«

I guess this is sort of a survey:

Are you type of photographer that shoots many, many frames and ends up with
a hand full that are SUPERB! Or are you fastidious and deliberate in your
shooting and therefore don't take many pictures in a session figuring that
it's worth the extra time to actually set up or stage the shots?

I happen to shoot many shots and am happy if can judge 10% as SUPERB!

Any thoughts?

Ciao,
Mark C
Nashville, TN

Well, with the advent of digital, I wouldn't be surprised if some people's
habits have changed. It's a lot cheaper to go crazy now. (and not as
smelly - unless my dog is sitting next to me)

I edit in my brain before I take the shot, as opposed to ripping off
a bunch and hoping that there's something good in there.

Mark C wrote:
> I guess this is sort of a survey:
>
> Are you type of photographer that shoots many, many frames and ends up with
> a hand full that are SUPERB! Or are you fastidious and deliberate in your
> shooting and therefore don't take many pictures in a session figuring that
> it's worth the extra time to actually set up or stage the shots?

It depends. If it's the kids in the pool playing I may fire off a lot,
trying to catch different action shots or expressions.

If it's something more static I take my time and work more on getting a
good shot. I might still try three or four different shots of the same
subject but it's not as "frantic" as action photography.

The nice thing about digital is I can always edit later and there's no
cost for processing.

"Mark C" <> wrote in message
news:bi5hku$5kkna$...
> I guess this is sort of a survey:
>
> Are you type of photographer that shoots many, many frames and ends up
with
> a hand full that are SUPERB! Or are you fastidious and deliberate in your
> shooting and therefore don't take many pictures in a session figuring that
> it's worth the extra time to actually set up or stage the shots?
>
> I happen to shoot many shots and am happy if can judge 10% as SUPERB!
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Ciao,
> Mark C
> Nashville, TN
>
>

Sometimes I stop in the middle of a 'shoot' and smile wide and deep at what
a joy it is to be taking pictures. Some times it seems to me the pictures
themselves, good as they may be for me and for others, are kind of an
anti-climax, just icing on the cake of picture-making.

Last weekend I was four days at an event with millions of possibilities, and
now I have eight or nine hundred frames to peruse and doctor (have to work
in that 'operate', right?). Many of them were impossible to catch in a
meticulous, deliberate way, although I did my best to be prepared at the
edge of the 'happening'.

e.g.,
http://www.fototime.com/inv/2C750A22D7EC2B7


Others were more susceptible to pre-analysis and setup, and I applied that
in a degree I believed appropriate to the circumstances and subject.

http://www.fototime.com/A1662898E6D19E6/orig.jpg

It'll take months of work to find the best within the hundreds, and part of
the fuel that will keep me at it is the residual joy from the process of
changing the light that was into the sight that endures.

Overall, I'm mostly in your camp: even a blind pig finds an acorn 10% of the
time. No offense intended.


Frank ess

"Bryce" <> wrote in message
news:6Tr1b.40$...
> Well, with the advent of digital, I wouldn't be surprised if some people's
> habits have changed. It's a lot cheaper to go crazy now. (and not as
> smelly - unless my dog is sitting next to me)
>
That is what happened to me. I don't think it make my average picture
better or worse, but with the same success average I get more good shots.

and cheaper and no stains on the clothes.

> I edit in my brain before I take the shot, as opposed to ripping off
> a bunch and hoping that there's something good in there.

And you don't have to hope very hard if you are happy that just 10% of
them are good. Give a monkey a camera and you get that.

Ken Durf <> wrote in news::

>> I edit in my brain before I take the shot, as opposed to ripping off
>> a bunch and hoping that there's something good in there.
>
> And you don't have to hope very hard if you are happy that just 10% of
> them are good. Give a monkey a camera and you get that.
>
You must be very good indeed....maybe one of the best ever. I wish I could
come close to 10% being superb, maybe I should try something different
too.....
--
Tom Shellberg
www.shellberg.com

"Ken Durf" <> wrote in message
news:...
<snip>

> If you think about it, you can hand a camera to a three year old and take
them
> to the zoo and tell them to take pictures of everything and you are going
to
> get at least 10% of those shots that are quite good. Even if one of the
> monkeys at the zoo takes some pictures.
>
> Chance gives you 50% odds, but 10% is what you just get taking pictures
> blindfolded. I actually took some pictures blindfolded once to prove
this
> very point and more than 10% came out as quite artistic looking photos.
If I
> remember right, I entered one in a photo contest and it won.
>

Is one photographer "better" or "worse" than another because he shot fewer
frames in his or her life?

Great photography is lighting, composition, and timing. The methods that
lead to that point are essentially irrelevant when the end result is what
you're looking for.

The measure of an artist's work are his successes, not his failures.


- jz