Stan, I'm trying to wrap my head around 10 shots a minute for an hour and a
half.
That to me is a phenomenal shoot rate. In my Inside Passage trip last year
in 7 days I shot a little less than 1100 images. Out of that 1100, I've got
maybe around 50 that I'm keeping and maybe 10 that I consider exceptional.
Granted I didn't shoot many panos and didn't bracket for HDR.
The highest number of shots/time I've ever taken was on a wolf/caribou kill
in Denali where for about 3 to 4 hours I watched 2 wolves feed off a caribou
carcass. In that situation I shot around 450 images but it was an extremely
unique/dynamic/once in a lifetime event.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stan Halpin" <s...@stans-photography.info>
Subject: Re: White-Faced Heron
On Oct 30, 2013, at 7:31 PM, Stan Halpin wrote:
On Oct 30, 2013, at 3:20 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Oct 30, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Tom C <caka...@gmail.com> wrote:
In my opinion taking a lot of shots does not improve one's photography
any more than throwing a 1000 darts at a dartboard blind folded
improves one's game….
I'm probably stating the obvious, but getting good shots is usually a
matter of having a good eye for composition, paying attention to
technical details, shooting in the right light, using the right tool
for the job, knowing one's gear.
Yeah, you definitely are.
You don’t need to size up the situation? You don’t need to look through
the viewfinder? You don’t need to think about what you want to
accomplish? You don’t need to check your settings? You don’t need to
think about what settings are called for in the situation given what you
want to accomplish? You don’t need to check the results you’re getting
and adjust?
How stupid do you think I am?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA USA
eew...@bellsouth.net
I am not sure where you are coming from in your response to Tom, Eric. He
was stating some fundamental truths, presumably to bring the discussion
back on center.
There are two separate notions confabulated here. One is: what does it
take to improve in one's photography. The second is: what does it take to
take a good image.
The answer to the first question is that you need to practice, study,
observe, practice some more. That means taking many shots, thoughtfully,
then examining the results and thinking about what went right and what
went wrong, then going back and doing it again (hopefully applying some of
the lessons learned from the intervening study and reflection). In the
process of taking your first 10,000 or first 100,000 images, some will
most likely be "keepers." Good subject, good composition, appropriate
settings on aperture, shutter speed, and ISO, no camera shake, no glare.
etc. The more you shoot, the higher your odds are of getting those special
images that you will treasure. Taking lots of shots can not only help you
get better, it can also help you get lucky. Presumably we all want to rely
on more than luck.
What it takes to learn a craft, to gain the skills, is not what it takes
to execute those skills. Yes, photographers who have moved from beginner
to novice to journeyman to some level of expertise will still practice
techniques, study and reflect on the results. But they don't need great
volumes of images to enable that study because they have learned to look
at the subtleties that make the difference between a good picture and a
great one. So, yes they are still in a learning mode, hopefully always
will be, and most of what it takes to learn as a novice is still true of
what it takes to learn even after becoming an expert or master. But going
into the studio or into the field is something else. Setting aside the
special case of fast-moving wildlife or race cars or athletes, getting
good shots isn't about taking a lot of shots. It is about choosing the
right subject, the right composition, the right lens, the right level of
artificial illumination when called for, appropriate settings for speed,
aperture, & ISO. When you have all of that right, there is no need for
more than one shot. Take it and move 3 feet and recompose and do it again.
Which is what I thought Tom was saying in fewer words: quality of process
beats quantity in the long run.
stan
In the interests of clarification, let me extend me comments a bit.
I totally understand what Bruce and Rob have said about taking lots of shots
during a model session and have no criticism whatsoever of that way of
operating. Trying to capture fleeting expressions, looking for minor
variations in framing, yes it is a good thing to work the subject and be
willing to take lots of shots. In nature photography there are situations
where the same applies - e.g., the changing light as the sun rises over a
forest lake.
For me, the issue of careful deliberate shooting vs. take a lot and evaluate
in post-processing comes down to a question of balance. My instructor in the
workshops in August and again earlier this month kept reminding us not to
get stuck on one scene, not to be so deliberate that we miss opportunities.
On a perfect fall morning - sun rising over a mirror-calm slightly misty
lake with colorful trees reflecting in the water - there are many images to
be captured in a short period of time before the good light goes away and/or
the breeze comes in. More or less a direct quote from the instructor: "Don't
be afraid to get the shot and move on. Under these conditions I would be all
over the area like a weasel in a chicken coop. You may never again have this
opportunity with these special conditions. Look around, choose a scene,
frame, focus. Check ISO (low) and aperture (narrow). Let the camera meter
give you the shutter speed, shoot a frame. Check the RGB histogram, adjust
the speed as needed, then shoot THE shot. Consider a bracket sequence for
later HDR processing. Consider variations in focus for later focus stacking.
Do one or both of those sequences. Panoramic view? Flash fill to light the
foreground object? Do it. Pick up the tripod and move to the next spot.
One-two minutes elapsed time. A wide variety of shots, with a variety of
lens FOV settings, is possible in that small time window. Take advantage
while you can."
His approach assumes that you have developed your eye for composition, that
you know your camera thoroughly, etc.
In a slightly different setting during the workshops, we took the 2.5 hour
commercial boat tour along the Pictured Rocks on Lake Superior. The first
time out I carefully and deliberately took about 950 shots in the 1.5 hours
we spent along the photogenic portions of the lake shore. Rather than use a
wide angle, I chose to use my 60-250, mostly between 90-175mm or so. I was
visualizing a series of panoramas and did in fact get several sequences that
stitched nicely with pleasing results. I was not happy with many of the
shots however; I let my "panorama" notion get in the way of well framed
individual shots. When we went back in October the light was not as
favorable, but still not bad. This time I shot about 850 shots in the 1.5
hour window of opportunity. A mix of panoramas plus still shots, many of
which I did as a 5-shot bracketed burst for later HDR. So, a bit more
emphasis on choosing the scene the second time, fewer distinguishable scenes
captured with, I believe, better results.
(BTW, I keep looking for the scene where I can profitably shoot for later
panorama stitching [3-5 frames] with focus stacking [2-5 frames] and HDR
bracketing [3-5 frames] - from 18 to 125 images to be processed together.
Just to see if I can. As a learning experience.)
So, quality vs. quantity? As with most complex issues, the answer is "it
depends." While learning, a higher volume of shots to study and reflect on
should help speed the process. While "seriously" shooting, sometimes fast
changing conditions call for fast reactions and many shots in a short
period. But dozens or hundreds of poorly framed, poorly exposed shots aren't
going to be helpful in either situation. Quality is key.
stan
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
