«

I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and only get
a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic photographers take
30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a photographer tell someone on
pit road in Michigan this year that he shoots 100 rolls of film to get a
couple good pics. I wondered why? The person he was talking to said "wow you
must suck" he said no i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive
toting around 3 SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with my
oly. c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very few
out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've
taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me. I
now understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the same
object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok but
not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a great
pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a good
one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly C-750 it
nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.

"Grace Frehley" <> wrote in message
news:tbueb.2769$.. .
> I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and only
get
> a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic photographers take
> 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a photographer tell someone on
> pit road in Michigan this year that he shoots 100 rolls of film to get a
> couple good pics. I wondered why? The person he was talking to said "wow
you
> must suck" he said no i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive
> toting around 3 SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with my
> oly. c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very
few
> out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've
> taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me.
I
> now understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the same
> object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
> settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok
but
> not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a great
> pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a
good
> one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly C-750 it
> nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.
>
>

Strange, my D100 gives me consistently excellent images from a technical
point of view. However, from an artistic point of view I become much more
critical...

= Dan =

"Grace Frehley" <> wrote in
news:tbueb.2769$:

> I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and
> only get a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic
> photographers take 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a
> photographer tell someone on pit road in Michigan this year that he
> shoots 100 rolls of film to get a couple good pics. I wondered why?
> The person he was talking to said "wow you must suck" he said no i'm
> very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive toting around 3 SLR and
> DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with my oly. c-750 that day
> was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very few out of 250
> pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've taken 450
> pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me. I now
> understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the same
> object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
> settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were
> ok but not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will
> take a great pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun
> to try to get a good one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick
> with the Oly C-750 it nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.

I can't believe you're serious.

"W6DKN" <w6dkn-nospam-@qsl.net> wrote in message
news:3f7a7200$...
>
> "Grace Frehley" <> wrote in message
> news:tbueb.2769$.. .
> > I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and only
> get
> > a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic photographers take
> > 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a photographer tell someone
on
> > pit road in Michigan this year that he shoots 100 rolls of film to get a
> > couple good pics. I wondered why? The person he was talking to said "wow
> you
> > must suck" he said no i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive
> > toting around 3 SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with
my
> > oly. c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very
> few
> > out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've
> > taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me.
> I
> > now understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the
same
> > object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
> > settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok
> but
> > not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a
great
> > pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a
> good
> > one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly C-750 it
> > nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.
> >
> >
>
> Strange, my D100 gives me consistently excellent images from a technical
> point of view. However, from an artistic point of view I become much more
> critical...
>
> = Dan =
>
Well i see your point there, the 300D will give me "good" pics technically
but if i wanted "great" pics i would have to spend the time tweaking them in
some kind of photo software. Or spend $1000 - $5000 for a great lens.
Where the Oly will give me "great" pics right off the bat. No tweaking
needed and for $600 bucks thats a bargain.

Grace Frehley wrote:
> "W6DKN" <w6dkn-nospam-@qsl.net> wrote in message
> news:3f7a7200$...
>>
>> "Grace Frehley" <> wrote in message
>> news:tbueb.2769$.. .
>>> I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and
>>> only get a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic
>>> photographers take 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a
>>> photographer tell someone on pit road in Michigan this year that he
>>> shoots 100 rolls of film to get a couple good pics. I wondered why?
>>> The person he was talking to said "wow you must suck" he said no
>>> i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive toting around 3
>>> SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with my oly.
>>> c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very
>>> few out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new
>>> ballgame. I've taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that
>>> were acceptable to me. I now understand LOL. I did a test today and
>>> took about 10 pics of the same object (a vase full of flowers)
>>> using all different combinations of settings. I even used a light
>>> meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok but not nearly as good
>>> as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a great pic, so its
>>> pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a good
>>> one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly
>>> C-750 it nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Strange, my D100 gives me consistently excellent images from a
>> technical point of view. However, from an artistic point of view I
>> become much more critical...
>>
>> = Dan =
>>
> Well i see your point there, the 300D will give me "good" pics
> technically but if i wanted "great" pics i would have to spend the
> time tweaking them in some kind of photo software. Or spend $1000 -
> $5000 for a great lens. Where the Oly will give me "great" pics
> right off the bat. No tweaking needed and for $600 bucks thats a
> bargain.

What I was referring to is the quality of the composition and overall
subject presentation. This is what separates a snapshot from a photograph.
And the type of gear used to produce one or another makes no difference -
it is the guy pressing the shutter... be it on a point-and-shoot or a
D-SLR...

In other words, the more experienced you become, the fewer shots you take
will be "keepers" because you will develop a more educated/critical opinion
of what constitutes a "great" shot.


= Dan =

"Grace Frehley" <> wrote in message
news:tbueb.2769$.. .
> I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and only
get
> a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic photographers take
> 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a photographer tell someone on
> pit road in Michigan this year that he shoots 100 rolls of film to get a
> couple good pics. I wondered why? The person he was talking to said "wow
you
> must suck" he said no i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive
> toting around 3 SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with my
> oly. c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very
few
> out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've
> taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me. I
> now understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the same
> object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
> settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok
but
> not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a great
> pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a
good
> one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly C-750 it
> nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.
>
>
This first bit of this thread is very interesting! I'm a relative newbie
who's always looking out for info like this.

The other night, I took my camera out on a boat trip, reportage style, and
took about 180 pics over about 8 hours. My friends thought that was
excessive (but I bet it's not to you guys!).

Only a handful I'd say were good - many were spoiled by capturing people
with eyes closed/hands in front of face whilst gesturing, grimaces while
talking. You know the kind of thing.

I suppose a lot of this is due to me not anticipating shutter lag and so
forth, but how many photos would *you* take in an evening to ensure you
capture those priceless moments? Any thoughts?

After reading this post, I'm stunned that Ansel Adams, using his "one shot
at at time" view camera ever produced anything worthwhile.

Seriously, NG photographers do shoot a ton of film/frames. But that's not
the only way to get decent shots. Pre-visualizing the shot, planning the
shot, and waiting for the right light works, too. And one press is all it
takes.

"Grace Frehley" <> wrote in message
news:tbueb.2769$.. .
> I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and only
get
> a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic photographers take
> 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a photographer tell someone on
> pit road in Michigan this year that he shoots 100 rolls of film to get a
> couple good pics. I wondered why? The person he was talking to said "wow
you
> must suck" he said no i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive
> toting around 3 SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with my
> oly. c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very
few
> out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've
> taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me. I
> now understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the same
> object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
> settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok
but
> not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a great
> pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a
good
> one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly C-750 it
> nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.
>
>

"Bowser" <> wrote in message
news:zvzeb.647295$Ho3.134542@sccrnsc03...
> After reading this post, I'm stunned that Ansel Adams, using his "one shot
> at at time" view camera ever produced anything worthwhile.
>
> Seriously, NG photographers do shoot a ton of film/frames. But that's not
> the only way to get decent shots. Pre-visualizing the shot, planning the
> shot, and waiting for the right light works, too. And one press is all it
> takes.

When Adams died, his vault held 40,000 negatives, of which only about 2000
had been printed...

(Actually, your point is well taken, but Adams was primarily a medium format
photographer the last 25 years of his life.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

> After reading this post, I'm stunned that Ansel Adams, using his "one shot
> at at time" view camera ever produced anything worthwhile.
>
> Seriously, NG photographers do shoot a ton of film/frames. But that's not
> the only way to get decent shots. Pre-visualizing the shot, planning the
> shot, and waiting for the right light works, too. And one press is all it
> takes.

That's always been my approach.

Ansel Adams claimed 2 per year was good.

"Grace Frehley" <> wrote in message
news:tbueb.2769$.. .
> I often wondered how these professionals take so many pictures and only
get
> a few good ones. I have read that National Geographic photographers take
> 30,000 pictures to get 1 good one. I heard a photographer tell someone on
> pit road in Michigan this year that he shoots 100 rolls of film to get a
> couple good pics. I wondered why? The person he was talking to said "wow
you
> must suck" he said no i'm very good. I chuckled, he did look impressive
> toting around 3 SLR and DSLR cameras tho. Almost every pic i took with my
> oly. c-750 that day was a good pic and acceptable to me. I deleted very
few
> out of 250 pics. Now i have a canon 300D....hmmmmmmm new ballgame. I've
> taken 450 pics so far and i've saved about 6 that were acceptable to me. I
> now understand LOL. I did a test today and took about 10 pics of the same
> object (a vase full of flowers) using all different combinations of
> settings. I even used a light meter. I deleted all of them. Some were ok
but
> not nearly as good as i wanted. Then out of the blue it will take a great
> pic, so its pretty hit or miss but mostly miss. Its fun to try to get a
good
> one but if i want a good pic right now i'll stick with the Oly C-750 it
> nearly never lets me down. Just my .02 cents.
>
>