am a 1%er probably the original 1%er. . .

John Jebbia wrote:
Bump. I'm just being a prick.

I thought this BS looked familliar.  Then I saw the date.  Trying to stir things up John?

Digital Focus wrote:
sounds like someone wants a T-Shirt!

Uhhh.. I been eligible 4 times over.

John Jebbia wrote:
Bump. I'm just being a prick.

sounds to me like you're bored and want to see the monkeys fling poo at eachother some more!

Madcitychel wrote:
Who is a GWC? and how come I havet met them if there are so many of them here?

D@mn I always get to find out everything the last.

me me me!
I'm a guy!
I have a camera!

Jessalyn_54 wrote:

sounds to me like you're bored and want to see the monkeys fling poo at eachother some more!

fling poo = ancient asian art of excreable self-offense..?

Madcitychel wrote:
Who is a GWC? and how come I havet met them if there are so many of them here?

D@mn I always get to find out everything the last.

Sorry sweetie, I must have overlooked you...  Come on over, I'll bring you up to speed!

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.

Ricco, you can't take these website photographers seriously. They have day time jobs to support their hobby because they aren't good enough to make a living at photography.

Terrific job on your lighting style for the Harley shot. No hot spots at all. What I think is the problem is simple. Most hobby photographers have never shot with film for years, so they don't understand the need to understand photography.

I came across this with a website model. I shot to rolls of 36 and she said, "Is that all you are going to take"? I said, yes, I have the proper exposure and I bracketed my shots.

After all, we were only doing 4 poses. So she said to me, "Most photographers take at least 300 images of me"! I said, I don't no why, since all you have to do is shoot correctly. That was when people started to buy digital cameras and I didn't even think about going digital.

Since the same thing happend with the press cameras, if you didn't go to the SLR's, that left you behind, so I made the move to Digital and although it's nice to see a thumb nail and get an idea of the way it looks, it is still a good idea to have a knowledge of photography, and not rely on taking 1000's of pictures because a person doesn't know what to do, and just plays the odds of getting a good one.

Then comes the lighting which is so important. Understanding the laws of inversion, working with natural light and temperature change through the day. Working with daylight or tungsten film, opposite from having a digital camera set on automatic light balance and expecting the camera to come close.

No, Ricco, you are probably a very experienced photographer and it's nice that you were willing to share the image of the Harley, but there are a few things you must know.

There are professional critics on this website, and they feel if you are new to this website, you need to wait your turn before you start posting things. It doesn't matter if you have had years of experience and paid jobs. It's all about ego's.

So with ego's, goes critics, and these critics will say you scanned the image, or tell your what is wrong with the image, instead of just admitting or even knowing how difficult of a shot that is.

Just let them enjoy their little moments on a website, Ricco. They have to go to work everyday and be frustrated at the fact that they can not turn their photography skills into a living.

I would share images to thise little feeble minded people of what I get paid for, but they would only say, "You got paid for that"! After all, they aren't publishers, who know what sells, they are personal critics.

PapaVic Photography wrote:

me me me!
I'm a guy!
I have a camera!

Ok, who is the rest 98%?

Madcitychel wrote:


Ok, who is the rest 98%?

they don't count

it's all about meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Paramour Productions wrote:

Sorry sweetie, I must have overlooked you...  Come on over, I'll bring you up to speed!

Ha!

Riiiiiiight! like it is possible to overlook me!  Just be honest - you didn't know what that was either!

oldguysrule wrote:
lol... who dredged up this thread?

same here...then I saw him...up...up there...

oldguysrule wrote:
lol... who dredged up this thread?

The Jebbia.

BillyT wrote:
I came across this with a website model. I shot to rolls of 36 and she said, "Is that all you are going to take"? I said, yes, I have the proper exposure and I bracketed my shots.

You "shot to rolls of 36?" I usually like to shoot to some Bloodhound Gang or Garbage. I've never heard of "rolls of 36." Are they a new act?

And I was just wondering, if you have the proper exposure, why were you bracketing?

Black Ricco wrote:
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.
.

BillyT wrote:
There are professional critics on this website, and they feel if you are new to this website, you need to wait your turn before you start posting things. It doesn't matter if you have had years of experience and paid jobs. It's all about ego's.

So with ego's, goes critics, and these critics will say you scanned the image, or tell your what is wrong with the image, instead of just admitting or even knowing how difficult of a shot that is.

Just let them enjoy their little moments on a website, Ricco. They have to go to work everyday and be frustrated at the fact that they can not turn their photography skills into a living.

I would share images to thise little feeble minded people of what I get paid for, but they would only say, "You got paid for that"! After all, they aren't publishers, who know what sells, they are personal critics.

Some of us don't necessarily want to turn our photography skills into a living (because we'd rather stay with our six figure day job consulting gigs, but maybe that's just me).

Or how about this -- put the high horse away and offer constructive criticism that can help everyone. This is a community, not a place where you can throw around your ego and think you are somehow this professional photographer. Treat everyone else how you expect to be treated -- with respect.

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.

Probably one of the most honest answers Ive ever seen on this site
Yes, although I think you are being a little conservative but,If you havent got a good eitorial after shooting 300 frames......forget it..

DFWlens wrote:
FOOD FOR THOUGHT-

In one of my (dated) photography books the author talks about a colleague of his that shot a Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. In the pre-digital world of 35mm, he shot OVER 40,000 frames and to end up with 60ish in the magazine.

A 0.001% er.

No...a crap photographer

PN Photo wrote:

Some of us don't necessarily want to turn our photography skills into a living (because we'd rather stay with our six figure day job consulting gigs, but maybe that's just me).

Or how about this -- put the high horse away and offer constructive criticism that can help everyone. This is a community, not a place where you can throw around your ego and think you are somehow this professional photographer. Treat everyone else how you expect to be treated -- with respect.

Yeah, that's just you, but if you're hiring.

Kevin Bargeron wrote:
interesting term.  I'm glad I'm moving away from this the more I learn.  Funny thing is, I expect to get crap shots because I can't move my fingers (really, I can't).  Camera shake kills me all the time. 

I sincerely hope you can see some progression of quality in my work.  I do.  I don't want to be a 1%er mommy.  wahhhhhhhhhhhhh!

More light! and a higher shutter speed.  Rickets can't even stop you.  Ok it can stop you from winning a game of pickup sticks or applying lipstick.

You can do it.