Al Kaplan
Veteran
Even those of us still shooting film think nothing of shooting several 36 exposure rolls for that one good picture, but as I go back through my old contact sheets I find it hard to believe how little we really shot forty years ago. In the late 1960's I met some young teenagers, kids really, that had "a garage band" named Fantasy which played some local rock clubs. They were signed by Liberty Records. For the album cover (and they were 12 inches square back then!) they decided to use a painting by singer Billy Robins incorporating high contrast B&W photos of each of the four people in the band. I shot them against a black background with my Minolta Autocord using a single umbrella with strobe, then made a positive and internegative on Kodalith Ortho to drop out all the middle tones.
I was looking for the pictures because recently the Miami Herald had an obituary about the famale vocalist, Jamine Miller, who'd died in her mid-fifties in Tampa. She was fifteen or just turned sixteen when I did these shots and I hadn't seen her since the early seventies when I shot their second album cover. When I located the contact sheets I realized that I'd only shot four frames of each of them, 16 pictures total.
I was happy with the photos as were the members of the group, the producer, and the art director. I started getting called for shoots of established performers. Anyway, I just posted (today's date) two of those four frames on my blog http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
According to the obituary Jamine never liked performing live but everybody loved her voice. She recorded with just about every major rock group, but it was all in the studio, not live performances.
I was looking for the pictures because recently the Miami Herald had an obituary about the famale vocalist, Jamine Miller, who'd died in her mid-fifties in Tampa. She was fifteen or just turned sixteen when I did these shots and I hadn't seen her since the early seventies when I shot their second album cover. When I located the contact sheets I realized that I'd only shot four frames of each of them, 16 pictures total.
I was happy with the photos as were the members of the group, the producer, and the art director. I started getting called for shoots of established performers. Anyway, I just posted (today's date) two of those four frames on my blog http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
According to the obituary Jamine never liked performing live but everybody loved her voice. She recorded with just about every major rock group, but it was all in the studio, not live performances.
Last edited:
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
I've never been able to shoot a couple rolls of the same thing. I get bored. Luckily, I don't get paid to take pictures so I can pretty much do as I like.
notturtle
Well-known
I know what you mean, but I find that 'enough' is a very personal thing and varies according the the aim and moment. I think I shoot far less than many and continue to shoot less as time goes by rather than more. However, whenever doing something new to me, I tend to shoot more until I gain expereince with whatever it may be. Digital is a different matter and there must be many very casual amateurs wearing out shutters...
In India the most I ever shot was 90 frames in a day. The average was about 50 per day and I considered this at themore excessive end. I think after settling in, an average of about 30-40 frames a day would probably result. Here I shoot in fits and starts, but prob average about 20-30 frames a week. Maybe. Just. I go with the flow, but I would suggest that some regard it as 'more professional to burn a serious number of rolls' which I think is silly. I see no correlation between the number of frames shot and the number of keepers.
In India the most I ever shot was 90 frames in a day. The average was about 50 per day and I considered this at themore excessive end. I think after settling in, an average of about 30-40 frames a day would probably result. Here I shoot in fits and starts, but prob average about 20-30 frames a week. Maybe. Just. I go with the flow, but I would suggest that some regard it as 'more professional to burn a serious number of rolls' which I think is silly. I see no correlation between the number of frames shot and the number of keepers.
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I think good and experienced photographers shoot less regardless of the era, or medium.
Beginners and non-confident (or careful) photographers are the ones who take more photos.
Ordinary people shoot less because they don't really care about the outcome.
Digital photography tends to create the illusion that we shoot too much, but I venture to submit that the actual number of "keepers" remains the same compared to 50 years ago.
Just some random thoughts...
Beginners and non-confident (or careful) photographers are the ones who take more photos.
Ordinary people shoot less because they don't really care about the outcome.
Digital photography tends to create the illusion that we shoot too much, but I venture to submit that the actual number of "keepers" remains the same compared to 50 years ago.
Just some random thoughts...
BSchall
Established
I ran across this quote from Frans Lanting that, to me, sums up what photography should be (and what I strive to meet): "photography is a process of saying 'no' most of the time so that you can say 'yes' with an exclamation mark a few times".
What I've told people when I taught a beginning photo course (it's amazing what you can talk your way into in the adult education programs) is if your finger isn't quivering with excitement on the shutter button when you go to press it, than the picture probably isn't worth taking. Basically, feel the excitement of the moment. If it's not there, move on.
