How many photos a week do you take?
Lee K
and you make 500 shots per week".....
That seems like a lot of shots for the "casual" user.
How many shots do you take in a given week?
YoYo
Now with digital I shoot 20 rolls a month (400 - 500 pics)
"Lee K" <lee_k...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2kt4vhF...@uni-berlin.de...
Colm
--
Colm
"Lee K" <lee_k...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2kt4vhF...@uni-berlin.de...
Thomas
On an everyday week, usually shoot around 1 roll of 36 a week. But with
special occaisions, or if im working on a project make that more like 10 -
20 rolls.
Drifter
wrote:
somewhere between 80-190
Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
Frank ess
couple-three hundred.
I had to check.
I was surprised.
But I don't regret a single one.
Mike
out!! :-)
Mike
"Lee K" <lee_k...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2kt4vhF...@uni-berlin.de...
Gary
"Lee K" <lee_k...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2kt4vhF...@uni-berlin.de...
Ken Nadvornick
Hi "Lee K,"
I don't photograph using a digital camera, preferring film instead. Because
of that, I don't usually post to the digital NG. But I couldn't resist this
particular question since my "shots per week" experience is so different.
When participating in the rpe35mm SI, I usually bulk load 12 film frames for
each 2-week exercise. I rarely use - or need - them all. Often I seem to
get what I'm looking for in 6-9 exposures, sometimes less. I think my
lowest count to date was 4 exposures. (In fairness, my highest was 24 for
the current "Friday Night" mandate as I was bracketing, using up to
555-second reciprocity-corrected exposure times with only moonlight for
illumination.)
Bear in mind that I'm not *trying* to economize. There is no need, as the
film cost per exposure is only about 3+ cents (US) per frame. It's just
that I spend a fair amount of time in advance thinking about what I want to
say and how I want to say it. Once this has been determined - and it is by
far the most difficult part of making a photograph - I then pick up the
camera and work until the image I envisioned, or as close as I can get to
it, is on the film.
For the life of me, I can't imagine what type of subject matter or
expression could cause a normal "casual user" to feel compelled to release a
shutter on any camera 500 (or more) times each week, presumably week after
week after week...
Ken
J...@no.komm
"Lee K" <lee_k...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I just rolled over the 30,000 mark on my 10D this weekend. I've had the
camera for 57 weeks, so that's an average of 30000/57 = 526/wk.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Zebedee
"YoYo" <Yo...@none.of your.business.com> wrote in message
news:10einus...@corp.supernews.com...
> When I used 35mm film I shot 2 rolls a week
>
> Now with digital I shoot 20 rolls a month (400 - 500 pics)
Well, today I took 85 photos.
I can take up to 150 in a day.
--
Yours
Zebedee
(Claiming asylum in an attempt
to escape paying his debts to
Dougal and Florence)
bagal
so what so what?
I won't repeat the rest :-)
no harm meant of intended it was just the choice of i've been here i've been
there
dah da-da-da-da-dah
dB
"Frank ess" <fr...@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:7feGc.30202$Fy....@twister.socal.rr.com...
Bob Hatch
During the period July thru Oct, around 360 or so per day. While on vacation
maybe only 30 to 50 per day average. Some weeks only 20 or 30.
Probably average around 30,000 or so images per year, all subjects combined.
--
"Your money does not cause my poverty. Refusal to believe
this is at the bottom of most bad economic thinking." --P. J. O'Rourke
http://www.bobhatch.com
Big Bill
I see this a lot.
You don't nderstand why others do what you do, differently?
Think outside yourself for a while. Maybe insted of just saying, "I
don't understand it", you could *try* to understand it.
Photography is not just abot getting what you see in your mind on film
(or sensor). For many, it's about getting what's *there* on film (or
sensor).
While your particular vision may be just one part of what's in front
of you (and there's certainly nothing wrong with that, don't get me
wrong), others want to get what's there, and that often takes more
than a few shots.
For example, I can go to a museum with some friends; we all shoot
digitally. One is an "artiste", and uses hos camera to get just those
shots that 'come to him'. He'll shoot maybe 10 shots in a day.
Another will take one shot of just about each thing there; he can take
up to 150 or sho shots.
I will shoot several pics of everything there; that's what I do. Each
shot is different.
Just as an example, we went to an airplane museum; I shot several
hundred pics, taking shots from different angles, to show the
different charasteristics of the planes. The "artiste" shot about 70
pics that day, and none looked like mine.
Different strokes for different folks.
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Ron Hunter
Been averaging 71 shots a week since I bought my latest digital camera.
Of course, one of those weeks was spent on an Alaskan Cruise, and that
did skew the average a bit.
Drifter
>do the lyrics run along the lines of
>so what so what?
>
>I won't repeat the rest :-)
>
>no harm meant of intended it was just the choice of i've been here i've been
>there
actually...
http://www.historicomaha.com/omahasng.htm
Not that I'm from Omaha but I always liked the tune.
David Dyer-Bennet
I'd classify myself as a moderately-crazed amateur. My shooting rate
varies quite widely from week to week depending on motivation level
and what I'm doing (what shots fall in front of me without special
effort).
On my digital equipment, I've shot 215 a month over the last 4 years
and a bit. (Note "month", not week). My film use during that period
has been *way* down, to the point in the late parts of hardly being
worth figuring -- probably fewer than 50 rolls in the entire 4+
years. Adding a SWAG of 30 rolls to the total, about 236 shots a
month.
