| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/30/2004 10:33:39 PM · #1 |
Does the ease of taking hundreds or thousands of shots per day lower your quality per shot in a measurable way? I've read quite a few threads that discuss the thousands of shots people take with their new digital cameras, and often wonder how many photos were taken simply because the cost of each individual shot is essentially zero.
Is anyone here good about throwing out their bad shots and only keeping the "keepers"?
|
|
|
|
06/30/2004 10:35:08 PM · #2 |
I find myself even if I shoot 300-400 shots in a row, I only end up keeping 5-10. I think that is pretty picky.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2004 10:36:57 PM · #3 |
either pretty picky or pretty lousy 3-400 shots :p
|
|
|
|
06/30/2004 10:39:32 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by BikeRacer:
Does the ease of taking hundreds or thousands of shots per day lower your quality per shot in a measurable way? I've read quite a few threads that discuss the thousands of shots people take with their new digital cameras, and often wonder how many photos were taken simply because the cost of each individual shot is essentially zero.
Is anyone here good about throwing out their bad shots and only keeping the "keepers"? |
When I think of all the $$$ in film I've tossed over the years... Deleting all the rejects is FUN in digital. Except, of course, when the deleting finger gets too busy and deletes something good. |
|
|
|
06/30/2004 11:45:50 PM · #5 |
at first I took WAY too many shots, now that I under stand how my camera and lens combo will expose a shot based on the settings and available light I can now take less photos to get the desired results.
But I will still take 300 to 400 shots on an outing to make sure I capture everything
James
|
|
|
|
06/30/2004 11:47:02 PM · #6 |
| Really depends on if you chimp or not. |
|
|
|
06/30/2004 11:54:24 PM · #7 |
I think using a digital camera where you have enough memory to literally take hundreds of shots on a single shoot makes it easier to develop bad photography habits. I won't directly blame the technology, it is ultimately my fault, but I was starting to fall into the trap of simply taking more photos in hopes that some turn out instead of doing everything I can at the time of shooting to insure that I have done my best. Several weeks ago I lost 2 of my 3 memory sticks and suddenly was left with the ability to only capture about 50 best quality shots at a time. I haven't been able to purchase more memory just yet so on my photo shoots I have been forced to be even more careful. It has turned out to be a great experience for reminding myself to be more prepared and careful. I just keep telling myself to imagine how few shots Ansel Adams was able to take during each of his photo shoots and how beautiful his shots are. I may never get near that skill level but nevetheless it is a good feeling walking away from a shoot being reasonably sure I did my best to get the shots I wanted.
T |
|
|
|
06/30/2004 11:56:07 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Nazgul:
either pretty picky or pretty lousy 3-400 shots :p |
Not necessarily. I only 'keep' a few of the photos I shoot too, but that doesn't mean the ones I don't keep are bad. I just sometimes make 10 or 15 photos of the same thing and lots of those turn out good, but I only 'keep' my favorite of the group, regardless of how good or bad the others may be.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2004 12:08:46 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Really depends on if you chimp or not. |
Not that 'chimping' is even a bad thing but I don't think this subject is as much to do with chimping as it is about preparation and studying the viewfinder 'before' the shot is taken. Chimping will never help you with those one-time shots, it can, however, emmediately show you that you blew it if you weren't prepared. It is very dependent on your individual photgraphy. I enjoy landcape and scenic photography the most so having patience and the ability to study the shot before and after it is taken is a real asset. In this scenario chimping is smart but in the case of action photography too much chimping may cause you to miss an important shot.
T |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 12:13:16 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by timj351:
Originally posted by faidoi:
Really depends on if you chimp or not. |
Not that 'chimping' is even a bad thing but I don't think this subject is as much to do with chimping as it is about preparation and studying the viewfinder 'before' the shot is taken. Chimping will never help you with those one-time shots, it can, however, emmediately show you that you blew it if you weren't prepared. It is very dependent on your individual photgraphy. I enjoy landcape and scenic photography the most so having patience and the ability to study the shot before and after it is taken is a real asset. In this scenario chimping is smart but in the case of action photography too much chimping may cause you to miss an important shot.
