Sooner or later...

If I catch a scene that I know is good, if I am prepared, I will normally capture what I want in a couple of frames, if it is fleeting, that is it, regardless.

If it is some place I may never return, or the conditions are unique, the fog is just right, the scene is never going to be there, and if I have time and film, I shoot perhaps a roll, (which may be 8-16 shots on MF). I have had frames, indeed entire rolls, ruined in processing.

Normally, the situation is not static enough to get more than a couple of frames, but film is your cheapest variable. Time and opportunity are precious.

If you shoot a few more, once you feel you have got it, that's fine, you can file away the spares, no one says you have to show them.

I have made shots of people several times in which one frame is really what I wanted, but the next, a second later is really nothing I would want to show to anyone.

If you are paying attention (sometimes some pay more attention afterwards than during the shooting), you may really know when the shutter release is pressed it is a special frame. Digital cameras with delay drive me a bit crazy.

You can lose patience and spray and pray, especially with digital, and I think that is overshooting. If you are not specifically thinking about each frame when you are shooting, it is not a good sign.

If you are shooting a thousand photographs of a wedding, you must be fatiguing someone, and that is overshooting, are they going to recall the wedding or you?

But this is event shooting, not an attempt to capture a special frame, I did not think you were referring to that. I always shoot three of groups, and I used to use a TLR because I could see the faces during the exposure.


Plus, we must always keep mind of the dancing photographers with motor drives shooting 60 or more shots per minute, a couple of feet away, of a quickly moving model in Hollywood's impression of a shoot-- sometimes we are expected to keep up the image. Funny how Digital cameras in movies still have motor drive sound effects?

Regards, John
 
Last edited:
When comparing the relative costs of film and digital in terms of volume of images shot, the one "fixed cost" sometimes ignored is the time required for all that editing, whether at the light box or the screen.

I believe in shooting what I feel is necessary to get the shot, but that quantity has gone down considerably over the years. Even back when I was toting around five-frame-per-second SLRs, I usually had the frame-rate set to "single" instead of "Automatic Slim" because laying down one-sixth of a roll in the blink of an eye (1) usually didn't garner the desired results, and (2) was largely a waste of time in editing. This experience was confirmed when I worked for six years at a stock-photo agency (on the editing-desk side, not behind the camera).

The currently-popular shoot-chimp-shoot method seems almot the polar opposite, but let's not even go there for now.

The bottom line (IMO, of course) is to shoot as much as (1) makes you feel confident that you got the shot, and (2) you can tolerate sitting and editing. But no more than that. :)


- Barrett
 
Good question, Roger. Overshooting -- personally it depends on how mean and/or enthusiastic I feel. If very mean, I will shoot very frugally; if on the other hand, I feel pretty enthusiastic about whatever it is I'm shooting then I'll shoot more liberally. Only the editing reveals which of my feelings was correct! But my frugal might be someone else's liberal, and vice versa.

Apart from cost and time, I'm not sure that the actual volume of shooting really matters. What does matter is the volume -- and the ruthlessness -- of the editing.
 
Barret says :The bottom line (IMO, of course) is to shoot as much as (1) makes you feel confident that you got the shot, and (2) you can tolerate sitting and editing. But no more than that.
I fully agree. And editing is the keyword...
robert
 
The photograph must tell a story. How many photographs do you need to tell your story? If I are taking landscape photos are they truely unique or am I duplicating something I can buy in a gift shop? If I think that my shot will be another travelogue photo I pass it up. With people I find that I can shoot more because their expressions change. Often times two very similiar photos are very different when compared side by side. Sometimes I take six or more photos of an individual at the same location ;minutes apart but later when they are processed in each one the person has a different expression. Did I take too many? For me No.
 
It's a good topic - one I try and keep in mind and keep an eye on.

One basic consideration is: am I "THE" photographer at an event, or an attendee taking some shots? As a participant grabbing shots for myself or to share informally with friends, I'm usually ok about not over-shooting.

Film vs Digital: a major consideration. Film is very costly (time, money or both) to acquire, carry, load, process and scan. I figure about 50 cents to $1 / frame for film and in general, I probably under-shoot with film. Hard drives are relatively low cost for the number of images they will hold (a 1TB drive is $100 and holds >50K compressed raw M9 files, double that for a backup drive - therefore if I never deleted an image they'd still cost less than 1/2 cent each). With digital, pay for the body and then shots are almost free.

Another factor is the type of shooting. I take quite a few more frames when shooting concerts/shows in low light. It's hard to know "sooner" while youre shooting if youve got good shots, as even zooming in on the screen of a digital I can't reliably tell if the sharpness is there versus later.

Here's an example, where I was traveling, a good band was playing, so I decided to shoot the show, but in a relaxed way (didn't move around too much, only one or two lens changes). Of 200+ images taken, I included about 25 in a gallery. Shot maybe 300 frames the whole night.
Here's the gallery, set to start at the 1st shot of the main band:
http://bit.ly/dxKkyj
Not the best images, but I'm happy with the gallery given they are a set of vacation photos, and allowed me to share some of the energy of a band I saw while traveling.

BTW, I've shot as many frames with the M9 in the past 2 months as I was on track to shoot with the M4's in 10 years. Haven't felt I've been overshooting too often, it's just very different. It also felt awesome to load a fresh roll of Tri-X last weekend...
 
Roger Hicks said:
... 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.
Click to expand...

I there are various legitimate reasons and situations where 'overshooting' is necessary. Most of all it's just a safety net, it's the extra few exposures 'just in case'. Sure, the more experienced you get the less you actually need the safety net but it's still prudent to have one. An experienced rock climber might know that he can climb a mountain without slipping but that doesn't mean he won't use a safety rope.

When I worked at an agency in London a couple of years ago there were a few (very successful) photographers who had just switched to digital. It was interesting to see that they worked much more efficiently with digital, actually taking less pictures for the simple reason that they knew when they had it.

Personally, I never rarely more than two similar exposures when I'm just photographing for myself. However, when I work for someone else or when I'm working on a personal project I care about I just have to 'overshoot'. Nothing worse than getting back your negs from the lab just to find out that in that one great photo you thought you had taken the model is blinking or that you slightly missed focus.
 
I take a photo and move along, i just make sure that that photo in the viewfinder matches what I saw in my head before I shot it.

I was the same with digital, I came from shooting bands for magazines where I have about 10 minutes to shoot a show. I learnt early on hammering frames gave me a lot of crap, setting myself up for that one shot gave me one good photo, seeing ahead of time and preempting the 'moment' was necessary even if I was ony right 50% of the time I still had more 'keepers' for considerably less photos (and it reduced editing time drastically).

I still hear the younger kids who shoot at shows lamenting the hundreds of photos they need to sort through when they get home, I'd have maybe 20 at most. Now it's 1 roll.

If I miss a shot, I miss a shot and I'll see why when I develop the roll and make a mental note for consideration the next time I find myself in the same situation.
 
Last edited:
A family member just spent $2k on a Nikon DSLR and lens and they've got it set in burst mode. Every shot this family member takes, he holds the button down and gets 3-5 exposures.
 
Sometimes it's a necessary evil. If I was going to do a portrait of someone and it mattered I'd happily shoot a roll knowing that somewhere within that roll there will be the two or three or maybe only one shot that really works. The same can apply to urban landscapes if they are dynamic IMO.
 
Overshooting? Yes it exists. When? Well when I feel there are to many pictures of the same thing, e.g. I have some chairs that I have wasted to much film/digital storage on.

But the when part also change over time, e.g. if you look at photos older than say 1-2 years you (or I guess it is me) almost never feel you have too much.
 
Depends on who is going to look at them -- I've had editors who want to see 'lots of options', and they'd prefer that I not edit anything out. Conversely, I've worked for editors who don't want to look through 300 shots to choose images for a story.