What I've told people when I taught a beginning photo course (it's amazing what you can talk your way into in the adult education programs) is if your finger isn't quivering with excitement on the shutter button when you go to press it, than the picture probably isn't worth taking. Basically, feel the excitement of the moment. If it's not there, move on.
nksyoon
Well-known
Maybe due to the accounts of National Geographic photographers shooting several hundred rolls over a couple of months for a story?
wray
Well-known
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Ray, I like frame 7A best.
Darkhorse
pointed and shot
Frame 8A recently sold for $400k.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
H-m-m, I don't think this is necessarily true ...
I assume you're trying to say that good photographers like Diane Arbus did take a lot of pictures of the same subject, am I correct?
In this case it's a little different, she's exploring different possibilities, creative possibilities. There is not a limit that you can put on exploring creative possibilities in terms of how many tries, painters would do the same if it were that easy to reproduce a painting.
But notice that she wasn't bracketing for focus, exposure, or other technical aspects. I think that's what separate good photographers vs beginners or non-confident ones, which was my point.
Btw, thanks for linking the contact sheet, I always thought that the famous frame 8A is a bit creepy, now that I found out the settings, it's much less disturbing than I thought.
wray
Well-known
Yes, you are correct.
marke
Well-known
Back when I got my first "good" camera, an Argus STL 1000, and began developing my own film, my dad used to ask me why I took so many shots of the same thing. All I can remember is that I didn't know how to answer him. I guess I was just trying to see what it (the subject) looked like in each possible way I could imagine. Buy you know, back then I really didn't shoot as much film as I do today.
Today, I probably shoot ten times the amount in an average month than I did 35 years ago. I can easily fire off half a dozen rolls in an hour or less, if the subject matter matters. But I have to confess, that I wish I would shoot less than I do. I think that 10+ years of shooting digital has left me with a mindset that the more I shoot, the better my chances of getting that special keeper will increase. And even though "burst" mode on my DSLR has been a true blessing when it comes to getting that perfect shot of some wildlife behavior, it is also a curse for me at times. I have often considered getting a Rapidwinder for my Leicas, but then I come to my senses and stop myself, realizing that it's the slow, intentional shooting that these cameras require that makes me appreciate the time I spend shooting them. In the end, they have cheaper than a therapist.
Today, I probably shoot ten times the amount in an average month than I did 35 years ago. I can easily fire off half a dozen rolls in an hour or less, if the subject matter matters. But I have to confess, that I wish I would shoot less than I do. I think that 10+ years of shooting digital has left me with a mindset that the more I shoot, the better my chances of getting that special keeper will increase. And even though "burst" mode on my DSLR has been a true blessing when it comes to getting that perfect shot of some wildlife behavior, it is also a curse for me at times. I have often considered getting a Rapidwinder for my Leicas, but then I come to my senses and stop myself, realizing that it's the slow, intentional shooting that these cameras require that makes me appreciate the time I spend shooting them. In the end, they have cheaper than a therapist.
Chris101
summicronia
I don't shoot nearly enough.
Damn! I was gonna say Ray, that your new style looked familiar!
Damn! I was gonna say Ray, that your new style looked familiar!
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I shoot a lot because I never know how the subject is going to resolve itself. Most of the time, I start shooting when I see a potential photo developing and keep shooting until either what I hope for happens or the action collapses to nothing. You can't get back the one that got away. I try not to give it a chance. Much of the time it goes nowhere. But, when it does, there's the magic!
wray
Well-known
Well, I could change my name to Diane but then again ...:
Chris101
summicronia
Would you pronounce it Dee-ahn?
sleepyhead
Well-known
If I'm just walking about with my camera and see something interesting, then I usually take 1 to 4 frames of it, typically 2.
That's how it's always been for me (since 1978 when I got a Minolta HiMatic E for my bar-mitzvah). Since adding an Epson R-D1 to my kit, this habit hasn't changed (why waste more time sorting through many pics on the computer).
As a reult of this, I've shot only about 20-30 rolls of 35mm film per year, consistently for the last 30 years. If I get 1 or 2 keepers per roll then I'm happy.
But I'm only a hobby-ist - if I were a professional doing assignments (such as photojournalism), I'm sure I'd shoot more in order to make sure I got a winning shot.
