Do We Shoot Too Much?

I never heard of anyone getting better at something by not doing it.

I am fascinated by the idea that anyone thinks they have a bead on how many photographs are 'enough' for someone to take, and how many constitute 'too much'.

@shadowfox: Wow. You get to decide if a person is a serious artist (tm) and therefore allowed to 'explore creative possibilities' or if they're just a typical duffer, clearly shooting too much?
 
I think good and experienced photographers shoot less regardless of the era, or medium
Click to expand...
Hmm, I shoot far more now than I've ever done over the past 40 years, so I guess that means I'm getting worse and forgetting what I've learned :D

In reality, most of us shoot what we can afford to. When I was young I could barely afford to buy a handful of rolls of film, and now I can afford to keep a freezer full - that's what really makes the difference.
 
[FONT=&quot]Personally, I go through periods of photographic activity/inactivity.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Whether the inactive periods are the result of a lull in my interest in the hobby or lack of inspiration or perhaps a combination of the two, I’m not sure.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]How much is ‘too much’ or how little is ‘too little’? You’re on your own with that one. [/FONT]
 
Well,
I can think of two ways to look at the issue. I once read a photography
critique in the NYT which complimented an exhibit by noting
that the photographer was known to be careful about his picture taking.

"it is a waste of eye to shoot faster than the mind can think" was the
critic's phrase.

On the other hand, I have read that Salgado may sometimes take up to
1500 shots per day ! ( ~40 rolls x 36...)

Take your choice......
 
I dunno, I find I shoot far far more with digital especially at first and get far less shots i want to keep, simply because its digital so it doesn't really cost me.

With film I'll think about the composition and all that before taking a shot because I don't want to waste the film, and I don't want to have to spend more of my time developing more film and having to buy loads of film. I dunno over the past year I've shot about 30 rolls of film(24exp.) with I'd say 2-4 keepers a roll. I just take better pictures with film.
 
Like Dee-Ahn, I try to get at least half the pictures on any roll to be pictures I like. And I usually succeed. But do "they" listen?

No, they do not.

But you f... nevermind. It's a joke that is probably not appropriate here.

But the metaphor is, that you rarely please the masses with what you, yourself like. Finding the elusive 8A that "goes viral" takes a mindset, talent, representation and luck that we just don't pop into all that often.

Which reminds me: Are there any rich women out there who want to hook up with a needy, self absorbed, physically failing, artsy type guy? You might just hit the big one with me, cause there are European art chicks who think I should be discovered too! And I'll probably like you drunk better too!

ps, you MUST be well connected in the "art world" and be able to get me into the best galleries. I wouldn't mind a gift to a respected museum or two, but I mean big time, not podunk; K?
 
I do my best to follow Eggleston's mantra of 1 shot for 1 thing, but it's much harder to do with digital. On film I normally stick to it unless I absolutely know I screwed up the first shot.
 
I limit myself to 3 rolls (36) a month, simply because my preferred films don't come cheap. I've found that the simpler the camera is (think: fully mechanical, no metering, no auto-focus, just nothing), the more I think about the shot, and the more aware I am of the decisive moment.

Shooting 3 rolls every month (in some cases, only 2 rolls) isn't hard - wandering the streets, I usually only find 1 or 2 remotely good compositions/subjects.

In fact…I only just got home…I'd been out for almost 2.5 hours in a very busy area of HK shooting. I came home with 2 photos, and I have doubts that the 2nd one's actually that great.

If I were shooting digital, I'd definitely have shot more, I admit, but when shooting people, one needs to keep a certain sense of awareness and not just go snapping madly…in the past, on vacation, I used to shoot ~500 photos (digital) a day! Sometimes even 1000…and looking back on them, I find I was only wasting hard disk space and time - I never had the time nor patience to process, sort and edit them. Which is why I'm almost completely on film now; it saves me time in the end, and produces images of amazing quality (assuming for reasonable technique)

I know my grandpa, when he went on vacation, shooting either 120 or 135, shot 1 roll a day and brought 1-2 rolls extra (so for a week's vacation, he'd bring 8-10 rolls), which, if you think about it, is plenty.
 
xxloverxx said:
I used to shoot ~500 photos (digital) a day! Sometimes even 1000…and looking back on them, I find I was only wasting hard disk space and time - I never had the time nor patience to process, sort and edit them.
Click to expand...

You already did great job by just looking such amount of pictures a day!
 
Pickett Wilson said:
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!
Click to expand...

Like Pickett, I find that frequently subjects evolve as I shoot. Additionally, I find that my vision evolves as well. There is a "warm up" period for me where I need to start shooting to begin to make things start happening.

Additionally, I find myself not working for "good" photos (a relative term) as I have too many of those. Instead I shoot for that "really great" photo (again a relative term). That means a lot of different or high risk shots, the ones that most often do not work at all but knowing that every once in a while there will be the one that makes all the stinkers worthwhile.
 
By looking inside - instead of outside (or after a new camera, lens...) you KNOW what and how much to shoot.
 
Last edited:
Lately I find myself taking three shots of the same image. This because, for a reason unknown to me sofar, I am seing more and more motion blur in my pictures when shooting my m6.
So yes I agree with the poster who states that the less confident try to make up with quantity. My aim is to be a conscious photographer.

When it gets to hard to be a conscious photographer I drink 'till I'm an unconscious one , next morning, for a reason unknown to me sofar, I am seeing more and more motion blur in my pictures when shooting my m6.
 
Last edited:
How many times have you looked at a photograph and decided you liked it because the photographer did not take 'too many' photographs, or decided you did not like because the photographer did take 'too many' photographs?

As a viewer, do you know how many photographs the photographer took? Do you care? If you do care, why?

The question itself is insipid. It's just another thinly-veiled anti-digital screed. The implication is that:

a) There is such a thing as the correct number of photographs. "Do we take too many" implies that there is a number, beyond which is 'too many'. What is that number? Who decides what that number is? Is your number the same as my number?

b) using a digital camera forces one to take more than that number.


c) therefore, digital is bad.

The question itself is boring and banal.

And, it's old. If one chooses to read really old photography magazines, one finds 'Letters to the Editor' that make the same angry sputterings from outraged medium-format photographers, complaining about the 'miniature' camera users (35mm) who burn shot after shot, because they have a whole 36-exposure roll to play with. "Why, they're not proper photogaphers at all," the 'real' photographers complained bitterly.

It's a recycled argument, it's boring, it's tedious, and it illuminates the prejudices of an angry person.

Take as many photographs as you feel are proper. There are no rules regarding the proper number of photographs to take, and taking more or fewer photographs does not in itself make one a better or worse photographer. Film or digital, it is the same. If one truly cannot control oneself when using a digital camera just because the digital will permit one to fire away for thousands of frames, then one has a problem - and the problem is not the camera. That's like blaming the bottle because one cannot stop drinking from it.
 
Stop Bogarting that joint!

If I'm shooting at very slow speeds (1/8 or longer) hand-held I'll sometimes shoot three frames. Other times "The Moment" has gone by, so why bother?
 
Last edited:
We each have our own style, and when we first start out we haven't yet discovered what it will be. When I first started out in the early 1960's a lot of the older photographers, those who'd cut their teeth on 4x5, were still trying to figure out how it was possible to go out on a news assignment and use up all 12 shots on the roll of 120 film in their Rolleiflex!
 
Last edited:
Shoot too much of the wrong thing, yes. Then the one dman thing comes along that I should have shot 'around' for an hour and I have only one frame of it. I think it's because my mind is all sloppy with other thoughts, distractions. The camera begs me to give in and explore with it all the time, but I can't. Yet.
 
bmattock said:
a) There is such a thing as the correct number of photographs. "Do we take too many" implies that there is a number, beyond which is 'too many'. What is that number? Who decides what that number is? Is your number the same as my number?
Click to expand...

That's not what I think or was trying to say at all. I'm just saying when I shoot film I think about it more and therefore take more good shots percentage wise then if I was taking it with a DSLR. And secondly I really have not bias against Digital, I admire and envy those who are better with digital then with film. I started taking serious photos with a DSLR before taking a B&W class and my film shots are just immensly better. And I find I get image fatique with Digital not neccesarily when shooting but when reviewing all the photos. I'm just better at seeing what photos I like and editing them in film. But yeah I don't think your comment was aimed particularly at me but i figured I would let you in on my thought process of why I like digital.

And this is from the perspective of someone who has grown up with the development of DSLRs and all digital cameras. = )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom