"Shoot a lot. You'll hit something." Is it possible to shoot too much?

<p>Somebody once told me that I take too many pictures. I've also heard people argue that, if the technology slows you down, then you will shoot better pictures.</p>

<p>I personally think that most of that kind of advice is a bunch of malarkey, but I would be interested in other points of view.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I think advice is not a one-size-fits-all kind of thing. I think some people probably do shoot too much and it would be good to slow down a little and consider more. I think some people are probably too considered and should be more spontaneous and perhaps shoot more and think less. The best thing about advice is that it can be taken or not. Each of has to decide whether advice sounds good to us or not and consider the source. Sometimes I've reacted negatively at good advice only because, deep down, I knew it was true but it was hard to swallow. The more negative a reaction I have to someone else's well-meaning advice, the more I try hard to really consider it and see if it fits. But that still means I can accept or reject it.</p>

<p>In any case, to answer the initial question. Yes, I do think it is possible to shoot too much.</p>

<p>Lannnie, I wouldn't presumptuously tell others they shoot too much any more than I would tell them they eat or spend too much. It's their entitlement and how anyone goes about deriving personal pleasure is all good to me. </p>

<p>Lannie, just for clarification, was it said to you presumptuously? Or did you think it was well-meaning advice? Either way, I'd say since you're thinking about it and posting about, whichever way you ultimately decide, it was something that struck some sort of chord with you and was probably worth thinking about after all.</p>

<p>How many 'takes' is a director permitted before he does <em>too many</em> and loses that thing called spontaniety (or the producer says enough already, we are spending over budget). Who cares. You are your own director and production company, w/ your own budget, Lannie. I say go for it, old chap....philosophically clean and free will wins again.</p>

<p>In the movie "Bed of Roses" the lead male character refers to a female relative as a "pathological picture taker". It seems like a reasonable depiction of some of us. Now if it is digital pictures, then I just loathe the image processing time that is needed. That can turn you into a recluse too due to the time needs of the photography habit. :-)</p>

<p>Your question is dependent upon your intent. If you are shooting the same images over and over - and they represent nothing new - or if you are well ensconced in your comfort zone and just adding to the amount of images - then, what's the point. Thinking is usually is of value here, perhaps considering a concept, point of view and purpose for the images might be of value. It's kind of like the golfer that plays his first round of golf for 30 years - never learning, exploring or profiting from the experience.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lannie, just for clarification, was it said to you presumptuously? Or did you think it was well-meaning advice?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, Fred, it was said to me in good faith by someone whose photography I greatly admire: Marc Gouguenheim, now known on the site as Marc G. He said that to me in the spring of 2002, not long after I had gotten my first digital camera--and my style had changed a lot in transitioning from film. It was probably good advice, but I still shoot more than I should. More precisely, I would still benefit from thinking more before the shot rather than trying <em>ex post facto</em> to salvage what I might have gotten.</p>

<p>I have had to take much less seriously those who have said that film is better than digital because it forces one to slow down.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>"pathological picture taker"</p>

<p>Guilty as charged, Matthew--at least if one is talking about shooting rather indiscriminately. I sometimes feel that I have to record <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1063528"><em><strong>everything I see</strong></em></a>. I'm not sure why. <a href="/photo/17633324&size=lg"><em><strong>Here</strong></em></a> is Gerry Siegel's great reaction to one of mine.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Hey Lannie, thanks for the plug :-). I gotta reject the diagnosis of " pathological picture taker." I think the new DSM-V big book will have a label for all of us and a pill to cure same.....lol <br /> http://www.amazon.com/Diagnostic-Statistical-Manual-Mental-Disorders/dp/0890425558/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1392499923&sr=1-1&keywords=dsm+5+diagnostic+and+statistical+manual+of+mental+disorders<br /> <br /> PS: As to volume of snapping per se, if you got the hard drive space friends go for it and later pick and choose. I will offer this thought I have found useful. Be kind of hard nosed about what you <em>save and show as your best work</em>.. Selectivity in learning and choosing what to <em>save and show or print</em> is something we may all find beneficial, but if not for you-or it's an itch that must be scratched,well then, I still say no biggie Lannie.</p>

