Doesn't seem outlandishly high when one finds the number of shots a National Geo photographer takes for a four page spread. It does call for a heck of a lot of editing.
That's not crazy, but it sure isn't my style. Yesterday I shot three outfit changes outdoors in almost two hours, went through a 15-exp roll of 120 film and felt like I was wasting a ton of shots to fill up a 36-exp roll of 35mm film.
Two different approaches really, they both work. Of course, mine's better
What people are interested in is how good your final images are.
Would you think less of Helmut Newton if you heard that he used to shoot 100 or 1000 images for every one he used? Of course not - he's fucking Helmut Newton for God's sake, and his work (what you see of it) rocks!
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,080
Lancaster, England, United Kingdom
-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote: Of course not - he's fucking Helmut Newton for God's sake
Haha! Brilliant.
I remember hearing Joe McNally saying once that the only difference between a mediocre photographer and a great photographer is that a great photographer doesn't release their mistakes to the world (or words to that effect).
So, not taking wardrobe changes into account, that's a little more than 1 shot every eight seconds. That would be a hard pace to keep up with for that long. I've never shot that many in a whole day of shooting. I more inclined to try to make each individual shot great, and so I don't take as many as a lot of photographers. It is something I've struggled with; I'm trying to force myself to take more exposures than I did when shooting medium format exclusively. After all, digital memory is relatively inexpensive in present day.
out of a 90 minute session you might only get a few good ones. you never know. i'd rather have too many than too few. but it doesn't matter how many you take if the lighting is bad or the set is wrong or whatever. so spraying and praying doesn't always work out if you haven't taken the time to get everything just right.
when i'm doing available light sometimes i will burst in the hope of getting just the right expression, the eyes open the right amount, etc.
depends on the model, too. with some only a few will turn out well whereas with others it seems like every shot is golden.
-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote: Who cares how many images you shoot?
What people are interested in is how good your final images are.
Would you think less of Helmut Newton if you heard that he used to shoot 100 or 1000 images for every one he used? Of course not - he's fucking Helmut Newton for God's sake, and his work (what you see of it) rocks!
No, but I do think a little less of him after seeing a bunch of merkins displayed right next to his Hassy in the Helmut Newton Museum.
But then I found a Robert Lyons photo book in their bookstore, so all was forgiven
The amount that you shoot has no bearing on how good the photos are. But, shooting a lot *does* help when you've got someone to please. I usually shoot about 4 rolls of 120, a half-dozen 4x5 frames, and 20-40 digital images when I'm shooting for myself - so about 60-80 frames. But when I'm shooting for someone else, I usually shoot 100+ digital images, another half-dozen 4x5 frames, and maybe one or two rolls of 120. It's not uncommon for me to have 300 images when shooting for someone else.
I do that because when I'm shooting for me, it's relatively easy to click the shutter whenever I see what I want. But someone else won't share my tastes, so I want to have plenty of other images that I can narrow it down to.
In either case, they usually get around 20 images.
I tend to machine-gun shoot. I find that just a tiny change in pose or expression can make one of the images just a little better. Also, if I'm shooting hand-held with a slow shutter in low light, I always shoot a burst (I like doing a lot of walk-around shooting at night when I travel). One of the images out of the burst will usually be tack sharp.
I do run into some serious editing fatigue sometimes though. I have more respect for the photogs that are more of a sniper than a machine gunner - even though I'm the latter.
Herman van Gestel
Posts: 1,662
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands
Sorry, I can't help thinking:
Poor thing, it seems this photographer doesn't control his photography, and depend on sheer luck...what would make him a photographer then?
there is a old adagium, you need only 6 shots per situation to get a good image of somebody (more if there is movement involved)...what if this photographer would be shooting film without the possibility of verifying in your display (aka chimping)....7000 images ? (200 roles for 3 images?)...Seriously!
Assuming 20 minutes for outfit changes that's a little more than a shot a second. Guess you're not using strobes? The beauty of doing a studio shoot with a live model is that you can control and guide her to the poses you want. My guess is your rate of keepers would go way up if you slowed down. ymmv.
Herman van Gestel
Posts: 1,662
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands
btw.... shooting machine style (aka motor drive), gives you only about 5-10% chance to get a proper shot...:
exposure time 1/200, in the case of 10 frames a second, i.e 1/10 of a second transport...that means 20x times the possibility of getting the right timing...in that 1/10 of a second, therefor the 5%...
that's why sniper is better, and you master the moment/shoot, instead of letting it depend on your camera/luck ...photography is also about when to get the shot...
As we say in the world of software engineering and programming... every program is the right program, just not always the program you need to solve your problem. So I think the same when I find myself with an excessive number of photographs that end up being garbage and doing nothing but increasing the number of exposures I've taken.
But the one thing I have discovered... when I do end up with tons of crap pictures, it helps me see what I'm doing wrong and strive to not have that/those errors/mistakes in my work again (or at least no time soon!).
If most of the frames are looking the same then is overkill in general but we do have different shooting styles.
I like to shoot tethered when possible for studio work or Ipad/eye-fi for location work. I would do a few poses with the model then review with them and the client maybe after every 20-30 shots to see whats working and whats not. If we got the shot then move on to the next look and if not we generally have an idea on what needs working on.
Less frames = less time, space and post production work wasted overall.
Ed Woodson Photography wrote: With time out for three outfit changes.
Is that a common thing when doing head shots and portraits?
Or, is it like throwing shit at a wall to see how much will stick?
Back in the 80 and 90's when I shot for agencies they required a 30 exposure proof sheet of each look. I thought that was over kill since everything else I shot was large or medium format and done in a few shots. With agencies I was paid by the roll. With other clients it was by the image or a day rate plus expenses. So yes, 700 images for 3 looks is overkill. Unless your "model" was the energizer bunny who couldn't keep from moving, blinking and talking during your shots. Or was the other extreme..so talented that she actually struck so many great poses and expressions you couldn't stop shooting.
How you work is how you work. The only thing that really matters is what you show as the result.
That said, 700 shots in 90 minutes for headshots and portraits?
At first thought, that's a person who really doesn't know what they're doing and is hoping that they'll get lucky. But people work differently than I do.
If I can't get a good portrait in 20 shots, then I failed with the lighting or the setup or the direction. But that's just my opinion.
John M Hoyt
Posts: 284
Greenville, South Carolina, US
Ed Woodson Photography wrote: With time out for three outfit changes.
Is that a common thing when doing head shots and portraits?
Or, is it like throwing shit at a wall to see how much will stick?
I shot 406 in 1.5 hours today. I'm seeing what sticks. Not much. I deleted 300 immediately, then spent the next hour comparing 12 shots of the exact same pose to narrow it down to one or two, then going to the next pose.
Worst thing - no outfit changes at all. Same looks, different poses... Variations on a theme.
Only a dozen decent shots.
Goal for the future - better composition before activating the shutter.
I shot yesterday 192 pictures in 90 minutes total time of which 46 were keepers. Doing the math 46/192x100=23.95 Thats roughtly 24% success rate. Some other times I did more shooting but I try to ease down. Of course you have to look at what the disparity accounts for. Some did not have the look I was looking for from the model. Others I was using the camera in manual mode so I had the model stand until I fix the metering which varied 2-4 shots. Yet others the models hair was a problem. So you add up all this and it takes away a large portion. I think I did okay but not stellar.
I shot 406 in 1.5 hours today. I'm seeing what sticks. Not much. I deleted 300 immediately, then spent the next hour comparing 12 shots of the exact same pose to narrow it down to one or two, then going to the next pose.
Worst thing - no outfit changes at all. Same looks, different poses... Variations on a theme.
Only a dozen decent shots.
Goal for the future - better composition before activating the shutter.
That literally sounds like torture to me, and I'm saying that while I've been here for the past two hours scanning film. Maybe my attention span is just awful or something, but I hate picking between a ton of nearly identical shots.
If you want a way to really force yourself to get it right the first time, try using and paying for film. Seriously
Ed Woodson Photography wrote: With time out for three outfit changes.
Is that a common thing when doing head shots and portraits?
Or, is it like throwing shit at a wall to see how much will stick?
If it takes 700 shots to get some good ones with three outfits, I'd say you went into this not having an idea or concept and just kept shooting until something happened, maybe accidentally. I don't think I ever shot that number on a paid assignment.
The analogy was throwing spaghetti against a wall and seeing if some sticks...
John M Hoyt
Posts: 284
Greenville, South Carolina, US
chasecaleb wrote:
That literally sounds like torture to me, and I'm saying that while I've been here for the past two hours scanning film. Maybe my attention span is just awful or something, but I hate picking between a ton of nearly identical shots.
If you want a way to really force yourself to get it right the first time, try using and paying for film. Seriously
I used to shoot film for events in the 80s and thought nothing of blowing through 20 rolls of film in a night. But I was not paying for the film or the processing.
Later, when I really got into photography heavier, and had to pay for my own film and processing, I got where it was painful for me to use an entire roll of film for the same types of events (bands).
Since going digital and trying to up my game, I have also upped the number of shots again. It's free, and I know I am going to delete 90 percent of the, the first time I look at them.
Sometimes I shoot multiples at different exposures as fast as I can. Usually when it is with someone I might not get a chance to work with again.
I should also mention that I don't spend a lot of time chimping. I probably should
JGC Photography
Posts: 108
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Robert Helm wrote: I can see the tread from the llama now. "I shot for an hour and a half and the guy shot 700 photos and all he gave me was XX number of shots"
Does not matter how many or how many were good or great. Same for any client.
You are a great photographer, but you didn't start out that way right?
Like every other pro photographer you made many mistakes, learned slowly, and some of your first shoots weren't all that productive...Just like the OP.
The OP is asking for help and offer the above?
Why?
I am a real estate developer and have built 4 decades of everything from small to very large projects. If someone asks me for help (in my line of work) I start by pointing them at good people and great resources....Critiquing them on how they will disappoint their clientele may be helpful in part, but by itself is utterly worthless.
| 
| 
| edu