Restaurant Shoot with the OM-D: Success!

wow, what an interesting thread this turned into since I last checked in over night.

Does anyone know the average number of frames shot for a national geographic feature story? 20,000 to 60,000. So I'll gladly stand in line with my compatriot machine gun shooters.

Ever try to take a photograph of a busy restaurant kitchen with four people doing different things, and a whole host of other variables including steam, smoke, fire? Sorry, but I can choreograph it all in a single shot. I can set up how I want it to look, and then I can wait for the various pieces to fall into place. Then, I can either get it or not. Sometimes I shoot one shot and yes, I chimp to see if I got it. I'd be a fool not to. Other times, I put it on fast exposure and I'll shoot a series. You might be good at getting open eyes while shrimp and salad are suspended in midair over a bowl but I need a few frames to capture that.

The work I do is more akin to sports photography than it is to food photography and my shooting style reflects that reality.

The matter of whether it was a commercial shoot or not is not relevant. My goal is to have 25-50 decent images at the end of a shoot that capture the entire workings of the restaurant, from food still lives to the flurry of the dining room. My personal vision and goal is to capture the hard work that the restaurant business is. And I work hard to do it.

I just happen to do these shoots for a publication, but honestly if I wanted the same result "for fun" I'd do it the same way. It takes time, close attention to detail, and yes, quite a few frames for me to do my job right. Over the years of doing this my number of shots has decreased to a point...but every situation is different. I also don't use flash so I have to adapt to whatever lighting situations I have.

Whatever. Maybe that gives some people the willies. Fine. Load up your Leica with 24 exposures and enjoy your superior photographic philosophy. In the meanwhile I enjoy my work, find it challenging, and from local feedback, do it quite nicely.

The reality is that unless you're shooting in an environment you control completely, you have to adapt to and work with the changes in that environment. Sometimes you get the shot, sometimes not.

If I had to shoot with film, would i shoot less on a shoot? Definitely. But not by choice...there would simply be a hard limit to how much film I can carry or afford. So here comes digital that removes this contraint and people are griping about people "spraying the room" like I'm some kind of tomcat in spring.

None of my shots are staged...they are the real deal, and they take work to make. My editor likes them, the restaurants feel I captured their workings well, the readers like to look at them. That's enough for me!
 
I will post photos tomorrow from this shoot, until then my sig has a link to my flick page...plenty of my past work there, go to collections/eateries.
 
dreilly said:
wow, what an interesting thread this turned into since I last checked in over night.

Does anyone know the average number of frames shot for a national geographic feature story? 20,000 to 60,000. So I'll gladly stand in line with my compatriot machine gun shooters.

Ever try to take a photograph of a busy restaurant kitchen with four people doing different things, and a whole host of other variables including steam, smoke, fire? Sorry, but I can choreograph it all in a single shot. I can set up how I want it to look, and then I can wait for the various pieces to fall into place. Then, I can either get it or not. Sometimes I shoot one shot and yes, I chimp to see if I got it. I'd be a fool not to. Other times, I put it on fast exposure and I'll shoot a series. You might be good at getting open eyes while shrimp and salad are suspended in midair over a bowl but I need a few frames to capture that.

The work I do is more akin to sports photography than it is to food photography and my shooting style reflects that reality.

The matter of whether it was a commercial shoot or not is not relevant. My goal is to have 25-50 decent images at the end of a shoot that capture the entire workings of the restaurant, from food still lives to the flurry of the dining room. My personal vision and goal is to capture the hard work that the restaurant business is. And I work hard to do it.

I just happen to do these shoots for a publication, but honestly if I wanted the same result "for fun" I'd do it the same way. It takes time, close attention to detail, and yes, quite a few frames for me to do my job right. Over the years of doing this my number of shots has decreased to a point...but every situation is different. I also don't use flash so I have to adapt to whatever lighting situations I have.

Whatever. Maybe that gives some people the willies. Fine. Load up your Leica with 24 exposures and enjoy your superior photographic philosophy. In the meanwhile I enjoy my work, find it challenging, and from local feedback, do it quite nicely.

The reality is that unless you're shooting in an environment you control completely, you have to adapt to and work with the changes in that environment. Sometimes you get the shot, sometimes not.

If I had to shoot with film, would i shoot less on a shoot? Definitely. But not by choice...there would simply be a hard limit to how much film I can carry or afford. So here comes digital that removes this contraint and people are griping about people "spraying the room" like I'm some kind of tomcat in spring.

None of my shots are staged...they are the real deal, and they take work to make. My editor likes them, the restaurants feel I captured their workings well, the readers like to look at them. That's enough for me!
Click to expand...

this is quite a fine answer. should put an end to the silly comments.
 