<p>This gets to the related subject of "keepers." What makes a "keeper?" Should we scrap anything or leave it all for the next generation. How much time should we spend processing every durn thing? Does JPEG choice enter into the equation? (No, better not introduce the latter or the muck will hit the turbofan:-) ) I offer this thought. Enjoy a pastime that is supposed to be fun w/o <em>sturm und drang</em> all of the time...huh?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0890425558/">http://www.amazon.com/dp/0890425558/?</a></p>

<p><strong>!</strong></p>

<p>Well, Gerry, I'm sure I'm in there somewhere. I'm not yet to the point of avoiding stepping on cracks in the sidewalk, though.</p>

<p>As for selectivity in posting, if I were in this for the money, at least ninety-five percent of mine on this site would be removed.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well, Gerry, I'm sure I'm in there somewhere</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me too. Ask my wife:-) GAS has already become part of our lingo...</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"it was said to me in good faith by someone whose photography I greatly admire: Marc Gouguenheim."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marc's a great guy, always helpful and a top notch professional photographer. <br>

<br>

With all due respect, though, we all progress at a rate of our own choosing. Someone determined to get it right, will, or at least try, and nothing will stand in their way. For the rest of us, it's a hobby without a deadline or right and wrong, for as long as it remains enjoyable. </p>

<p>Here's what I would do. If I thought I was shooting somewhat indiscriminately and could see putting a little more thought into what I shoot and if a trusted photographer who I admire said something along those lines to me, I'd probably make it an exercise to go out for a few days with that in mind and try it, then see if shooting less made sense to me and if I could intentionally position myself to put a little more thought into my shooting and, most importantly, notice the kinds of results that produced and if I liked it. I might fall into a good rhythm for a while of taking less shots, but it might only be temporary. Who knows? Maybe then when I started shooting more again, I'd be more pleased with what I was coming up with. Maybe, maybe, maybe. You never know until you try something. And, usually, curiosity and a sense of exploration will be the inspiration behind making new choices or considering someone else's advice. Taking someone's advice doesn't automatically mean buying into it. It can simply be evidence of a willingness on my part to try something different.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.taleswithmorals.com/aesop-fable-the-man-the-boy-and-the-donkey.htm">http://www.taleswithmorals.com/aesop-fable-the-man-the-boy-and-the-donkey.htm</a></p>

<p>Just a thought.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"With all due respect, though, we all progress at a rate of our own choosing."</em></p>

<p>I'm not sure what you mean by this. Any of us can learn from someone else. Not everything we do with regard to learning photography, to learning about life, to learning mathematics, is about our own choosing. We can, in fact, learn from others without giving up our autonomy and sense of self. Lannie's photographer friend was acting as a mentor. A mentor can be a valuable thing, even to the most creative and independent artist.</p>

<p>I think deleting more is more important than shooting too much.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I'm not sure what you mean by this."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>A professional photographer will think like a professional by necessity because his livelihood depends on it, but hobbyists have the luxury of time, without pressure, to pursue an enjoyable activity at their own leisure. <br>

<br>

I have friends with basements filled with high end woodworking tools yet they can't build a simple box if their lives depended on it. It's okay, though, even if it appears distasteful to a woodworking professional, because their professional income subsidizes the "hobby", and maybe one day in their retirement their dream project that they've been thinking about all through their adult lives might just happen. <br>

<br>

To quote a similar remark made to me by Doug Burgess back in 2002: "There's no deadline for "making it" (for an amateur)".</p>

<p>Alan, I would refine a little bit like so -deleting obvious goofs and then choosing what you like best. I have taken a few short courses and I highly recommend reading and taking short courses to gain feedback by the way. <br>

If you are interested, I just found on my HD a contact sheet, w notes and scribbles, I made when I just started to use indoor lighting.We are talking over 20 years ago. Some not bad, some not so good.... Jennifer my model was actually our babysitter then and her mom granted permission. I picked 2 of 12 only!. Beats my average... Still have the negs sleeved though, good practice then.Translate that to digital and it is a new thread....<br>