T |
I think chimping is actually a good thing. The ability to see your shots after the fact and recompose or whatever to improve. |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 12:14:39 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by timj351:
Originally posted by faidoi:
Really depends on if you chimp or not. |
Not that 'chimping' is even a bad thing but I don't think this subject is as much to do with chimping as it is about preparation and studying the viewfinder 'before' the shot is taken. Chimping will never help you with those one-time shots, |
Umm, what's chimping?
|
|
|
|
07/01/2004 12:20:00 AM · #12 |
Sorry, chimping is a term that has been applied to the act of studying shots you just took in the LCD screen. It was coined because people resemble chimps, hunched over their cameras, when they are doing this. It can be addicting and often causes the photographer to miss an important shot because they are too busy reviewing their previous shots.
T |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 12:20:55 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by BikeRacer:
Umm, what's chimping? |
Chimping is when you have a good shoot and can't help but show someone the preview and you say "oohoohooh" to let them know about your excitement.
Message edited by author 2004-07-01 00:21:50. |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 12:24:41 AM · #14 |
What's a bad shot and what's a keeper. I can tell when I have underexposed,overexposed or just shook the heck out of the camera when I took the shot so I'll get rid of em. Generally I don't want to be deciding the fate of a shot I took on a 2" LCD. I wait till I get home in a comfortable environment so that I can pan all over the shot and see what else I might have captured.
I feel I am getting better by taking hundreds of shots on an outting, then looking to see what I liked or didn't like about the shot . Keeping a bad shot isn't such a bad thing either as the EXIF data might tell where you may have gone wrong.
I suppose if I is restricted to smaller Compact Flash I might be more conservative. |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 12:27:22 AM · #15 |
I think that the histogram feature if used correctly will help you become a better photographer or at least better pictures. Does anyone use it? Or do you shoot in RAW and work it out at home?
Message edited by author 2004-07-01 00:27:48. |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 12:33:48 AM · #16 |
I can see how being able to take 300-400 shots without worrying about running out of "film" or the cost in developing the pictures could lead someone to get sloppy in their photography, but it doesn't have to be that way.
I still try to take only the "best" pictures because even tho I don't have to develop the shots or spend money on them, I still DO have to download them, load them into PS, look at them, rotate them, sort through them, etc., all of which take TIME which is also valuable. So I don't take 100's of shots just because I can. :)
I will however take 10 or 15 shots sometimes of the same shot like John mentioned, without worrying about space. It's just a major plus of digi photography. I don't think doing this increases your sloppyness, but instead increases the chance of having the very best possible shot a great subject or idea you come across.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2004 12:41:05 AM · #17 |
I remember when I used to work at a professional film lab and we would have pros who had shot the fashion work for a catalog bring in 3-400 rolls of slides for what would wind up being about 30 images published. That means for every shot that gets used, there were 50 or so rejects.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2004 01:55:51 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by timj351:
Sorry, chimping is a term that has been applied to the act of studying shots you just took in the LCD screen. It was coined because people resemble chimps, hunched over their cameras, when they are doing this. It can be addicting and often causes the photographer to miss an important shot because they are too busy reviewing their previous shots.
T |
I guess I sorta-chimp then. I usually check to see what the exposure and histogram look like after an "important" shot. I try to keep the jumping and shrieking to a minimum...
|
|
|
|
07/01/2004 02:07:01 AM · #19 |
For me, chimping is learning so digital photography makes me a better photographer. Imagine aving to wait a day or a week to actually see the shot you take and try to remember what you did bad... maybe you will and maybe you wont. If you don't remember what was your mistake because of the delay then you can't learn from that mistake and you're not improving your skills. If you have a digital camera and you "chimp" after each shot, you instantly learn what you did wrong and you'll never do it again. That way you become a better photograper in my opinion. I think that digital photography will make more good photographer than anytime before in history.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2004 02:09:45 AM · #20 |
I usually take 100 shots to get 5 good (keeper)...
I am pretty good in photoshop, so my first idea is to take any shot and fix it later in photoshop.... but i learn that a bad photo never became a good one in photoshop, it just getting less bad, but never been good or even amazing....
So taking more care of light, composition and idea... is always paying back...
I have not much experience, but that little idea save me a lot of time, and give me some good shots. Having my photo critique here is another way to improve... And beleive it or not, participing in the open challenge with a no edition rule... force me to take better picture first !...
Message edited by author 2004-07-01 02:10:57.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2004 03:17:28 AM · #21 |
| I have 416 on my computer and ive taken 1177 |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 09:45:40 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Not necessarily. I only 'keep' a few of the photos I shoot too, but that doesn't mean the ones I don't keep are bad. I just sometimes make 10 or 15 photos of the same thing and lots of those turn out good, but I only 'keep' my favorite of the group, regardless of how good or bad the others may be. |
I love being able to do this! I think that is how most pros do it too. It's just more affordable to do digitally! I did this on 35mm film one weekend and it cost me a couple hundred bucks! OUCH! |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 09:50:41 AM · #23 |
| Most pros with film take a LOT of shots. Maybe not as many as with digital, but it's still a fair number. All digital allows you to do is get feedback quicker (having a quick chimp) and save a LOT of money. |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 09:57:28 AM · #24 |
I think it has a lot to do with the individual and the situation.
For example, two people that shoot 12 shots of the same subject might have very different rationales for doing that. One person might be blasting away from all angles hoping for a winner. Another may be shooting only 2-3 carefully thought out angles, but is heavily bracketing to be on the safe side. Yet another might shoot from one carefully thought out angle only but is experimenting with many different depths of field, and maybe bracketing as well. The possibilities go on and on.
I think that is the long-winded way of saying I don't see anything wrong with shooting in relatively high numbers compared to film - it is all about what serves your particular purpose and style. Digital media provides a distinct cost-effective advantage over film that I like to leverage, if for no other purpose than self-education and experimentation.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2004 10:12:43 AM · #25 |
If you are just shooting randomly, don't look carefully at the good and the bad and learn from them and are hoping to get lucky, then shooting a lot is a waste of time, regardless of if it is with film or with digital.
If you are trying new ideas, exploring options and learning from the results then shooting a lot is the best way to learn - regardless of if it is with film or with digital.
Every exposure costs you something, every sloppyly exposed frame is a missed opportunity, every time you feel you have to fix something in photoshop is a waste of your time. Sloppy techniques make you a bad photographer - the tools you use are just that - tools.
I quite often use my camera like a sketch book, exploring ideas, trying out concepts until I get a better idea of what picture I want to actually take - those frames are 'wasted' in that they are never final shots - but they are used to build to the end result - again, digital or film - it doesn't matter.
I've heard it described as digital being good for people who like to pay all at once, and film being good for those who want to pay a little amount all the time.
I've calculated the film costs for the equivalent amount of digital exposures to what I've made - and it works out about even...
Digital can be a great learning tool. Having all the exif/ shot data pre-recorded, without having to write it down for each exposure is extraordinarily powerful as a learning device. It is up to the photographer if they bother to learn and improve and use all the options available to them.
So no - digital cameras don't make you a bad photographer. Being a bad photographer makes you a bad photographer.
Some days I deliberately go out with enough CF to make exactly one RAW image. I might take several hours to find the right subject, set it up and take that one shot - certainly focuses the mind. I could just as easily do that with film too. Tools just give you options, you have to choose how you use them.
Message edited by author 2004-07-01 10:14:33.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/19/2025 01:29:13 PM EDT.