(The count from the digital work, in my case, actually means about the
same thing as the count from film. My deleting is very light, and
almost nothing but technical errors. On film I often shot *more*
since I couldn't verify that I'd gotten lucky while the subject was
still in front of me.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
st...@temple.edu
I am not a professional photographer by any means. For me, it depends on
the week. If its a week when I am on vacation, I can shoot two or three
thousand photos with my Digtal Rebel. If its a week where I just get up
and go to work, then come home every day, I might not shoot any photos.
This past weekend, since it was the July 4th holiday, I probably shout
around 800 images.
Ken Nadvornick
Hi Bill,
> I see this a lot.
I'm glad to read this, Bill, as it confirms to me that I'm not the only
person out there seeking to understand this phenomenon.
> You don't nderstand why others do what you do, differently?
Precisely so, regarding this particular topic. That's why I'm asking. When
I find that I don't understand something I encounter in the world, I always
ask those who do understand to please explain it to me. It's how I learn.
> Think outside yourself for a while. Maybe insted of just saying, "I
> don't understand it", you could *try* to understand it.
I am trying, Bill. That's why I'm asking. I didn't say, "I *refuse* to
understand it." It's quite possible that given an explanation, I may find
that another's approach to the same or similar problems as mine may indeed
be superior to my approach. It also may not. But in either case, the only
stupid question is, of course, the unasked one.
> Photography is not just abot getting what you see in your mind on film
> (or sensor). For many, it's about getting what's *there* on film (or
> sensor).
> While your particular vision may be just one part of what's in front
> of you (and there's certainly nothing wrong with that, don't get me
> wrong), others want to get what's there, and that often takes more
> than a few shots.
Now this sort of explanation is exactly what I seek. My approach is to
explore a potential subject, be it real or abstract, mentally *before* I
pick up the camera. This behavior likely originated - and not
surprisingly - with use of my 4x5 field camera, where making a photograph is
not a trivial exercise. (Not overly difficult, mind you, just not something
one does without a bit of preparation.) Your above described approach is an
entirely different type of solution.
> For example, I can go to a museum with some friends; we all shoot
> digitally. One is an "artiste", and uses hos camera to get just those
> shots that 'come to him'. He'll shoot maybe 10 shots in a day.
> Another will take one shot of just about each thing there; he can take
> up to 150 or sho shots.
> I will shoot several pics of everything there; that's what I do. Each
> shot is different.
Again, two different solutions to the same problem, both of which differ
from my own - and another possible opportunity to learn. But, also again,
not unless one is allowed to express one's non-understanding of those
approaches and ask those who do understand them for an explanation.
> Just as an example, we went to an airplane museum; I shot several
> hundred pics, taking shots from different angles, to show the
> different charasteristics of the planes. The "artiste" shot about 70
> pics that day, and none looked like mine.
Even more facinating to me, as I have also done so at the Boeing Museum of
Flight in Seattle, Washington. They also, as one might imagine, have an
impressive collection of historic aircraft. What facinates me is that my
approach was so markedly different. Not better, just different.
I walked in to a largely deserted display hanger and promptly sat down to
think for a bit. I wanted to get a "feel" for the history represented by
the magnificent craft I saw before my eyes. I wanted to imagine the combat
pilots tucked into those unbelievably tight cockpits of the WWII fighters.
What did they think? How did *they* feel? How did their sacrifices change
the world? And change my world? And the world as it will be for my son?
This is what I meant when I wrote, "thinking about what I want to say and
how I want to say it." I find it to be the most meaningful step in the
making of a photograph - even one intended simply to record an object.
After an appropriate amount of time, I then picked up my camera. Did this
small amount of personal "preparation" make the photos any better? Dunno.
But I'd like to think (hope) so.
My goal here now is to understand if the techniques represented by the
quantities of images made per week as mentioned in this thread may, in fact,
be a *better* way for me to approach those photographs next time. They
could very well be, but I won't know more until I know more regarding that
which I don't understand. Understand?
> Different strokes for different folks.
Indeed. And as it should be...
Thanks, Bill, for your reply and input,
Ken
Gary
construction
"Gary" <satma...@REMOVEMEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WugGc.29843$P7.9466@pd7tw3no...
Gary
<J...@no.komm> wrote in message
news:md7je0t3c56pdqp5e...@4ax.com...
Steve Almond
"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:m2d6397...@gw.dd-b.net...
> "Lee K" <lee_k...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > In another thread, the poster used the phrase "if you're an occasional
user
> > and you make 500 shots per week".....
> >
> > That seems like a lot of shots for the "casual" user.
> >
> > How many shots do you take in a given week?
>
> I'd classify myself as a moderately-crazed amateur. My shooting rate
> varies quite widely from week to week depending on motivation level
> and what I'm doing (what shots fall in front of me without special
> effort).
>
> On my digital equipment, I've shot 215 a month over the last 4 years
> and a bit. (Note "month", not week).
David,
That's over 10,000 photographs in the past 4 years. What do you do with
them?
Is you house wallpapered from top to bottom with photographs?
Do you spend hours every day looking at them on your monitor?
Do you have a shoebox full of CDs full of photographs?
Just curious,
Steve
Sabineellen
>Hi "Lee K,"
>
>I don't photograph using a digital camera, preferring film instead. Because
>of that, I don't usually post to the digital NG. But I couldn't resist this
>particular question since my "shots per week" experience is so different.
>
>When participating in the rpe35mm SI, I usually bulk load 12 film frames for
>each 2-week exercise. I rarely use - or need - them all. Often I seem to
>get what I'm looking for in 6-9 exposures, sometimes less. I think my
>lowest count to date was 4 exposures. (In fairness, my highest was 24 for
>the current "Friday Night" mandate as I was bracketing, using up to
>555-second reciprocity-corrected exposure times with only moonlight for
>illumination.)
>
>Bear in mind that I'm not *trying* to economize. There is no need, as the
>film cost per exposure is only about 3+ cents (US) per frame. It's just
>that I spend a fair amount of time in advance thinking about what I want to
>say and how I want to say it. Once this has been determined - and it is by
>far the most difficult part of making a photograph - I then pick up the
>camera and work until the image I envisioned, or as close as I can get to
>it, is on the film.
>
>For the life of me, I can't imagine what type of subject matter or
>expression could cause a normal "casual user" to feel compelled to release a
>shutter on any camera 500 (or more) times each week, presumably week after
>week after week...
>
>Ken
>
Hi Ken,
I too have several Film cameras and generally speaking I prefer film. I also
take part in the rpe35mm SI, which i find an extremely useful educational
exercise. I agree with you that I would run out of subjects or perspectives to
shoot if I do 500 a week, though some say they even shoot 100s per day. I just
recieved my HP 945 yesterday so today i'll take it with me on a halfday trip to
another town and see how it goes. I should have enough memory and batteries for
just under 400 shots (just over 350). I'll do street photography but also will
have the current SI in the back of my mind if i see any worthwhile
opportunities. I'll have nothing to prove or disprove to anyone but I'm just
curious for myself. I'll probably share my experience though, but I'm likely to
do so here rather than in rpe35mm to avoid irating Matt (Clara) ;-)
Regards,
Mike
Charlie Self
camera, I average something like 60 shots a week. Most of the time, that's all
shot in a two day period, sometimes three. And sometimes a couple hundred get
ripped through it, but not often. Too much hassle viewing them all afterwards.
Charlie Self
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or
not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." Ernest Benn
Skip M
news:2kv6fqF...@uni-berlin.de...
I shoot at approx. the same rate, about 200 images a month. I have 2 very
large notebooks filed with negatives plus a 4 drawer filing cabinet also
filled with 8x10 prints and negatives. My hallway and stairway are
completely lined with framed prints taken by my wife, my daughter and
myself. And around December, I sat down and threw away about half of the
negatives I'd accumulated over the last 10 years of shooting. I also have
two large notebook type holders for CDs, one full, the other getting there,
and I've only been shooting digital since last September. My wife has
filled two of those CD notebooks with her digital images. So you can tell,
a small house can become quickly overrun by photos in all forms.
On the other hand, I think the 500 frames per week stated by the person the
OP quoted as being a "casual user" is overstating things, I consider myself
more than just a casual user, and don't shoot 1/8 of that rate. But a pro
commercial photographer would have to shoot about that to thrive, I'd think.
100 images a day for a 5 day work week.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Michael Meissner
> Considering the days, occasionally a full week, I don't even pick up the
> camera, I average something like 60 shots a week. Most of the time, that's
> all shot in a two day period, sometimes three. And sometimes a couple hundred
> get ripped through it, but not often. Too much hassle viewing them all
> afterwards.
I was curious, and it has been roughly 140 weeks since I got my first digital
camera in December 2001. In my web album, I currently have 8,883 pictures
(including the private pictures not on the general web site). This means on
average I have taken ~ 63 pictures/week that I considered keepers. If I had to
guess, that would mean ~ 150-200 pictures/week were taken (I shoot a lot of
pictures like sunsets in bracket mode, action shoots in continous mode, and
also shoot at things from different angles which ups the number of pictures I
take compared to the keepers). My family and I go to renaissance
faires, and I have a lot of pictures from there.
Most of the pictures are only on the web. My wife likes looking at them during
periods of downtime at her work, and other family members have commented on
them. I like going back through the pictures every so often, and they can be
memory aids to remember when I took the pictures.
In terms of use, besides the web pictures, I have done two photo shoots of
storytellers, and some of the pictures helped them get jobs. I have had one of
my pictures from my church in the local paper. My parents 50th wedding
anniversary was last year, and I made them an album of the pictures. This
weekend I will be taking pictures at the Maine Renaissance Faire that my wife
and daughter are actors in, and will have the photos on sale during the show.
--
Michael Meissner
email: mrm...@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Ron Bean
"Ken Nadvornick" <registe...@verizon.net> writes:
>This is what I meant when I wrote, "thinking about what I want to say and
>how I want to say it." I find it to be the most meaningful step in the
>making of a photograph - even one intended simply to record an object.
>After an appropriate amount of time, I then picked up my camera. Did this
>small amount of personal "preparation" make the photos any better? Dunno.
>But I'd like to think (hope) so.
Particularly with musuems, it depends on how much time I have to
spend there, and how long it will be before I can go back.
I tend to take your approach, even though I don't think it's
the best one, and I'm trying to get myself to take *more* shots,
just in case I notice something later that I didn't happen to
think about when I was there. But for some reason, when I'm
actually there, I'm more interested in using my eyes than my
camera.
For example, a year ago I spent half a day at a museum that's two
days' drive from here, but I'd been there before and I was
looking for something specific, so I could take the time to think
about camera angles, etc. If it's someplace I haven't been
before, and I'm not likely to go back any time soon, then I try
to strike a balance between thinking and taking extra "coverage"
shots. For some reason, thinking usually wins out, and sometimes
later I wish it hadn't.
Often I'll line up a shot, and realize that I'll probably just
toss it later, so I don't take it (which is silly with digital,
and even sometimes with film). Lately I've been trying to tell
myself "shoot now, sort later".
So, my answer to "how many photos do you take" is "not enough".
Also, as someone else noted, digicams are *really* good for
documenting stuff. Any time you build something, or take
something apart, or move stuff around-- that's probably not what
the OP had in mind, but you can burn through a lot of frames that
way (and it's worth it).
ERich10983
>documenting stuff. Any time you build something, or take
>something apart, or move stuff around-- that's probably not what
>the OP had in mind, but you can burn through a lot of frames that
>way (and it's worth it).
We have a barn on town land that was rebuilt a couple of years ago. I went over
every day to document the reconstruction. I probably shot at least 30 pictures
a day for a total of almost 1000 pictures. They are on CDs that were
distributed to the commission, library and historical society. The number of
photos doesn't matter. We never know which photo or viewpoint will be important
later.
I also take a lot of photos during town events. A couple of times, that was the
last picture taken of that person before they died.
Documenting these affairs is my volunteer job. 300 to 500 pictures for a one
day celebration isn't too many. Everyone knows me now and welcomes my work. I
certainly have fun doing it.
Earle Rich
Mont Vernon, NH
Jeff Durham
people and fireworks. Of those pictures, I kept less then 200 and really, I
should have kept only 100.
Jeff
"Lee K" <lee_k...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2kt4vhF...@uni-berlin.de...
Frank ess
I envy and congratulate you on your avocation. In my view, based on
recent experience learning the historian trade, too few such
documentations took place, or are known and available to interested
parties. The chance that similar events will go without "permanent"
notice being taken and preserved is smaller these days, but it has to be
done, or it doesn't exist, right?
Twenty years ago I happened on the dedication ceremony at a municipal
facility, and took a few dozen photos of the people who seemed to be at
the center of the function. I sent prints made from my slides to the
main guy, who was thrilled. The municipal photographer and the news
folks had made a few nice black and white shots for their uses, but none
was like my best one: the main guy at the second he turned from the
crowd and ceremony to the open door of "his" building, one he had
invested his careeer in, bringing it to the site. The joy and
anticipation on his face was indescribable. A whole lot more than a
for-the-record shot. You can't go back and find that kind of thing, if
no one made it in the first place.
Good on ye.
--
Frank ess
Forecasting is difficult. Particularly about the Future.
—Deepak Gupta
David Dyer-Bennet
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
> news:m2d6397...@gw.dd-b.net...
>> "Lee K" <lee_k...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > In another thread, the poster used the phrase "if you're an occasional
> user
>> > and you make 500 shots per week".....
>> >
>> > That seems like a lot of shots for the "casual" user.
>> >
>> > How many shots do you take in a given week?
>>
>> I'd classify myself as a moderately-crazed amateur. My shooting rate
>> varies quite widely from week to week depending on motivation level
>> and what I'm doing (what shots fall in front of me without special
>> effort).
>>
>> On my digital equipment, I've shot 215 a month over the last 4 years
>> and a bit. (Note "month", not week).
> That's over 10,000 photographs in the past 4 years. What do you do
> with them? Is you house wallpapered from top to bottom with
> photographs? Do you spend hours every day looking at them on your
> monitor? Do you have a shoebox full of CDs full of photographs?
A very small proportion have ever seen hardcopy; my printer has been
on and off, and recently when I've wanted it has not been functioning,
and I can't afford to risk money on a fix or spend enough for a new
printer. (Hundreds or perhaps very small thousands have seen hardcopy
for not very many commercial jobs, through commercial printing
places).
A very high proportion of them are visible in my snapshot album
online, see sig below. I have some reason to believe that friends
around the world even look at photos there now and then. (The better
ones of more general interest are often at the other URL.)
They all fit perfectly happily on the current 120GB hard disk; with
44GB still free. They're backed up on CD, often multiple CD or CD and
DVD. Including an off-site DVD backup set.
(The hard drive space includes lots of works from *before* my first
digital camera, scanned, as well as the digital collection.)
David Dyer-Bennet
> Considering the days, occasionally a full week, I don't even pick up
> the camera, I average something like 60 shots a week. Most of the
> time, that's all shot in a two day period, sometimes three. And
> sometimes a couple hundred get ripped through it, but not often. Too
> much hassle viewing them all afterwards.
It occurs to me that my reported numbers didn't include nearly 200
photos shot this weekend -- because I hadn't filed them as "photos".
They were all shots of pages of books and magazines; old ones too
fragile and valuable to scan on a flatbed. I don't think I have too
many other sets like this hidden around my disk, though.
David Dyer-Bennet
> Most of the pictures are only on the web. My wife likes looking at
> them during periods of downtime at her work, and other family
> members have commented on them. I like going back through the
> pictures every so often, and they can be memory aids to remember
> when I took the pictures.
I've been dealing with a lot of my *old* negatives in the last few
years -- four deaths that led me to find old photos of the person, my
30th highschool class reunion, my father's death that lead to helping
my mother deal with a lot of *her* old photos, the last (400th) issue
of an amateur publication for which I did an 8-page historical photo
collection, and then lots of stuff near these things that I was
reminded of. These photos are from 50 to 20 years old mostly.
I've found that the photos that are useful and important now are not
always the ones I found useful and important when I shot them. This
is even *more* true with other people's photographs. It's made me
renew my commitment to careful labeling and filing of photos.
Randall Ainsworth
It's called being selective.
YoYo
"Randall Ainsworth" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:060720042124321837%r...@nospam.techline.com...
Big Bill
There's nothing wrong with 'being selective' at all, as you know.
There's also nothing wrong with being 'less selective', as you know.
It's all a matter of what *you* want to do. There's obviously no
requirement to shoot a certain number of pics in a week; if 10 does it
for you, great. If it takes a few hundred for someone else, great.
Neither approach will lessen photography at all.
Of course, the one who shoots hundreds will have a larger backup
problem! :-)
Randall Ainsworth
wrote:
> It could also be called Paranoia?
No. Through the years I've learned to be selective. I've never
needed a motor drive to rip off a series of shots. And that mode never
gets used on my 10D.
Most of my images these days are done with a tripod and I'm very
careful in choosing scenes before I even open the legs. Before I've
turned the camera on, I know exactly what the final image will look
like. That's not bragging, just a statement of fact.
Randall Ainsworth
<bi...@pipping.com> wrote:
> There's nothing wrong with 'being selective' at all, as you know.
> There's also nothing wrong with being 'less selective', as you know.
Well, I've never thought much of guys that would just rip off a dozen
shots with a motor drive, figuring that "something was in there".
David Dyer-Bennet
Doesn't work worth sh*t for landscapes, I'd agree. Or product photos,
or macro. Or still-life.
But it's often necessary with people. People's expressions change
quite literally millisecond by millisecond; in particular, often
faster than the shutter delay on an SLR.
And shooting a lot *still* can't be a complete substitute for thinking
about what you want. But in my experience thinking about what you
want isn't a complete substitute for shooting a lot, either, when
photographing people.
Ron Hunter
Obviously 'spontaniety' isn't in your photographic vocabulary. Try
taking pictures from the deck of a cruise ship off the Alaskan coast
with your method. When you get back with your picture, please post it.
Ron Hunter
There are uses for that feature, such as catching action that can't be
accurately timed.
Ken Weitzel
The just-right glint in a child's eye... an approaching
or departing smile that deepens a dimple to just the
perfect amount... a butterfly fluttering nearby a baby...
The expression on a child's face when, learning to
paddle a canoe, drops the paddle in the water...
One of my favorite "accidental" pictures... my youngest
in the process of landing her first walleye... fish
jumped... water flew everywhere... look on her face...
with water drops caught in mid-flight. :)
Take lots and lots :)
Ken
Lee K
Guess you've never been to a sporting event.
Thomas
> needed a motor drive to rip off a series of shots. And that mode never
> gets used on my 10D.
> Most of my images these days are done with a tripod and I'm very
> careful in choosing scenes before I even open the legs. Before I've
> turned the camera on, I know exactly what the final image will look
> like. That's not bragging, just a statement of fact.
You have a fair point. But for example I was photograhing a neighbours dog
as a favour and I wanted a good shot of her running after a stick. I needed
Continuous AF and 3.6 F/s motor drive.. I used a whole film to get 1 good
shot.
But if I was doing a landscape or still life and I knew what I wanted, 2 or
3 would be enough.
Giftzwerg
r...@nospam.techline.com says...
> > It could also be called Paranoia?
>
> No. Through the years I've learned to be selective. I've never
> needed a motor drive to rip off a series of shots. And that mode never
> gets used on my 10D.
> Most of my images these days are done with a tripod and I'm very
> careful in choosing scenes before I even open the legs. Before I've
> turned the camera on, I know exactly what the final image will look
> like. That's not bragging, just a statement of fact.
I'm curious. Given your style, why use a DSLR instead of, say, a 4x5
field camera? It seems to me you're playing to the weaknesses of your
tools rather than their strengths.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Moore is one of the folks about whom a particularly apt lesson applies:
you can't make an asshole feel like one."
- Fritz Schrank
Ron Hunter
Yes, and you would have caught that with a tripod and manual focus,
right? Grin.
Big Bill
Sometimes, that's all you've got.
Shooting Namu (long before there were Digital cameras) with a Konica
FT-1 Motor, simply pressing the shutter as the whale broached, and
keeping it down until the whale hit the water again, is pretty much
the only way to get that decent shot.
As I said (or meant to), you do what you want to do; if that's not
what others want to do, f**k 'em.
Alan Browne
> In another thread, the poster used the phrase "if you're an occasional user
> and you make 500 shots per week".....
>
> That seems like a lot of shots for the "casual" user.
>
> How many shots do you take in a given week?
Funny... TP hasn't replied...
--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
Ken Nadvornick
> Shooting Namu (long before there were Digital cameras) with a
> Konica FT-1 Motor, simply pressing the shutter as the whale
> broached, and keeping it down until the whale hit the water again,
> is pretty much the only way to get that decent shot.
Hmm... The "only" way? Perhaps. But what if...
Another approach might be to first sit and watch an entire show without a
camera, but with a small notepad or voice recorder, just to get a feel for
what one was about to photograph. This would allow one to pinpoint and
record precisely in advance the locations, timings and sequences of all
jumps and other tricks that are performed during the show. Then, using
these observations, it would be possible to intelligently choose several
camera position vantage points to maximize the number of camera angles and
viewpoints during a show. This, in turn, would also allow for advanced,
precise control of the backgrounds, so as not to distract from the main
subject. In similar fashion, many of the other potential problems which
needed it could be identified and handled during this dry run.
Once all of the variables which could be controlled *before* a show had
been, it would then become a simple matter to attend a second show with a
camera - and a plan with a workable set of expectations - in hand. At this
point I would probably leave my motor drive off the camera, as my
preparations would have for me obviated its need. I'd feel confident that I
could capture the desired peak-of-action, or darn close to it, by using my
judgement alone - guided by my preplanning - to tell my finger when to
release the shutter. And with those several angles and camera positions I
had also identified, if I did miss it badly on one or two, I'd likely get it
on one or more of the others.
So you see, there is always more than one way to skin a cat... and to learn
something new. For all of us.
> As I said (or meant to), you do what you want to do; if that's not
> what others want to do, f**k 'em.
I'll take a pass on this, thank you, as it does nothing to further the
discussion at hand.
Ken
Ron Hunter
sometimes this just is NOT possible and photographing animals in the
wild is often a matter of taking a lot of shots to get that one that
really captures the essence of the subject. This is another type of
photography entirely.
J...@no.komm
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
>Certainly there is much to be said for preplanning your shots, but
>sometimes this just is NOT possible and photographing animals in the
>wild is often a matter of taking a lot of shots to get that one that
>really captures the essence of the subject.
You have to take a lot of images when you use telephotos for animals,
just to get a good number that are in focus.
DOF is a few inches or less with a long lens wide open.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Randall Ainsworth
<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> Obviously 'spontaniety' isn't in your photographic vocabulary. Try
> taking pictures from the deck of a cruise ship off the Alaskan coast
> with your method. When you get back with your picture, please post it.
I can do "spontaneous" but in that scenario I still don't need a motor
drive.
Randall Ainsworth
<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> Yes, and you would have caught that with a tripod and manual focus,
> right? Grin.
Actually, I did in the studio for many years. Not a tripod, but a
professional camera stand and with RB67 and Hasselblad...using a front
projection system no less.
Randall Ainsworth
<lee_k...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Guess you've never been to a sporting event.
Back in my college days I shot football and basketball on the
field/court using either a Graflex or cheap TLR.
Randall Ainsworth
Giftzwerg <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm curious. Given your style, why use a DSLR instead of, say, a 4x5
> field camera? It seems to me you're playing to the weaknesses of your
> tools rather than their strengths.
The shutter in my view camera lens is broke (from lack of use) and I've
spent way too many hours in the darkroom through the years. I want
the image in the computer and a 4x5 digital back is way too damned
expensive.
But it *is* tempting. I got the 4x5 out just a couple weeks ago and
was messing with it.
Philip Homburg
Ken Nadvornick <registe...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Another approach might be to first sit and watch an entire show without a
>camera, but with a small notepad or voice recorder, just to get a feel for
>what one was about to photograph. This would allow one to pinpoint and
>record precisely in advance the locations, timings and sequences of all
>jumps and other tricks that are performed during the show. Then, using
>these observations, it would be possible to intelligently choose several
>camera position vantage points to maximize the number of camera angles and
>viewpoints during a show. This, in turn, would also allow for advanced,
>precise control of the backgrounds, so as not to distract from the main
>subject. In similar fashion, many of the other potential problems which
>needed it could be identified and handled during this dry run.
In the end it is just the resulting image that counts. It doesn't whether
somebody has been waiting for days for the perfect shot or whether he
used the motor drive and was lucky.
In the end it is a trade-off: do you want to spend a lot time training
yourself to take just a single image at exactly the right moment or not.
I prefer to take just a few shots myself. But the drawback is that I can't
really take pictures in a situation where I don't know what is going to
happen, because I am too slow. I have to spend more time training for
unpredictable action.
--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Ron Hunter
And to catch the whales?
Ron Hunter
It is obvious that studio photography is very unlike what most of us do
with our cameras.
In a studio there are a lot of factors that can be tightly controlled,
which in the outside world are either random, or beyond control.
Savidge4
>with our cameras.
>In a studio there are a lot of factors that can be tightly controlled,
>which in the outside world are either random, or beyond control.
I personally shoot both "outside world" and "studio" photos. Studio shooting
is in a controlled environment I will agree. However, its getting your subject
in optium position within that controlled setting that is the key. That being
said, you take the studio photographer into the "outside world" and you will
see a photographer that is placing the subject in the optium position within
the "random" and "beyond control" environment.
As many have said here, they take very few shots because they visualize the
shot before hand. I will bet just about all the marbles, that all of these
people have or do shoot in a studio - its a mindset. Once you have shot in a
studio environment for any amount of time, lighting and composition becomes
second nature, and when you are outside the studio the same principles carry
through your shooting.
I personally do not see anything wrong with the en-mass aproaching to shooting.
It is simply not for everyone. I personally find that the more that I shoot,
the less I shoot. I now "know" when I got "the shot" and move on. I find
myself when shooting for clients getting my shots (the calculated shots i see
in my minds eye) first, and then taking a series of shots afterwards to appease
my client, so they think there is enough images to choose from.
As for the number of shots I shoot a week, well last week I had a full
schedule at the studio, 2 weddings and the 4th... so right under 4000 (3962 to
be exact), but I am guessing 2000 a week is more my average.
Ron Hunter
For what I like to do with a camera, studio work would be like 'shooting
fish in a barrell'. I like the challenge of being able to compose a
shot with minimal time, and minimal control of the situation. It
renders the pleasure greater when one turns out like I wanted it. But
then I don't try to sell my work, and I have only myself and a few
friends and relatives to please, and most of them wouldn't know a good
photo from a bad one.
IF I can manage, I will do what I can to get the correctly composed
picture into the camera initially, if not, then I will take several and
hope I can post-process to get what I wanted. For my type of
photography, being able to tell what is likely to be a good picture when
I see it is the key.
Randall Ainsworth
<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> > In article <10eobrq...@corp.supernews.com>, Ron Hunter
> > <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Obviously 'spontaniety' isn't in your photographic vocabulary. Try
> >>taking pictures from the deck of a cruise ship off the Alaskan coast
> >>with your method. When you get back with your picture, please post it.
> >
> >
> > I can do "spontaneous" but in that scenario I still don't need a motor
> > drive.
>
> And to catch the whales?
Nope.
Randall Ainsworth
<savi...@aol.com> wrote:
> I personally shoot both "outside world" and "studio" photos. Studio shooting
> is in a controlled environment I will agree. However, its getting your
> subject
> in optium position within that controlled setting that is the key. That being
> said, you take the studio photographer into the "outside world" and you will
> see a photographer that is placing the subject in the optium position within
> the "random" and "beyond control" environment.
>
> As many have said here, they take very few shots because they visualize the
> shot before hand. I will bet just about all the marbles, that all of these
> people have or do shoot in a studio - its a mindset. Once you have shot in a
> studio environment for any amount of time, lighting and composition becomes
> second nature, and when you are outside the studio the same principles carry
> through your shooting.
I'd pretty much agree.
Ken Nadvornick
> In the end it is just the resulting image that counts. It doesn't
> whether somebody has been waiting for days for the perfect
> shot or whether he used the motor drive and was lucky.
Hi Philip,
Agreed, if both of the above approaches would result in exactly the same
probability of creating that desired "resulting image." Thus, the question
for each then becomes, which of these approaches (or any others which may be
available) will give the *best* chance to capture that image. This, of
course, can only be answered by each individual photographer according to
his talent and needs, as well as the situation at hand.
The point of the post was not to proselytize the method, but rather to
suggest that the approach of "...simply pressing the [motor-driven]
shutter... and keeping it down... is pretty much the only way to get that
decent shot" may not necessarily be true for the example scenario as
related. Sometimes indulging in a bit of forethought may reveal other
options.
> In the end it is a trade-off: do you want to spend a lot time
> training yourself to take just a single image at exactly the right
> moment or not.
In response, I would respectfully argue the proposition that more
preparation is always better than less, regardless of the subjects
encountered or techniques of image capture chosen to record them. The more
one knows about that which he sees in his viewfinder (or LCD, groundglass,
whatever...), the better the odds that his judgement will direct his finger
to open the shutter - or begin the motor-driven sequence - at exactly that
right moment. "Luck" usually favors the prepared, and forethought usually
allows one to become so.
> I prefer to take just a few shots myself. But the drawback is
> that I can't really take pictures in a situation where I don't know
> what is going to happen, because I am too slow. I have to spend
> more time training for unpredictable action.
I empathize with this viewpoint. It is one reason I am fascinated by those
who practice methodologies resulting in 500+ photographs made each week -
week after week. Although probably not economically feasible for some film
enthusiasts, I wonder if, all other things being equal, it is indeed truly a
better way to go. If this approach validly results in a better, a tighter,
a more concise and cohesive body of work, then I may need to rethink my
assumptions regarding its efficacy. If, however, it is simply the result of
"I can, therefore I do..." then I would likely just quietly smile and move
on.
Regards,
Ken
Frank ess
> "Philip Homburg" wrote:
>
>> In the end it is just the resulting image that counts. It doesn't
>> whether somebody has been waiting for days for the perfect
>> shot or whether he used the motor drive and was lucky.
>
> Hi Philip,
>
> Agreed, if both of the above approaches
would result in
exactly the
> same probability
of creating that desired "resulting image." Thus,
>
the question for each then becomes, which of these approaches
(or any
> others which may be available)
will give the *best* chance to capture
> that image.
I always feel so inadequate not being able to choose the "best" between
"exactly sames".
I do, however, contend that my best chance for increasing my best
chances in just about any milieu is to prepare, in the belief and with
the assumption that if my effort begins at a higher base, my result is
more likely to approach what I want always to be the optimum outcome,
image- and otherwise.
Ron Hunter
Yes, you can set up the camera and tripod on deck, and you can keep the
shutter speed adjusted for the light you get from minute to minute, and
then when the whale jumps into the air, you might still miss the shot.
Some aspects of this type of photography are beyond human control. You
can do some presetting, and planning, but sometimes brute force is the
only reliable method.
Ken Nadvornick
> I always feel so inadequate not being able to choose the
> "best" between "exactly sames".
Hello Frank,
I must, of course, give the benefit of the doubt and presume that you
inadvertently left out the next sentence,
"This, of course, can only be answered by each individual
photographer according to his talent and needs, as well as
the situation at hand."
Meaning that if the pure technique side of the equation is a wash, then the
decision as to which technique to employ becomes dependent on factors beyond
those techniques, such as the individual photographer's talent at using one
over another...
But we digress... in a major way...
> I do, however, contend that my best chance for increasing
> my best chances in just about any milieu is to prepare, in the
> belief and with the assumption that if my effort begins at a
> higher base, my result is more likely to approach what I want
> always to be the optimum outcome, image- and otherwise.
Absolutely. I could not agree more. However, I am always open to the
possibility of reevaluating my approach in light of the experiences of
others. It would be the height of arrogance for me to assume that my way is
the best, or only, way. So I continue to follow this thread and try to
understand this 500+ per week methodology...
Ken
Ken Weitzel
Hi
I'm beginning to suspect that we may not be considering
that we have a vast range of camera users here...
Some are surely professionals; some are snapshot takers;
and everything in between... and of course we all have
very different ways we find the best ways to do the things
we do...
My oldest (just turned teen) grand daughter takes
pictures with an artistic bent... she has no interest
at all in the technicalities. Her shots may be
a little out of focus, but you would enjoy them.
She may one day be a photographer. (is my prejudice showing? :)
My interest is the technical parts... mine will all
be "in focus", but you won't be at all interested in
them. With one exception - every once in a while I
manage an "accidentally" good one. Though they're
few and far between, you will like them. So, I point
at things that may be interesting, or may one day
have sentimental value, and take *lots*.
This lots business vastly improves the odds of my
getting a good one.
And digital (unless and until you print them) costs
virtually nothing, so I keep inventing new uses, that
accounts for many. I'm old, retired, and a stroke
victim. Last weekend I had to change the terminal
block on the stove at the cabin; did other routine
maintenance at the same time. Took a couple of
dozen shots as I disassembled it; looked at them
on the TV as I re-assembled. No possibility of
error, or forgetting something. :)
When we built the guest cottage we took hundreds
upon hundreds of photos of construction. Saved them
all to a couple of CD's. Wanna know where wires are
in the walls? Look. How much insulation is in the
attic? Where the underground (plastic, undetectable)
plumbing to the septic tank is? It's *all* there,
for me now, for my grand daughter later, and for
anyone else who may take it over in the future.
And really nice memories at the same time.
By the way, (almost) everything there is photo'ed,
burned, and saved off-site for insurance purposes.
Sorry for being so long winded...
Take care.
Ken
Ken Nadvornick
Hi Ken (W.),
Nah... not long-winded by any means! And thanks for an excellent post. You
are obviously willing to discuss how you use your camera and why and I
appreciate that. Your reasons and techniques are, of course, all valid (as
they are for all of us), but I sense a certain reluctance on the part of
some here to share their approaches in a similarly non-adversarial fashion.
(Some others, however, have done so earlier. My thanks goes out to them as
well.)
Funny how, when I was building my current darkroom, I never thought to
*photograph* (what a concept!) all of my ongoing construction work. Due to
*my* preconceived notions about what the medium was all about, I missed
another really good use of it lurking right in front of my nose. Now with
all of the walls and ceiling sealed up the room looks beautifully clean and
is very functional. But if you asked me exactly where the wiring or
plumbing or internal ventilation ducts or internal bracing for my
wall-mounted 4x5 enlarger reside, I *might* be able to tell you... <grin>
Shoulda' talked with you first and I coulda' learned something new...
Thanks again,
Ken (N.)
Big Bill
wrote:
>And to catch the whales?
75 lb test at the most.
I want it to be a *contest*.
:-)
Big Bill
Your studio includes enough water for canoeing and fishing??
Big Bill
Yes, that would work.
For a pro with lots of time.
However, for the majority of people with cameras, that's not going to
happen.
A guy on vacation with the family can't do that.
I realize that a lot of people here are pros, and that fact permeates
their lives.
For the rest of us (the vast majority of us), we have to deal with the
realities of our lives; it's not our *job* to catch that (money) shot
of Namu, so we make do with what we have.
Controllig the variables would be great; the problem is, we have to
deal with other variables. Like the family, bathroom visits, other
people in the stands, inability to carry all the photo gear that would
be nice as well as diaper bags, extra clothing, souveniers(SP?), et
al. We make do with what we have.
>
>> As I said (or meant to), you do what you want to do; if that's not
>> what others want to do, f**k 'em.
>
>I'll take a pass on this, thank you, as it does nothing to further the
>discussion at hand.
Obviously.
Maybe, perhaps, you need some empathy for the non-professionals.
>
>Ken