Did it make me think more when I used 12 shot 120<em> film</em>. You bet. New camera, new light, new umbrella, and new meter and a budget and only her family as pro bono clients. </p><div></div>

<p>I think that you're focused on whether the number of pictures that you take is impacting the quality of your photography, not whether it's impacting the quality of your life. If the former, I think that numbers has nothing to do with it; however, if you're not thinking before shooting, then you need to pause and think more about your shot.</p>

<p>Just because extra digital shots are free, doesn't mean that you should take them. If there's a purpose, then take them. At sunrise this morning, I started taking two to five shots every few minutes, as the light quickly changed, not knowing when the peak would come or where it would be in the sky. When I looked at the whole set of shots on the computer screen, two popped out from the others, so only those two got converted from Raw. At eight frames per second, I could have taken many more, but I limited myself to some different compositions and moved around to change the foreground, etc.</p>

<p>When I see something good, I'll often take a "safe shot" and then start looking for a better perspective, get closer, change the lens, etc. Often, my later shots are my better shots. If I could only take two, then I might avoid the "safe shot", but I see no reason to avoid that.</p>

<p>Deliberation has its rewards. Back in the day, I went to a concert with two cameras, a digital and a film camera. The film camera was strictly backup. The digital batteries went dead, and I was left with two rolls of film. I had to make every shot count, and later thought it one of the best jobs I'd done, because I was really focused on the shooting.<br>

With digital, the low cost of tripping the shutter lowers the ante, and can lead to carelessness. On the other hand, sometimes the spontaneity of a low threshold of concern for tripping the shutter can lead to an unexpected result. The "art is an accident" approach. Did Gary Winogrand shoot too much? Did Coltrane play too many notes?<br>

I think the mistake is to assume that you will necessarily find some quality just by shooting quantity.<br>

Here's a shot I thought was ruined by the official at the time I took it. Actually, he framed it. One of those happy "accidents."</p><div></div>

<p>Michael, I still don't see how your thoughts about professionalism relate to assuming that the advice given was presumptuous.</p>

<p>Also, the world of photography is not simply divided into professionals and hobbyists, since there are many photographers who would consider themselves neither, for instance artists (many of whom don't make a living at it so aren't professional but are very different from what I would call a hobbyist). And I think there are many other photographers who aren't professionals, hobbyists, or artists. Not everyone who's not a professional sees themselves as having such luxury of time. Some are driven to express something and to learn how to do so, despite not thinking they will make money doing it.</p>

<p>Fred, I made the "presumptuous" remark before Lannie disclosed the source of the advice as given by Marc. I never said Marc was presumptuous in offering his thoughtful advice.</p>

<p>What I did say is, everyone goes about photography for their own reasons and purposes, and I won't presume to project my personal values on whatever approach others choose to make. </p>

<p>Another aspect to this is the general assumption that photography is all about making pictures. I believe it's quite the contrary. The multifaceted discipline means there's something for everyone - some are strictly gear-smitten, some enjoy talking about photography more than taking pictures, others indulge in whatever area that strikes their fancy. It's all good, but the pervasive notion that you're wasting time unless you shoot great pictures forces many to cloak their real passion or intentions instead of embracing it. <br>

</p>

<p>I'll worry about how many photos I take on someone else's dime. On my equipment, time and dime, it's no one else's concern.</p>

<p>And the "film makes me slow down" mantra is right only for the people it's right for. I shot 24 frames of color film of one subject from the same position yesterday evening. It was a strongly backlit subject against a fast-changing sunset. I was bracketing to keep up with the subtle changes in light and color. If I'd had a 36 exposure roll I'd have burned through it in a few minutes.</p>

<p>If I wanted to be slowed down by equipment choices I'll choose a pinhole camera. Or I'd learn wet plate photography. Which I'd like to do someday anyway.</p>

<p>I've never regretted shooting "too much". The delete key works just fine. I've often regretted not shooting enough. There's no Mulligan button in real life.</p>