That's how it's always been for me (since 1978 when I got a Minolta HiMatic E for my bar-mitzvah). Since adding an Epson R-D1 to my kit, this habit hasn't changed (why waste more time sorting through many pics on the computer).
As a reult of this, I've shot only about 20-30 rolls of 35mm film per year, consistently for the last 30 years. If I get 1 or 2 keepers per roll then I'm happy.
But I'm only a hobby-ist - if I were a professional doing assignments (such as photojournalism), I'm sure I'd shoot more in order to make sure I got a winning shot.
pachuco
El ****
I am always pushing myself to take just one or two more shots of a subject but my style is sort of a hit-and-run approach so it does not always work out for me. I do wind up shooting many rolls of film but I always wish I shot more.
aniMal
Well-known
I remember getting seriously into photography in the early nineties, doing lots of concerts. 3-4 rolls a night got to be the normal, which was waaaay over the average amount at that time.
I had some years almost completely off photography just when digital really got going, and I find it very interesting to re-learn everything now, but on a digital basis.
When I was at my best in the mid-nineties, I worked with M2s and M6s - and got to a really decent level where what I saw and what I got started matching for real. What I mean is that focus, movement, lightning and everything else was controlled by me, and not left for seeing the developed film. What happened then was that I started shooting progressively less, and keeping more images... But it really takes a lot of training - and also a lot of nerve.
These days I tend to shoot far more with the M8. But do I get more keepers? In a way I don´t think so, on the other hand I see that I have trouble re-learning that intense and focused way of shooting that I managed to get into... It is just too easy to keep checking the display, and that makes me loose the edge in seeing the picture I guess... Still, the M8 asks for more hands on control, and has made me slip into the old way of working with an M at times.
I recently got a second hand M7 as a back-up, but I tend not to use it too much. Which is a pity, as it is a really good camera alongside the M8. On the other hand I have started carrying a small 4X5 alongside the M8, which is really a good combo. The histogram of an exposure on the M8 is the perfect light measurement, almost like a zone system on its own.
What I feel is the bottom line, is that digital has taken that edge away from my shooting to a certain degree, but it has also given me a more organized approach. I hope that I will be able to fuse the two, as I would like to be able to both shoot spontaneous things in the "old" M-style, as well as working more methodically on getting more conceptual and still-standing things captured with the best possibilities of digital + film.
Look at flickr - it is loaded with millions of photos. I use it as a research tool every time I travel somewhere, and find it very useful in that way. But most times when I find the locations covered, I can see that there are more interesting angles if one looks before just shooting away...
I had some years almost completely off photography just when digital really got going, and I find it very interesting to re-learn everything now, but on a digital basis.
When I was at my best in the mid-nineties, I worked with M2s and M6s - and got to a really decent level where what I saw and what I got started matching for real. What I mean is that focus, movement, lightning and everything else was controlled by me, and not left for seeing the developed film. What happened then was that I started shooting progressively less, and keeping more images... But it really takes a lot of training - and also a lot of nerve.
These days I tend to shoot far more with the M8. But do I get more keepers? In a way I don´t think so, on the other hand I see that I have trouble re-learning that intense and focused way of shooting that I managed to get into... It is just too easy to keep checking the display, and that makes me loose the edge in seeing the picture I guess... Still, the M8 asks for more hands on control, and has made me slip into the old way of working with an M at times.
I recently got a second hand M7 as a back-up, but I tend not to use it too much. Which is a pity, as it is a really good camera alongside the M8. On the other hand I have started carrying a small 4X5 alongside the M8, which is really a good combo. The histogram of an exposure on the M8 is the perfect light measurement, almost like a zone system on its own.
What I feel is the bottom line, is that digital has taken that edge away from my shooting to a certain degree, but it has also given me a more organized approach. I hope that I will be able to fuse the two, as I would like to be able to both shoot spontaneous things in the "old" M-style, as well as working more methodically on getting more conceptual and still-standing things captured with the best possibilities of digital + film.
Look at flickr - it is loaded with millions of photos. I use it as a research tool every time I travel somewhere, and find it very useful in that way. But most times when I find the locations covered, I can see that there are more interesting angles if one looks before just shooting away...
kshapero
South Florida Man
I like them all.H-m-m, I don't think this is necessarily true ...