Shooting Volume and Editing

markbarendt · Jun 22, 2014

Chris G said:
Probably should define "keeper"...

Now that's a variable.

My standard for keeper's good enough for my darkroom wall and what I'd give to a friend, differ. What I'd display at a gallery different again. Each has a different purpose, each a different audience.

Patrick Robert James · Jun 22, 2014

Years ago I was at a portfolio review (commercial stuff) talking to an agent, and one photographer was walking around with his 1D-whatever taking pictures of the goings on machine gun style. Rattatatatat, ratatatatat, ratatatat. After shooting at least 25 pictures hovering over me, I turned to him and said- "How about you take just one good one?" The agent busted out laughing and he turned beet red then went away.

That about sums up how I feel about this.

The only ones that count are the good ones. You aren't worth your salt if you don't know a good photograph looking through the viewfinder.

Chris G · Jun 22, 2014

markbarendt said:
Now that's a variable.

My standard for keeper's good enough for my darkroom wall and what I'd give to a friend, differ. What I'd display at a gallery different again. Each has a different purpose, each a different audience.

For sure I agree... I guess I am just saying that what a keeper might be to you 10 years or 20 years from now...might not make the cut today...

Tom Kershaw · Jun 22, 2014

Usage ratio is very variable for my work, sometimes several frames (6x7cm) per roll are good other times nothing. I try and not photograph if there isn't really anything there, often depending on mood and light conditions as well. Film / developer combinations standardised so I don't have to think about technical factors when photographing apart from exposure / visualisation etc.

Tom

Maris · Jun 22, 2014

I've shot more than 1000 frames a day when chasing out of control subject matter; a street riot for example. Editing was not my problem but fell to the person illustrating a news story.

When doing commercial illustration I'd use the entire film budget shooting everything every which way. This was to please clients who knew exactly what they wanted but only after they saw it. Again editing was not my problem.

Now I shoot only for myself I take hundreds of photographs but only in my mind's eye. There's no journey of discovery in terms of photographing something to see how it will turn out. With a view camera on a tripod, static subject matter, good film, and a reliable light meter (and a bit of prior practice) I know pretty exactly what the final photograph will look like. A lot of effort goes into "editing" before exposure and much less into burning film. Keepers? Nearly 100%.

Chris G · Jun 22, 2014

Mainecoonmaniac said:
I shoot digital too, but prefer film. I think from decades shooting film, I developed good habits. I do chimp, but stop when I've got the shot. I think shooting a lot, playing the numbers game and shooting "just to make sure" are for photographers that are unsure of themselves. My last grip and grin assignment for an award ceremony for 12 recipients, I only shot 3 shots per. I have to edit the pictures and I hate sitting it front of my computer sorting and adjusting the pictures. It's just as bad as sitting in front of a light box sorting chromes after an assignment. Less is more.

I might add, that if you chimp, you are not sure of yourself. The "numbers game"? I cant tell you how many times I have been thankful I played the numbers game.... it might be just the slightest difference... composition, expression, timing... more is better..

markbarendt · Jun 22, 2014

Chris G said:
For sure I agree... I guess I am just saying that what a keeper might be to you 10 years or 20 years from now...might not make the cut today...

Very True

Bill Burk · Jun 22, 2014

I know how the numbers game works, say I take 36 shots and for my friends, I can make a slide show including 10 of them and the story and feeling of the original day are well-told.

But maybe only 2 of them are worth printing.

And maybe only one is worth publishing if I were lucky.

The "National Geographic" method would give so many more options from the same day. I once rode a ferry ride with a "Sunset Magazine" photographer, and I took about a dozen shots. None of which were printable, but most are worthy of slide show with my friends.

The photographer took many, many more shots and you can see my son in one of them... So I'm happy with the outcome.

Chris G · Jun 22, 2014

Bill Burk said:
But maybe only 2 of them are worth printing.
And maybe only one is worth publishing if I were lucky.

I recently took a number of frames of a dog, a very fast moving, hyper dog, this dog is loved beyond all measure... I threw the pics up on facebook, what I thought were the best 4 frames from about 80... the frame I thought was amazing, perfect, captured his essence.... got the least "likes". The one that was a shot in the dark a hail mary, whatever... the crowd favorite... guess I need to learn what is worth printing!

Mainecoonmaniac · Jun 23, 2014

Here's what HCB has to say about shooting lots.

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/...ere-are-no-maybes/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

MattKing · Jun 23, 2014

Mainecoonmaniac said:
Here's what HCB has to say about shooting lots.

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/...ere-are-no-maybes/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Thank you for that link!

markbarendt · Jun 23, 2014

Mainecoonmaniac said:
Here's what HCB has to say about shooting lots.

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/...ere-are-no-maybes/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

What I hear in HCB's words is, pay attention to and understand your subject, if you see a shot take it, one needs to have a feel for the timing of when the important thing will happen.

I don't see Abell indicating much different.

In formal portraiture it's not any different. If shooting for a smile, one shoots for a fresh smile rather than one that is waning... If you are shooting Churchill you get ready then steal his cigar and shoot.

To me machine gunning is simply shooting things indiscriminately. "Oh, something's going to happen. Hold the trigger down until it's over."

For HCB catching the subject at the perfect moment, in the perfect composition, and in focus (DOF) was everything. Grain, perfect exposure, and how hard the minions in the lab had to work were of no concern to him.

Jim Jones · Jun 23, 2014

General George Patton ("Blood and Guts" Patton; our blood, his guts) recommended a line of soldiers advancing upon an enemy while shooting as rapidly as possible. They would distract the enemy from returning effective fire, and may even score an occasional hit. In contrast, a World War 1 hillbilly marksman, Alvin York, shot and killed 28 German soldiers and helped capture over a hundred others in one brief action. The best of snipers in the bloodbath of WWII made hundreds of kills. In ground combat or aerial dogfighting, a few top fighters account for a disproportional amount of successful kills. Whether shooting a weapon or a camera, making one shot count often yields the best results.

Mainecoonmaniac · Jun 23, 2014

Concentration is key

markbarendt said:
I don't see Abell indicating much different.

In formal portraiture it's not any different. If shooting for a smile, one shoots for a fresh smile rather than one that is waning... If you are shooting Churchill you get ready then steal his cigar and shoot.

To me machine gunning is simply shooting things indiscriminately. "Oh, something's going to happen. Hold the trigger down until it's over."

For HCB catching the subject at the perfect moment, in the perfect composition, and in focus (DOF) was everything. Grain, perfect exposure, and how hard the minions in the lab had to work were of no concern to him.

Yes. Tell me if I'm off here. The moral of the story is the culmination of a good photograph is more of a journey than a destination. But good photographers concentrate where they've been and use their gut feelings to know where to go next. Whether it's a year or between shutter clicks. But don't shoot for the sake of shooting.

markbarendt · Jun 23, 2014

Mainecoonmaniac said:
Yes. Tell me if I'm off here. The moral of the story is the culmination of a good photograph is more of a journey than a destination. But good photographers concentrate where they've been and use their gut feelings to know where to go next. Whether it's a year or between shutter clicks. But don't shoot for the sake of shooting.

That's pretty much how I see it.

It's for me a matter of getting to the point where I'll do whatever it takes to get the right result.

Like HCB I might skip resetting exposure if needs be, like Abell I may find that a bunch of drafts and revisions (experimentations) might be needed.

We need to find a way to shoot enough to get the raw material we need on the film.

We also need the fortitude & willingness IMO to toss out whatever doesn't meet the mark for the final result.

Shooting Volume and Editing

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency