|
Forums >
General Industry >
How Many Photos Do You Take?
If shooting on 6x6 (6x9) I would plan on 4 (2) shots from 12 (8), on 35mm it would average 10 shots from 36, on 5"x4" or 10"x8" between 2 to 4 sheets maximum. I find that planning shoots in advance saves on time and gives maximum return in terms of money. I have never understood why anyone would shoot 100 exposures if the client only needs 1 image. I have tried digital and my average exposures have been the same as for large format. Sep 16 06 07:05 am Link I shoot 256 cards which almost relates to a couple of rolls of film, remember that stuff.. When the card is filled you think do I want to go on am I getting good stuff if you're not then the card being filled is your excuse to end the shoot. But shooting you have to think ahead, are you going for a special shot or look or are you letting the model pose shooting as she goes. I just shot a model from an agency and she was posing great! She's the one with the bag flying out at her side. So why stop? Almost every shot she did had a great look to it so it is hard picking just one. But then we slowed down and I did a commercial looking shot with her looking down at the bag. That was very good, commercial looking, but the other shots had more attitude to them. Both are great, letting the model go if she poses good like this one, you get a lot of great shots, but to shoot for a mood or a style you might slow down to make art, and that can't be rushed. So it depends but I like to stop after filling two 256 cards also because they fit on one cd for burning and sending to the model. And if I don't get 198 great shots out of the two cards, then I'm not shooting right and continuing won't produce anything better. Not for that day, and some models just are too green, so there is only so much they will let you shoot or they can do. But I'm sure all of you come out with some great shots, looking at most of the work here I can't believe some of the smoking shots I see. Love some of the backgrounds and locations people have. It makes me go looking for locations for my next shoot! Sep 19 06 03:32 am Link I have always believed that those who shoot hundreds of images hoping to get a couple of decent shots, the shotgun approach to photography as it were, is about the same as giving a monkey a camera with a motor drive and eventually he will come up with an interesting body of work too. Chances are that if someone needs to take that many pictures, they usually haven't a clue or vision to guide their choices. One of the distinguishing features of the great photographers is their ability to look through this mechical device and impose their will upon the resulting image. It is therefore easy to spot their work amongst the billions of anonymous pictures taken every year. Whereas, most photographers who let their cameras take the pictures without any guidance on their part usually results in photographs with no discernable merit, style, or point of view. Sep 19 06 03:52 am Link A bit of both.... When I shoot film I am always conscious of that moment when I press the shutter; did I wait too long? Did I shoot too soon? How many shots / rolls of film / much time is there left? With digital I do the same, but then I sometimes fire off randomly in case the camera captures something I am not seeing, and many times the latter way of shooting has yielded images better than the wait-for-it moments Sep 19 06 04:35 am Link I have never felt disappointed that I shot too many images, but I have felt like I wish I had shot more. So I tend to shoot more rather then less. It is not unheard of for me to shoot 1200-1500 shots in a 6 hour time frame. Of course shooting digital makes that economically feasable and going through the images afterwards to pick that golden one is time consuming but the satisfaction of the client is number one. GW Sep 19 06 05:24 am Link I am an ex film shooter. As a result, I tend to wait for the shot before I trip the shutter. On a two hour shoot, I take about 200-300 photos. Sep 19 06 07:30 am Link Hmm... I figure of an average shoot of 200 shots, about 25% are keepers, and maybe 1-5 shots are real gems. Paul Sep 19 06 07:43 am Link Patrick Alt wrote: My feelings exactly. Sep 19 06 07:45 am Link More than I need to when I'm shooting, and few than I should've taken when I'm editing. Sep 19 06 07:49 am Link I've got a friend that works for Northrop as an electrical engineer. He designs telemetry systems for the Space Shuttle and some F type military jet. He and I got together to see if something could be done about the buffer bottleneck between the EOS 1DsMII and the computer. It only works tethered at the moment and he sold the technology to Leaf which has used it in a product they are announcing at Photokina or some such kina thing. It speeds the process to the point where you can shoot without stopping. The Leaf Aptus 75 that comes out next year will have this feature. I can start shooting and not stop until I fill a hard drive. It takes me about 45 minutes to fill a Lacie 500 GB Big Drive. It has given me a new found freedom of expression and a multitude of images to choose from in the editing process that I never would have had access to. I simply put the camera on continuous drive and go. A few problems arise from this, chief among them is storage. Each job I do now requires the purchase of a least 2 drives. I run through batteries way more quickly, so I've had to buy a number more of them. The cameras tend to overheat so I've had to buy and modify 4 more of them and to my surprise, the biggest problem is the talent on set. They simply poop out. Can you imagine a 20 year old kid getting tired from modeling. Sep 19 06 07:53 am Link For me 24-36 per look Its not about how many time I can release the shutter once I have the lighting I want then its about composition. I work hard to get it right before releasing the shutter I try to do nothing is post and have technically correct images if nothing else for product and cars I shoot till the art director is happy I have hit it in under 10 frames on several occasions. ______ If you donât think your career is worth the cost of professional images why should I think you are worthy of professional images? Sep 19 06 08:48 am Link +/- 60 to 130 per shoot. Depends on what I shoot and where. Once I was on Zolder Circuit and shot 300 pictures. Sep 19 06 09:08 am Link I shoot about 100 per hour, about 25-30 are keepers. For TFCD, the model picks 3 per hour for retouching and we usually shoot two looks per hour. Sure, my goal is to decrease my total rate without decreasing the keeper rate, but I think it's a little snooty to say that photography is going to hell in a handbasket because digital shooters can afford more takes and mistakes. It's like saying you can't be a novelist unless you use a manual typewriter. I have mad respect for anyone who can write a page of prose without errors or rewrites, but I grew up in a world of word processor software and my brain *thinks* differently because of it. I'll draft, copy/paste, redraft, reflow, edit, and refactor. As a programmer, I've heard the same thing from old-school programmers about the good old days when Real Men Used Punch Cards, when you had to wait in line to compile your code, etc. Being able to produce great work when your technology requires measure-twice-cut-once is commendable, but the "great work" is still the most important part, not the process. Sep 19 06 11:36 am Link Shoot until the magic is achived... I tend to agree with most, that it really depends on a multitude of specifics... Location, Model, changing etc. Sep 19 06 11:43 am Link As usual I am amazed by the near intellectual anger by some on this post and others like it, since this topic has been dealt with before. Why do some of you care so much how many shots another photographer takes? I've heard phrases like "spray and pray" and "If it takes more than 30 you'll never make it" Never make what I wonder?? Those on that side of the argument seem to feel artistically superior to those who shoot more frames per hour, as if, by default, that shooting method somehow guantees "better" picture. It does not In the final analysis the ONLY thing that matters is the finished image. Whether it took 1000 shutter clicks to get or whether it's photoshopped to its inth pixel its no concern of anyone but the photogs. Sep 19 06 11:59 am Link gklosswa wrote: Both... Depends on what I'm shooting. For the most part, I watch and wait. But if I'm shooting a band (live) sometimes things/movements happen so quick, I just snap away. Sep 19 06 12:16 pm Link vanscottie wrote: EXACTLY! I was invited to a group shoot this summer by another photographer... At the end, he asks me, "So, how many did you shoot...?", I think I took 120 some. He says, "I shot over 700!" and laughs, all proud of himself. I'm like, 'yeah, if you need to take that many shots, I wonder how many of them are any good!". *shakes head* Sep 19 06 12:22 pm Link Rossi Photography wrote: Exactly?? I think i was taking the other side of that debate. However anyone overly proud of shooting MORE shots as someone else is as ridiculous as someone proud of himself for shooting less. Sep 19 06 01:51 pm Link I shoot when I "feel" the photo is right and I don't shoot burst. So, I have fewer images to throw away than many other photographers have. For me... the number of distinctively different and useable images is the key, I am more interested in how many images are worthy to keep, vs. how many I am proudly able to delete. Sep 19 06 02:09 pm Link Stephen Melvin wrote: yeah baby. lmao... typo thanks... i tend to use the short rolls and ehh... some equivalent if digital. sheet film i try to keep it to 3-4. Sep 19 06 02:22 pm Link Note: I'm a film shooter (med and 35, mostly med these days), but I do shoot digital as well. Sometimes I click a lot, sometimes very little, depending on the model, the nature of the shoot, and the intent. One thing I do a lot of, though, is to take several different approaches to the "same" shot. I don't really stick to literally to storyboard. I prefer to feel my way through a story, starting with an idea but looking for the best way to describe each look, each page, while in the process. That has a lot to do with the fact that I'm an editorial guy as opposed to an advertising guy. Sep 19 06 03:22 pm Link vanscottie wrote: Oops! My mistake. LMAO!!! Sep 19 06 03:27 pm Link Back in the days of film, I had this theory I called the Keeper Ratio. When I first started with photography, I exposed 2 36 exposure rolls of 35mm film a week, and of those, I liked maybe 10 of them enough to print, and liked maybe 3-4. As I got better, that "keeper" ratio went up -- when I liked 14+ per week (or better than 20%), that was an indication that I could/should move up in format. That's when I got a Bronica ETR camera, which exposed 15 exposures on one 120 roll film. So, I exposed 2 rolls a week. But learning the new format (and increasing my standards), I only had maybe 3 "keepers" per week. When I got better, I moved to a 6x7 camera (2 rolls of 10 exposures per roll), and my ratio dropped a little bit again. Then I figure that when my "Keeper" ratio gets up there, I figure it'll be time to try my hand at using a 4x5 view camera. I'm currently on the 6x7 camera, and it used to be that during a 3 hour sitting, I'd expose 100 images (10 rolls). But digital messed that all up. That, and some eye troubles that makes it difficult for me to focus my camera & work in the darkroom. So, now, I probably expose maybe 200-250 images per sitting. Sep 19 06 03:34 pm Link About 10 years ago, I had the pleasure of spending the day with Ruth Bernhard (http://www.womeninphotography.org/ruthbernhardAA.html) -- a bonifide master photographer. I asked her this same question: how many exposures does she make during one of her photography sessions? Her answer: "Just the one." Sep 19 06 03:37 pm Link Ruth Bernhard was a great photographer. A very specific sort of photographer. And her work reflects her method and her persona. (Met her once, she was over 90 at the time, very, very tiny, and as big as the room. Extremely articulate and very clearly spoken in her thoughts and explanations, despite her accent.) Her work strikes m as beautiful, symbolic, timeless, labored, controlled, and frankly contrived. If those aren't your goals, choose another working method. Sep 19 06 04:10 pm Link There are many who just shoot for shooting sake and hope they got something good. But there are some of us who learned and were trained on film. Since film cost money, we learned how to be more judicious in how we shoot. Which means we take more careful consideration before we push the shutter to make sure the shot is what we really want. I'm on eof those photographers. Unfortunately there are a great many who have no idea what film is and are spoiled by the delete function of the digi cam. They have not learned photography correctly. They shoot snapshots where we professionals photograph portraits. Sep 19 06 04:25 pm Link Depends. 10-100/hr. Gotta love digital! :-) Sep 19 06 04:30 pm Link I just finished Patricia Bosworth's biography of Diane Arbus. Diane used to force her sitters to sit for hours and hours until she literally broke them down and got the shot she wanted, shooting hundreds of shots in the process, only quitting when she ran out of film. I generally just shoot as many as it takes. Sep 19 06 04:37 pm Link Bob Randall Photography wrote: Damn you rich fancy schmancy folks...all I want is just one simple D200 (with one of them lens thangs) and I'll be happy Sep 19 06 04:48 pm Link Maynard Southern wrote: Part of the problem in our society is the demarcation between haves and have nots. I prefer to be on the side of the haves and invested my money into myself to achieve this goal. Cameras, equipment, etc... Probably the single biggest factor in reaching any level of success for me has been the sheer volume of work I produce. I inundate my clients with so many choices they seldom look elsewhere because they know they are going to find that gem they're looking for in the thousands of pictures I give them to choose from. Sep 19 06 05:30 pm Link Lacking talent and skill, I point my digital camera in the general direction of the model and keep hitting the button until the photo-shoot is over. That's about 500 images per shoot. By sheer chance, a few come out OK. Sep 19 06 05:38 pm Link Set up your shot the way you want it, get everything correct and take your shot. Film or digital. You can tweak it after in digital but the key is to get the shot right out of the camera and not spend a bunch of time on PP. Since I started wtih film I still shoot like I am shooting film I guess. If I had started wtih digital I bet I would take a lot more shots. Sep 19 06 05:43 pm Link I have been so used to shooting with very little time (actors, directors and their ilk will give you "three minutes"), that sometimes I run out of steam after a 120 film roll (10 exposures in 6x7) or 20 in 220. In the case of Italian actor Vittorio Gassman I took 10 photos and here are the 9 from the contact sheet. The keeper was the first exposure on the top rigth when he told me, "Alex wait for me to get ready." Alexwh   Sep 19 06 05:50 pm Link alexwh wrote: I'm afraid under my regimen of shooting and given his age, Vittorio may have melted. What did you do to make his face purple? Sep 19 06 05:54 pm Link One of the reasons why I disagree with volume shooting is that I find that when I shoot very little, every time I choose to press the shutter, it is very important because I am choosing and not depending on chance. To choose the moment of exposure is crucial. It is no different to being in complete control of a horse so that when you make a gentle push with the heel or an ever so slight pull of the reins, the horse reacts exactly as one wants it to. For a test shoot with an undraped model over an evening or long afternoon I might shoot 1 roll of 220 (20 exposures) and one roll of 35m Kodak b+w infrared. I would rather shoot a very good model on several days with little film than lots of film in one day. I get more variety this way. If you use the principle of a broad/flat lighting you might depend on volume shooting to get different movements and expressions. The moment you bring in a 3x4 ft softbox (really close) a slight swivel of the box might allow just a bit more light on the dark side of the face (when you have the box on one side). Gentle moving in quarter of an inch increments can change the shadow of the face and enhance or detract an ixpression or emotion. I spend more time with this softbox fine tuning that shooting volume. Alexwh Sep 19 06 06:00 pm Link Bob Randall Photography wrote: For years I have selenium toned my prints. Some get this colour. I scan my b+w prints as colour so the colour is transfered. Or in some cases I scan my b+w negs with two available choices on my Epson: Sep 19 06 06:03 pm Link I also think that the equipment we use, in the long run, affects how we shoot. I process my b+w film and the maximum rolls I can do at one time in a tube roller tank is 4 120s or 4 220s. Film is expensive and I hate processing. So I try to do various magazine assignments in one tank loading and in many cases I can do two jobs with one roll of 120 (10 exposures). This is not as hard as you might think if in each assignment you take one confirming/test b+w Polaroid. I like b+w Polaroid because it is more accurate at 100 ISO and there is only a 30 second wait. The 690 colour Polaroid varies a lot and the wait is an almost eternal 90 seconds. Because I use a Mamiya RB I look at every shot as a vertical and or horizontal shot. I might shoot a magazine assignment with two verticals, two horizontals and an extra one in the shape that allows the tighter in-camera-crop. Alexwh Sep 19 06 06:10 pm Link Michael Medrano wrote: Really? Does this mean that when we shoot with film that all lighting and subjects will automatically conform to the image we have in mind? Models will no longer blink, all of the elements will come to a stand still. We'll no longer feel the need to experament with different angles and lighting. Sep 19 06 07:09 pm Link jmc wrote: You "never understood?" Are you sure, or are you just pretending to be better than others. Because "not understanding" sounds like an insult to your own intelligence or a shot at the skills of others. Sep 19 06 07:27 pm Link As many as I need to. But I have a film background, so if I shoot 100 pics of a model, it is a good shoot. However, I have gotten 4-5 great photos in shoots of 50. To help me speed up, I have been doing documentary photography, and kayaking around areas with birds and taking pictures of spiders spinning webs. However, when I do lightpainting, if I take 20 pics I am lucky because of all the work involved. Self portraits or timer work is the same. Sep 19 06 07:30 pm Link |