I think original post have split into two interesting but completely independent topics. Sometimes it's better to spawn new thread for new topic not mull original theme with newcomer.

For me this is another proof smaller companies move market. Olympus, Ricoh, Pentax, Sigma (whom I missed now, step out of line?!) all have come out with niche products some of which have set new directions.
 
When I shoot digital, I shoot more frames than film, because I'm bracketing more, and not worrying about wasting film, trying out different compositions or exposures. It's not less thoughtful at all, but more experimental, and due to that, maybe more creative..

Digital gives us the freedom to try things we wouldn't with film. On my last holiday I shot over 1000 frames on digital, if I did that on film, the cost would be too much.
 
Looking forward to seeing the photos, Doug. Shooting a restaurant the way you've described it is shooting a performance. Just like a wedding. Lots of action/decisive moments which can't be repeated and are not always predictable, challenging light, sometimes tight working spaces, people blink. Fast AF and digital with a large memory card makes life, and results, a lot easier.
 
How does someone reporting how happy he is with his OMD turn into an accusation of the spray and pray digital hokum we've come to expect around here occasionally?

That dumb accusation totally spoiled Doug's thread IMO and I think in his position I just would have deleted it.

Talk about trying to take the cherry of someone's ice cream ... sheesh!
 
way to go, d. you might have shot too few frames. who can say?
i shot 372 frames with my x100 during my granddaughter's third birthday party, then dinner with the family. i'd say the keeper-to-36 frames ratio was about the same for the x100 as it would have been for 11 rolls of film - without the fuss of film. spray and pray? how rude and untrue ...
 
400 shots in an evening? Shooting a still scene in good light, I might make one or two and then try a different view. With people moving, not 100% sure of getting good focus, I might shoot a burst. Especially in lower or mixed lighting, I'd probably make ten exposures of any interesting shot.

400 in an evening? That helps me get the shots I want. No problem. In these situations, I appreciate digital.

Sounds like a good shooting evening, Doug. Can we see some photos?
 
I'm enjoying the real world, real user evaluations being offered for this camera. The AF and high ISO abilities are pretty well known, but this is the first I've heard of long battery life.

It's good to know that you can squeeze out over 400 shots from such a small battery. The OMD continues to impress.
 
I have to say that 400+ pics is a lot to sort through, but I understand fully the problem of trying to catch the moment on film.

Last night I was trying to capture a chamber orchestra conductor in a dramatic pose, and thought this would be easy since his gestures correlate with the beat. Not the case. His most expressive gestures were often at what were (for me) unintuitive points, and took me by surprise. Couple that with how fast he was often moving, and I think I am lucky if I got a few good frames out of an entire roll.

I am not really in the anti-digital camp, I just have not found a digital I can tolerate. Which is why I like hearing Doug's viewpoint. Look forward to seeing some samples.

Randy
 
When I shoot gallery openings in difficult conditions I will often take up to 350 shots in just over an hour because the conditions for lighting are unpredictable and people often move suddenly when I'm not expecting it. I'll normally end up with fifty or sixty exposures that I regard as suitable for post processing and I normally hand around thirty to forty images to my client after editing. Out of those there are usually five or six images that I genuinely like that I would regard as keepers ... from my personal perspective!
 
Keith,
That's about the same for me too. I can also usually expect that most of the 5 or 6 that I think are the best won't end up in the final layout! Ah, editors....I should this time try really hard to like the least good 5 or 6 of the bunch and see if reverse (para)psychology works! :)
 
Jeez, I stand corrected. Sorry. Just an ill-considered snotty comment on a slow night at the computer. Sure got the blood boiling. Apologies all around. I'll stick to my 4-rolls-that-fit-in-the-tank methods and never say a word on the topic again, I swear.
 
sdotkling said:
Jeez, I stand corrected. Sorry. Just an ill-considered snotty comment on a slow night at the computer. Sure got the blood boiling. Apologies all around. I'll stick to my 4-rolls-that-fit-in-the-tank methods and never say a word on the topic again, I swear.
Click to expand...


You did ruffle few feathers! :D

Apology accepted on my part ... thanks. :)
 
sdotkling-- No worries!

I got the 20-60,000 figure from the special "50 Greatest Pictures" issue. I've seen various figures in different places, this seemed to capture the range. They have a staff of editors that sort them and do what I imagine is many, many culls.

In terms of what gets published from that 20-60K, it's 15-20 at most. The % is shockingly tiny.

I remember reading that back in the film days photos would send boxes of film back to NGS almost daily and get fresh film supplies just as often. Really amazing.

Just got Photosmith on the Ipad which gives me a bit of Lightroom's ability to select and organize photographs. So hopefully I can get a few images up tomorrow once I sync it with my offce computer's lightroom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom