Sooner or later...

[Roger Hicks]

... you have to decide which pictures you are going to use (put on the wall, on the web, in a book...). 'Sooner' is while you're shooting; 'later' is when you're editing. Either way, you have to decide. No decent human being inflicts 43 near-identical photographs on anyone, unless there's a very good reason. Or on themselves, for that matter.

You can save yourself a lot of time and grief by not taking too many pictures at the shooting stage: in other words, by not overshooting. But what is overshooting?

For me, it's taking another, virtually identical picture that isn't clearly better than the one you've already got. Sure, if you're in doubt, shoot anyway. By all means shoot from a different angle, or with a different lens. But don't just shoot the same picture again and again, for no better reason than because you can.

Why do I feel so strongly about this? Well, I won't show you the 300-odd 35mm and 645 pictures that Frances and I shot from hired boats on the Ganges in the early morning, three mornings in a row, about 25 years ago. There are probably about 10 good pictures there, and we could have got them with a third of the film.

But how do you define 'overshooting'? If, indeed, you believe it exists?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

You've clearly not met my farther in law

 

[gns]

People have different approaches. And valid personal reasons for them. What seems like over-shooting to one may seem frugal to another. It's only the results that matter.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[rpsawin]

I can tell that I have overshot when the little voice in my head says "That was a waste"🙄

Best regards,

Bob

 

[tbarker13]

It's an interesting question. Particularly in our digital era, where it costs virtually nothing to shoot extra frames on a flash card.
I've always been something for a volume shooter - I was with film, and still am with digital. I think a lot of that has to do with my photographic upbringing - studied photojournalism in college and interned at a metro daily before changing paths and becoming a reporter.
But the photographers I learned from hammered into my head this idea that coming back from an assignment with too many options was much better than coming back from an assignment without enough options.

In the end, I don't spend much time thinking about it. I shoot whenever I feel like tripping the shutter. Sometimes that very slight difference from frame to frame (particularly when shooting a portrait session) can make a huge difference - at least to me.

I have, however, tried to become a bit more disciplined when shooting things like landscapes.

 

[Roger Hicks]

People have different approaches. And valid personal reasons for them. What seems like over-shooting to one may seem frugal to another. It's only the results that matter.

Cheers,
Gary

Dear Gary,

Quite. That's why I was wondering what criteria others use.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gns]

Well, personally, I usually take at least a few frames of a given scene and sometimes 20 or 30. If there is a lot going on in the scene or movement, that's a good reason to make several shots. You just can't pay attention to everything in the frame. Even if things are static and I have all the time in the world, I will still often take several shots just to try something different. Trying to get away from what I think will be a good picture because that often turns out to be just a picture that looks like another picture (mine or someone else's).

Cheers,
Gary

 

[stevew]

Too Much

Too Much

Roger,

As has been mentioned, depends alot on the purpose such as news. For most hobby and landscape, digital has made it too easy to shoot "Too Much"". People bang away too make sure they got something and get alot of mediocre "Something" and can't decide what to print. I shoot digital also but might only shoot a couple hundred clicks on a week outing, it is so easy to click away but we have to back up all this data or decide what to delete. I recently scanned some 4x5 shots from 1983, a week in Yosemite that were never printed, 45 negs total and some very fine images. I looked through some of my old contacts (35mm, 120, 4x5) from late 70's, about 200 pages, alot of friends I know longer remember there names and places I forget. There are probably 20 images that I would like to scan and print. There is something magical about pulling and old negative out (man, I didn't have to back that up) and printing, but it is work and makes it more precious.

 

[rover]

You've clearly not met my farther in law

I hate when the first reply is the "best", the one I was going to state.

Yes, my parents want to see the 4 almost exact shots of my son playing tombone from the parade yesterday.

It depends on your audiance, you must satisfy your customer.

That said, when I am out alone, shoting for myself, then one is mostly enough.

 

[oftheherd]

Well, I think there are times when you change the composition, see different light, or perhaps different action, and you may take more than one shot. But then it really isn't the same shot. I have done that, especially when I thought I "saw" more than one photo in the changes I made.

Now if someone could just tell me how to explain that to my wife, I would be eternally grateful: "Why did you take so many shots of the same thing? That development and printing costs money you know." 😀

 

[Turtle]

Over shooting is something all photographers have to go through to learn. As one better understands what works and when one has captured a particular sense of a subject, the shooting can stop. Until you have passed through that point time and time again, you cannot appreciate where it lies.

Roger, what you are talking about is quite simply experience and it varies depending on the photographer and also their experience as it relates to the photography being undertaken. When I shoot in a way I am not familiar, it have to get learn by feel when to stop and move on. I think part of it is seeing results - lots of them - and relating them to what you see through the viewfinder. In time one no longer needs to look at the results to be fairly sure what will be there.

I am still shooting a long-term project and currently walk past opportunities I would have given my right arm for a few years ago because I am looking for new things, not squeezing another 1% out of something I have already heavily shot. New images, new perspective, however imperfectly shot, will do my work much more good.

I think what I am trying to say is that once you are really confident you know the relationship between what you see and what you will get on film/file... and know what you shot, you do not end up shooting loads of inferior images. At this point is not about shooting as such, but evaluating what you are looking at and essentially comparing it to what you know you already shot.

 

[Turtle]

When one has a one (or few) image goal and loads of time, shooting a scene to death can make some sense, but it tends to introduce a creative myopia that results in more action and less creativity. The other problem is that when time is limited (like in India at the Ganges) you miss out on potentially wonderful opportunities because you are still shooting to death scene 1. We've all done it, but it is certainly a liberation when one gets part this point. I remember shooting some waterfalls in Zimbabwe in my early years behind a camera. I find it very interesting to look back at them.. so, so many...

 

[antiquark]

With digital, it's pretty easy to skip through 200 pictures on your computer, and quickly discard the non-keepers. My photo software (Canon Photo-something-or-other) lets you apply a star rating to the picture as you're viewing it. That way, you can make multiple passes, thinning the herd as you go.

When I end up with a bunch of near-duplicates, I just print them all at Walmart for 19 cents a shot, and give the excess to the inlaws. 🙂

 

[kshapero]

Overshooting happens mostly when I shoot digital and about right shooting happens when I use film, probably because I have to pay for it.

 

[gns]

I have not noticed any difference in the amount I shoot with digital vs. 35mm film.

 

[Andy Kibber]

I've never been a terribly prolific shooter, but I must admit that I shoot a bit more since moving primarily to digital.

When shooting film, it cost me about $0.60 a frame. Now that I don't have that price hanging over my head, I'm much inclined to take a few extra photos or shoot things that I wouldn't have in the past. Sometimes I get an unexpected keeper.

To attempt to answer the original question, I define overshooting as taking so many pictures that I get annoyed when editing. If I bore others with half a dozen pictures of the same thing, that's not overshooting, that's under editing.

 

[robert blu]

Difficult question, I'm getting a little confused...maybe the ...age does not help !
As amateur who learned to take pictures with a rolleiflex (12 fram per film) it was already surprising the benefit to have 36 frames on the same roll. Now the technology gives the possibility to have so many frames you like so why not to benefit from it? Specially for the ones who take pictures as a job. I understand when people shoot many "alternatives", different points of view, angle, lenses. As said even in portrait in a fraction of time an expression can change and destroy an image. Or make it wonderfull. But I see, among amateurs, so many almost identical images shot just in the hope taht "something" happens and one is better than the others, witn no research for alternatives. This is in my opinion, which can be wrong, what I would define overshooting.
robert

 

[wgerrard]

If I can't tell the difference between even two photos, I've shot too much. Something needs to change. My subject can change (something/someone moves, shadows come in, etc.) or I can change (different aperture, different lens, etc.) If nothing changes, odds are the images won't either.

 

[Phantomas]

Never. Actually, seriously. Unfortunately. But hopefully...

 

[Andy Kibber]

Never. Actually, seriously. Unfortunately. But hopefully...

I couldn't have said it better myself!