I'd say that many times a photographer can be his/her own worst editor, but of course there is a limit, and it also depends on the job. For an editorial story on an event, having as many photos as possible from which to choose is advantageous, as is a story on a home renovation. Of course, the real work happens afterwards when you have to go through and edit/colour correct all of them!

I've also had situations in which I'll have to do photos of a specific person, and sometimes I'll find that the best shot is the very first one I took (then I wonder why I wasted my time taking all the other photos!). Many times, however, I'll notice that the subject gets more comfortable in front of the camera after about 15 minutes, and the very last shots will be the best ones. No real clear-cut answer I suppose!
 
Last edited:
Inevitably, the definition of 'overshooting' will vary. Small variations in expressions in a portrait are a perfect example. Even then, if you can't get it in a single 10-exposure roll, or at most two, then you're probably either (a) overshooting or (b) pretty incompetent as a portraitist. In fact, experience should, as Turtle says, tell you when you've got enough. There is therefore a tempting reductio ad absurdum that if a bad photographer needed 100 shots, and a good photographer 10, then a 'perfect' photographer could do it in 1.

Of course 'good' is a weasel word: you might be brilliant at music photography and rotten at portraits, or vice versa, leading to the need to shoot a lot more of the one you're bad at.

Sig's first sentence is probably the best definition -- Overshooting? Yes it exists. When? Well when I feel there are to many pictures of the same thing, e.g. I have some chairs that I have wasted to much film/digital storage on. -- but 25+ years on I still feel that Frances and I shot too much on the Ganges, because we had a limited viewpoint and a limited choice of lenses: too wide, and it's all water and sky, and too long, and you can't hold the camera steady in a small, rocking boat.

Cheers,

R.
 
Guilty of using the screen as a feedback loop. When I like the shot, viewed on the M8, time to exit the loop.

Unless I'm adjusting a lens. Then the feedback loop requires two shots in focus on the same object from the same distance. Way to reduce human error. These things can always be traced to human error, Dave.
 
rover said:
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.
Click to expand...

The other side of that particular coin, sadly, is when the photographer has a captive audience.

Since they retired my wife’s parents have travelled all over the globe, and he is quite capable of making a photo of Norway or Iceland look identical to one of New Zealand or the US North West, that may sound odd but it is true … I have seen most of them.

Thankfully, he went digital some years ago so we don’t have to attend the slide shows, these days we just get the disc to watch at our convenience.

At one time I did considered explaining the concept of editing, but thought better of it, we just set the slide-show to fast
 
I've posted some contact sheets from famous and admired photographers here. The images were rightfully removed (sorry for copyright infringement).
The point is that seeing those contact sheets always makes me feel at ease about my own photography. Yes, all those "perfect photographers" shot frame after frame out of which we see just one and go "wow, what a moment/expression that guy caught, he has a real eye for that".

Have a look at Erwitt's contacts here. I guess he's not a perfect photographer.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Inevitably, the definition of 'overshooting' will vary. Small variations in expressions in a portrait are a perfect example. Even then, if you can't get it in a single 10-exposure roll, or at most two, then you're probably either (a) overshooting or (b) pretty incompetent as a portraitist. In fact, experience should, as Turtle says, tell you when you've got enough. There is therefore a tempting reductio ad absurdum that if a bad photographer needed 100 shots, and a good photographer 10, then a 'perfect' photographer could do it in 1.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with your viewpoint here that someone who "can't get it" in a single roll is a bad portraitist. If by 'it' you mean something that's merely good enough then sure, you're right. Most celeb portraitists often don't get more than 5 minutes with the talent and it's their job to get something useful in those few minutes. Many award winning portraits have been produced in such 5 minute shoots but at the end of the day those great shots are probably hit or miss.
If by 'it' you mean the best possible shot of the session then you're probably wrong. There are so many factors to consider that I don't even know where to start. Firstly, you speak of the 'perfect photographer' that could do it in 1 shot. That 'perfect photographer' can only be a god-like creature as he has to have complete power over what the person in front of the camera does. No blinking allowed for starters. This 'perfect' photographer is surely one who only takes static portraits as any shot that is supposed to capture movement is not possible (or does this perfect photographer have slow-mo vision??).

Portraits are always a collaborations. Often the person in front of the camera will get more relaxed throughout a shoot. A photographer I used to assist for used to shoot the first 10 minutes with no film in the camera just to get them accustomed to the camera. Sure, that's one way to reduce 'overshooting' but you can't do that indefinitely. Then there's the fact that sometimes you just have to click the shutter so the person changes expression. If you tell them to change expression or posture too often without clicking the shutter they will get insecure and think everything they do is wrong. And they'll start 'waiting' for the shot which shows in the pictures. Every single thing you do on a portrait shoot will have an effect on how the picture turns out.

As for your trip to the Ganges, you probably did waste some film but it might also have been quite reasonable to do so. Better to waste film than to waste an opportunity. And if the lab had messed up one of the rolls you'd be happy you shot more than one.
 
Jamie123 said:
I strongly disagree with your viewpoint here that someone who "can't get it" in a single roll is a bad portraitist. If by 'it' you mean something that's merely good enough then sure, you're right. Most celeb portraitists often don't get more than 5 minutes with the talent and it's their job to get something useful in those few minutes. Many award winning portraits have been produced in such 5 minute shoots but at the end of the day those great shots are probably hit or miss.
If by 'it' you mean the best possible shot of the session then you're probably wrong. There are so many factors to consider that I don't even know where to start. Firstly, you speak of the 'perfect photographer' that could do it in 1 shot. That 'perfect photographer' can only be a god-like creature as he has to have complete power over what the person in front of the camera does. No blinking allowed for starters. This 'perfect' photographer is surely one who only takes static portraits as any shot that is supposed to capture movement is not possible (or does this perfect photographer have slow-mo vision??).

Portraits are always a collaborations. Often the person in front of the camera will get more relaxed throughout a shoot. A photographer I used to assist for used to shoot the first 10 minutes with no film in the camera just to get them accustomed to the camera. Sure, that's one way to reduce 'overshooting' but you can't do that indefinitely. Then there's the fact that sometimes you just have to click the shutter so the person changes expression. If you tell them to change expression or posture too often without clicking the shutter they will get insecure and think everything they do is wrong. And they'll start 'waiting' for the shot which shows in the pictures. Every single thing you do on a portrait shoot will have an effect on how the picture turns out.

As for your trip to the Ganges, you probably did waste some film but it might also have been quite reasonable to do so. Better to waste film than to waste an opportunity. And if the lab had messed up one of the rolls you'd be happy you shot more than one.
Click to expand...

Highlight 1: I only said 'probably', and I did add 'or at most two'. Though I don't think Karsh was noted for overshooting. Or Jane Bown. And even the Hollywood photographers of the 1930s (Bull, Hurrell, etc.) seldom shot more than 24 pictures.

Highlight 2: Yes, I said it was a reductio ad absurdum.

Highlight 3: But not more than 40 (a mix of 35mm and 120).

Cheers,

R.
 
I cannot dance. I just don't have the ability to keep the rhythm with my feet.

What does this have to do with overshooting? Once when shooting a butterfly that was on the ground, but flapping its wings open and closed, I got about 10 pictures of it with its wings closed. I finally gave up, since I just couldn't get the rhythm right. What's worse than 10 good/great pictures of exactly the same thing? 10 bad pictures in a row. To this day, I fear taking pictures of butterflies.

Similarly, it seems over half the shots I've taken of my son are right when he blinks. I have gone through all sorts of techniques to try to time it right and it is just no use. Even when I am looking carefully at him in the viewfinder of a rangefinder or TLR, and timing it perfectly, I catch him just as he is blinking. So, my solution is to put a digital SLR on continuous shooting mode and just fire away - that is the only solution I've found that allows me to be sure I will get his picture when he is not blinking. And the sound of the camera just going to work usually evokes a nice smile from him.

But - once I am pretty certain I've captured a good picture of a scene or person, I will not take any more. If I have two or more good pictures, very similar, I hate trying to decide which is the best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom