How many pictures do you take?
grandguru
can tell how many pictures people do take. I'm sure that with digital
backs available medium format cameras are being used more frequently
than with film. I have seen counts above 200,000 on Hasselblad cameras
that are about 2 years old. Has anyone seen more than that and how does
it compare to other DSLRs out there?
Gianni Rondinini
wrote:
>than with film. I have seen counts above 200,000 on Hasselblad cameras
>that are about 2 years old. Has anyone seen more than that and how does
that would mean over 270 images/day, including *every* saturday and
sunday. i can't believe it's possible.
is it really?
regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
Nikon user - Bmw driver
http://bugbarbeq.deviantart.com
Little Green Eyed Dragon
Gianni Rondinini <bugb...@icem.it> wrote:
> On 12 May 2006 05:08:36 -0700, "grandguru" <gran...@uboot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >than with film. I have seen counts above 200,000 on Hasselblad cameras
> >that are about 2 years old. Has anyone seen more than that and how does
>
> that would mean over 270 images/day, including *every* saturday and
> sunday. i can't believe it's possible.
>
> is it really?
>
> regards,
Its not- its probably someone's trollish fantasy.
--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian".
zeitgeist
> >than with film. I have seen counts above 200,000 on Hasselblad cameras
> >that are about 2 years old. Has anyone seen more than that and how does
>
> that would mean over 270 images/day, including *every* saturday and
> sunday. i can't believe it's possible.
>
most medium format cameras have MTBF of 1,500 - 2,000 rolls of 120.
what does it cost for film developing and proofing 16,666 rolls? $150,000
to $170.000? (I used to figure it was a buck shot rounded up. actuals was
closer to 80-85 cents a frame.
grandguru
I do not know 'MTBF', please explain.
Bill Hilton
> grandguru asks ...
>
>I do not know 'MTBF', please explain.
"Mean Time Between Failure", or basically "on average, how long you
expect it to last" ...
no_name
Mean Time Between Failure - the average life of a piece of equipment
before it wears out from normal usage; the amount of time before the
where failures due to component wear-out increase
2000 rolls of 120 film @ 15 frames per roll = 30,000+ firings of the
shutter.
no_name
> On 12 May 2006 05:08:36 -0700, "grandguru" <gran...@uboot.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>than with film. I have seen counts above 200,000 on Hasselblad cameras
>>that are about 2 years old. Has anyone seen more than that and how does
>
>
> that would mean over 270 images/day, including *every* saturday and
> sunday. i can't believe it's possible.
>
> is it really?
>
> regards,
Apparently it is in commercial photography. One of my instructors just
took us through the process from a magazine layout he's did last month.
One day shoot, 2 models scheduled 8-5, 30 outfits (3 vendors with 10
outfits each) ... 900 images he winnowed down to 300 to submit to the
editors. They picked 15 to publish; maybe 10 total will appear in the
magazine.
The models were late (flight delay due to wx) & they started a couple
hours late. This is the second year he's shot this particular layout for
this magazine. He could have stayed later to finish up if he needed to,
but he said the client didn't want to, they just took what he could get
done by the scheduled stop time.
But 900 images in 6 hours ...
Greg "_"
no_name <no_...@no.where.invalid> wrote:
> But 900 images in 6 hours ...
Shooting with that frequency takes little to no talent. You may as well
use a movie camera which would be on par.
Setting the lights and and setting up the camera takes more
talent than pressing the shutter in that case.
--
The sometimes insomniac.
no_name
> In article <y_5ag.2337$kc2....@tornado.southeast.rr.com>,
> no_name <no_...@no.where.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>But 900 images in 6 hours ...
>
>
> Shooting with that frequency takes little to no talent. You may as well
> use a movie camera which would be on par.
>
I would beg to differ. Shooting frequency is no indicator of talent or
its lack. The number of frames exposed in an hour doesn't say anything
about how talented you are.
In this case for example it was a lot more to do with pleasing the
client; taking the photographs the client wants & using that as a
starting point for the photographs the client really needs.
I'd guess he has some talent, since the client [a yuppie lifestyle
magazine] sought him out to shoot this particular feature last year, and
then came back again this year to hve him shoot a repeat feature for the
same vendors [up-scale women's clothing stores].
> Setting the lights and and setting up the camera takes more
> talent than pressing the shutter in that case.
Funny you should mention that. This is the studio lighting class.
We have a part time instructor who is a full time commercial
photographer. He was trying to give us a taste of what's involved in an
actual commercial shoot; sort of walk us through his workflow from
receiving the assignment from the client to delivering the final images.
The instructor was saying a client may often have an idea of something
they want based on a photo of some product they've seen & want the same
thing for their product. Even when their product is nothing like the
product in the old photo.
An example he gave was a client with a Mikasa catalog who wants his
product lit & presented in the same way. But what they're trying to sell
is assemble-it-yourself unfinished wood furniture, not fine china and
crystal.
Takes two entirely different approaches to lighting, but you often have
to start with what the customer "wants" before you can get to what the
customer actually "needs".
And, sometimes it's not the best images you can produce, but the images
the client wants and will pay for.
Greg "_"
no_name <no_...@no.where.invalid> wrote:
> Greg "_" wrote:
>
> > In article <y_5ag.2337$kc2....@tornado.southeast.rr.com>,
> > no_name <no_...@no.where.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>But 900 images in 6 hours ...
> >
> >
> > Shooting with that frequency takes little to no talent. You may as well
> > use a movie camera which would be on par.
> >
>
> I would beg to differ. Shooting frequency is no indicator of talent or
> its lack. The number of frames exposed in an hour doesn't say anything
> about how talented you are.
Beg all you like - the simple mechanics of depressing the shutter
or in that case never releasing it, leaves little room to consider
composition. Therefore little talent is logistically required of the
photographer in terms of placing the subject or choosing what will be
the ultimate shot (This is aside from any editing the photographer is
involved with). The only thing really changing is the model.
> > Setting the lights and and setting up the camera takes more
> > talent than pressing the shutter in that case.
>
> Funny you should mention that. This is the studio lighting class.
Nothing funny about it, its an observation that the talent resides in
creating the look which is quite apart from the finger depression skills
of being behind the camera. So I agree with much of what your instructor
does say on the matter.
2
A photographer should make plenty just for putting up with such a gig.
I'd say that's an easy $20,000 a day job.
Paul Saunders
>>> Shooting with that frequency takes little to no talent.
>> I would beg to differ. Shooting frequency is no indicator of talent
>> or its lack. The number of frames exposed in an hour doesn't say
>> anything about how talented you are.
>
> Beg all you like - the simple mechanics of depressing the shutter
> or in that case never releasing it, leaves little room to consider
> composition.
I beg to differ too. For those used to spending a lot of time carefully
contemplating the composition, it may seem impossible to do that quickly,
but if that's the case, how do sports & action photographers,
photojournalists, and those who practice the art of "capturing the decisive
moment" manage to capture good compositions? Granted, the success rate is
probably much lower and many photos no doubt benefit from cropping, but it
can be done by those who are skilled in the art of action photography.
Taking good compositions quickly is a skill, and like anything else it
improves with practice. The average landscape photographer is used to
working slowly would probably screw up most shots if he attempted to shoot
quickly, but this is not the case for those who've nurtured this particular
skill. Just because you can't compose well at speed doesn't mean that
no-one else can.
I've noticed this phenomenon with the public's perception of fast drivers.
The assumption is that anyone who drives quickly is a reckless idiot who is
driving dangerously. Whilst this may be true in many cases, it's not
necessarily true in all. It's quite possible to drive skillfully at speed,
racing drivers do it all the time. Yeah, I know, racing drivers tend to
crash now and again (so obviously the success rate is lower) but most of
them don't most of the time, and the ability to drive flat out around a
racing circuit for an hour or two demands tremendous precision on every
corner, and most drivers make it to the end. That's skill at speed.
Perhaps a better example would be musicians. The most talented musicians
are capable of performing incredibly complex pieces of music without making
a single mistake, often involving very fast sections. If an amateur
musician tries to play something complicated quickly he inevitably makes
mistakes, so how can it be possible for a skilled musician to do so? Surely
there isn't enough time to think about every note carefully in advance? Yet
skilled musicians "can" do it. It's actually a kind of habit, something
that a skilled brain does automatically, "without thinking", as a result of
endless practice.
Doing things accurately at high speed is a real skill, and that applies to
photography too. You've got it the wrong way around to suggest that
shooting fast takes no talent since there's no time to consider composition.
On the contrary, they have to consider composition at speed therefore they
have to be more talented in that particular respect. As with musicians who
practice scales, chords, arpeggios and so on, the same can be done in
photography by practicing the rules of composition to the point that they
become instinctive.
Of course, the average landscape or still-life photographer rarely has any
need for that particular skill, but it *is* a skill and some photographers
are very good at it.
> Therefore little talent is logistically required of the
> photographer in terms of placing the subject or choosing what will be
> the ultimate shot (This is aside from any editing the photographer is
> involved with). The only thing really changing is the model.
In this particular case the camera was probably on a tripod and the field of
view was fixed, so as you say, composition was probably not a factor in this
instance. Since the only thing changing was the model then the skill would
have been in capturing "the decisive moment" by pressing the shutter release
when the pose and expression were just right.
Paul
no_name
> 900 images in 6 hours is 1 picture every ~2.4 seconds.
>
The way I understood it, he shot in bursts ... compose the shot & let
the "motor-drive" work. Bang! 10 shots done. Although it's not really a
motor-drive since he's shooting this digital.
Compose another scene, shoot another burst ...
7 - 8 compositions ... Ok, lets move over here ... Now, lets shoot in
front of this wall ...
One model is changing, shoot the other model ... shoot both models
together ... first model goes to change, shoot the second model.
Short break, talk to the client get their input while the models change
... that sort of thing. Move to another spot and shoot some more.
He'd scouted the location prior to the scheduled day to find scenes he
wanted to use as backdrops and to find the light he wanted to use.
He didn't seem to do a lot of direction of the models other than to
position them where he had the light he wanted. He said they're
professional models and they know what's expected.
Toward the end, they just stayed in one location (local resturant owned
by one of the client's friends) and finished up because the client
didn't want to go into overtime.
He said that for a good client he'd work a little later without adding
anything specific to the invoice; goodwill towards building future business.
> A photographer should make plenty just for putting up with such a gig.
>
> I'd say that's an easy $20,000 a day job.
>
>
>
I didn't inquire what he got paid for this gig, though I expect it's
less than that. This was for a regional publication, and they probably
don't pay NYC day-rates.
A slightly different example - our assignment this morning in one of the
other classes was photographing people - find people you don't know,
convince them to let you take their photograph, get the cutline
information, get enough shots to expose one roll of film (C41 neg) and
make a good 8x10 print from one of the shots you made this morning.
"It's now 8:00 am, have your film back for processing by 9:00 and get
your print in by 11:00. You MUST go off campus to find your subjects ... "
Greg "_"
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Since the only thing changing was the model then the skill would
> have been in capturing "the decisive moment" by pressing the shutter release
> when the pose and expression were just right.
>
> Paul
I think its a big stretch, coming from the experience of someone that
has over the course of 6-8 hours shot 600 some images I say its more
about the merits of the equipment rather than individual image judgment
repeating once again depressing the shutter with that frequency takes no
talent. My statement does not equate to no talent whatsoever.
Paul Saunders
>> Since the only thing changing was the model then the skill would
>> have been in capturing "the decisive moment" by pressing the shutter
>> release when the pose and expression were just right.
>
> I think its a big stretch, coming from the experience of someone that
> has over the course of 6-8 hours shot 600 some images I say its more
> about the merits of the equipment rather than individual image
> judgment repeating once again depressing the shutter with that
> frequency takes no talent. My statement does not equate to no talent
> whatsoever.
Perhaps in this particular instance, especially after reading more about it,
but I was disagreeing with the concept in general.
Pau
Simon Meeds
news:126l1tk...@news.supernews.com...
> 900 images in 6 hours is 1 picture every ~2.4 seconds.
Make that one every 24 seconds.
Simon
2
news:446ce91a$0$2650$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
Aw, Simon, what's a period between us?
(Yer so right. I just hate it when I screw up like that!)
grandguru
pictures people take. It could be, as I suspect, that people dont know
or dont like to say.
Greg "_"
"grandguru" <gran...@uboot.com> wrote:
Ok, I for one find: it depends on the job.
For instance; If am shooting digital at a wedding somewhere between
400 and 600 images average. If Shoot 35mm film 8 rolls 36 exposures.
6x6 wedding eight -ten rolls.
My average bracket when shooting interiors 5 ) 1/2 stop based on the
indicated exposure. I seldom push or pull film.
Outdoor scenics- until the film is gone,I am tired or the light fades.
Sometimes none especially when I can't seem to fond anything that
works, or when everything seems screwed up.
Bandicoot
news:e4eg5n$kuc$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> Greg "_" wrote:
>
> >>> Shooting with that frequency takes little to no talent.
>
> >> I would beg to differ. Shooting frequency is no indicator of
> >> talent or its lack. The number of frames exposed in an hour
> >> doesn't say anything about how talented you are.
> >
> > Beg all you like - the simple mechanics of depressing the
> > shutter or in that case never releasing it, leaves little room to
> > consider composition.
>
> I beg to differ too. For those used to spending a lot of time
> carefully contemplating the composition, it may seem
> impossible to do that quickly, but if that's the case, how do
> sports & action photographers, photojournalists, and those
> who practice the art of "capturing the decisive moment"
> manage to capture good compositions? Granted, the success
> rate is probably much lower and many photos no doubt
> benefit from cropping, but it can be done by those who are
> skilled in the art of action photography.
>
> Taking good compositions quickly is a skill, and like anything
> else it improves with practice. The average landscape
> photographer is used to working slowly would probably screw
> up most shots if he attempted to shoot quickly, but this is not
> the case for those who've nurtured this particular skill. Just
> because you can't compose well at speed doesn't mean that
> no-one else can.
I wouldn't say that because most landscape pictures are taken 'slowly' that
necessarily means that the composition always happens slowly. Often I know
very quickly, more or less immediately, how I want to compose a shot - the
time is then because of the technicalities of capturing that vision
(especially if I'm using large format, maybe requiring tilts or swings, and
if contrast must be controlled carefully, maybe calling for grad.s.) True,
sometimes I see a scene and know there's a picture in there somewhere but
have to hunt for it to draw it out, but often the composition aspect is just
as instantaneous with my landscape work as it is with shooting action.
>
> I've noticed this phenomenon with the public's perception of
> fast drivers. The assumption is that anyone who drives quickly
> is a reckless idiot who is driving dangerously. Whilst this may
> be true in many cases, it's not necessarily true in all. It's quite
> possible to drive skillfully at speed, racing drivers do it all the
> time. Yeah, I know, racing drivers tend to crash now and
> again (so obviously the success rate is lower) but most of
> them don't most of the time, and the ability to drive flat out
> around a racing circuit for an hour or two demands
> tremendous precision on every corner, and most drivers make
> it to the end. That's skill at speed.
Agreed - I find Italian drivers who are fast but alert much safer than New
Yorkers, who are not fast, but tend to be inattentive and reactive...
>
> Perhaps a better example would be musicians. The most
> talented musicians are capable of performing incredibly
> complex pieces of music without making a single mistake,
> often involving very fast sections. If an amateur musician tries
> to play something complicated quickly he inevitably makes
> mistakes, so how can it be possible for a skilled musician to
> do so? Surely there isn't enough time to think about every
> note carefully in advance? Yet skilled musicians "can" do it.
> It's actually a kind of habit, something that a skilled brain does
> automatically, "without thinking", as a result of endless
> practice.
True, though Rubinstein played lots of wrong notes yet almost always sounded
wonderful, whereas van Cliburn plays few wrong, yet is often mushy and dull
;-) There are always exceptions to prove the rule!
>
> Doing things accurately at high speed is a real skill, and that
> applies to photography too. You've got it the wrong way
> around to suggest that shooting fast takes no talent since
> there's no time to consider composition. On the contrary, they > have to
consider composition at speed therefore they
> have to be more talented in that particular respect. As with
> musicians who practice scales, chords, arpeggios and so on,
> the same can be done in photography by practicing the rules of >
composition to the point that they become instinctive.
Well, I don't know that I agree entirely about "rules", but I do agree that
for a good photographer, composition is something that is done
instinctively: it is, after all, a true case of "if it looks right, it _is_
right"!
>
> Of course, the average landscape or still-life photographer
> rarely has any need for that particular skill, but it *is* a skill
> and some photographers are very good at it.
>
> > Therefore little talent is logistically required of the
> > photographer in terms of placing the subject or choosing
> > what will be the ultimate shot (This is aside from any editing
> > the photographer is involved with). The only thing really
> > changing is the model.
>
> In this particular case the camera was probably on a tripod
> and the field of view was fixed, so as you say, composition
> was probably not a factor in this instance. Since the only thing
> changing was the model then the skill would have been in
> capturing "the decisive moment" by pressing the shutter release
> when the pose and expression were just right.
>
The photographer's skill in this case is in setting up the lighting to cover
all the poses he expects from his model(s) in a given sequence of shots, and
then getting the best out of the model(s) by
direction/encouragement/interaction as required - and, as you say, in
catching each pose at the decisive moment.
I think I am basically in agreement with your underlying point, except in
noting that photographers who work slowly are (if they're good) more often
slow because of the specific technical demands of their chosen field than
because they compose slowly. Yes a landscaper may fine tune a composition
for a long time while a fashion photographer just leaves extra space and
crops, but that is still only a reflection of technicalities: both have
visualised what they want equally fast, but the fashion photographer has to
catch it fast and can afford to crop, while the landscaper has (usually) the
time to refine the precise framing to match his/her vision, and also has a
quality requirement that encourages minimisation of the need to crop.
Peter
Paul Saunders
> I wouldn't say that because most landscape pictures are taken
> 'slowly' that necessarily means that the composition always happens
> slowly.
That's a fair point.
> Often I know very quickly, more or less immediately, how I
> want to compose a shot - the time is then because of the
> technicalities of capturing that vision (especially if I'm using
> large format, maybe requiring tilts or swings, and if contrast must
> be controlled carefully, maybe calling for grad.s.)
Agreed, if the technicalities require it. I quite enjoy working slowly,
taking spot meter readings and so on, but often, especially during the magic
hours, I find that I need to work quickly or I miss opportunities.
>> Perhaps a better example would be musicians.
> True, though Rubinstein played lots of wrong notes yet almost always
> sounded wonderful, whereas van Cliburn plays few wrong, yet is often
> mushy and dull ;-) There are always exceptions to prove the rule!
Indeed.
>> As with
>> musicians who practice scales, chords, arpeggios and so on,
>> the same can be done in photography by practicing the rules of
>> composition to the point that they become instinctive.
>
> Well, I don't know that I agree entirely about "rules", but I do
> agree that for a good photographer, composition is something that is
> done instinctively: it is, after all, a true case of "if it looks
> right, it _is_ right"!
Yes, I'm no respecter of rules in the sense of applying them blindly to
every situation. I suppose what I really meant was "personal rules" if you
like. I find that I have particular ways that I like to compose particular
scenes, so even when I see a completely new scene, I instantly know how I
want to compose it. I suppose that's a matter of personal compositional
style.
But the downside of that is that it's easy to get into a rut and keep
applying the same "rules" without thinking, so that a tedious familiarity
starts to creep into every shot. Sometimes I try to jolt myself out of this
habit and try to look at the scene afresh to think of new and different ways
of composing it, and that can take time. Occasionally I see photos of
familiar places composed in ways I never thought of and that's a wake-up
call that I'm getting into a rut again.
> The photographer's skill in this case is in setting up the lighting
> to cover all the poses he expects from his model(s) in a given
> sequence of shots, and then getting the best out of the model(s) by
> direction/encouragement/interaction as required - and, as you say, in
> catching each pose at the decisive moment.
Quite.
> I think I am basically in agreement with your underlying point,
> except in noting that photographers who work slowly are (if they're
> good) more often slow because of the specific technical demands of
> their chosen field than because they compose slowly.
Yes, I agree.
> Yes a
> landscaper may fine tune a composition for a long time while a
> fashion photographer just leaves extra space and crops, but that is
> still only a reflection of technicalities: both have visualised what
> they want equally fast, but the fashion photographer has to catch it
> fast and can afford to crop, while the landscaper has (usually) the
> time to refine the precise framing to match his/her vision, and also
> has a quality requirement that encourages minimisation of the need to
> crop.
Indeed.
Paul