Number of shots per event

<p>Hi Masters!</p>

<p>I finally started to work as wedding photographer, I had 2 events last week.<br>

I live in Albania (but I'm brazilian) and here they have many, many traditions in the weddings.<br>

So, I ended up with 32G of photos, more than 2000. (it was a dinner/dance in one day, and the other day from 1pm to 3am).</p>

<p>My first question is: <br>

Is it normal to end up with that many photos? What is the average of photos taken and how many to deliver to the client?</p>

<p>Second:<br>

Do you guys shoot all the guests (on their tables, or with the couple)?<br>

Because they had like 3 hours of traditional dances, where small groups of guests dance at the center of the place and the bride and groom stay in their seat watching. At this time I went and took photos of all the guests at the tables. But after they also started to ask for photos with the bride. </p>

<p>Third and last one:<br>

How to say "NO, I'm on my break!" I had to go to the toilet to take a break, because everywhere, even when I was changing cards or batteries they were poking me asking to take a pic... And I took... <br>

(Plus I use D700 with 24-70mm and a SB900 = more than 2kg, I couldn't sleep well because of the pain) </p>

<p>I'd appreciate a lot any kind of help!</p>

<p>Many, many thanks!</p>

<p>=D</p>

<p><strong>Is it normal to end up with that many photos?</strong></p>

<p>I'm not sure what "normal" is. I have heard one or two other photographers claim that they take many thousands of photos during a wedding. Seems absurd to me. A five-hour wedding has 18,000 SECONDS in it. To take, say, 3000 photos, you'd have to be shooting on an average of one photo every 6 seconds!! Now I know what some of these folks do: they machine gun. They sort of set up their shot, then they take three or six or ten shots at once. Still seems crazy to me.</p>

<p>I will tell you that I somewhere around 750 photos, sometimes more, sometimes less. And I feel bad about taking that many photos. My goal is: fewer, better photos. In my dreams, I go to a wedding, I take 200 shots, I deliver 100 to the client, and 40 of those are actually really good, memorable shots. As I said, that's my dream.</p>

<p>*</p>

<p><strong>Do I shoot guests at the tables?</strong></p>

<p>Sometimes. I do what the bride asks me to do. But my default position now is, I don't waste much time shooting the guests at their tables. The photos are seldom interesting and nobody buys prints of these shots.</p>

<p>*</p>

<p><strong>How to take a break?</strong></p>

<p>This isn't THAT hard. You have to plan your breaks carefully. Make sure with the DJ or wedding coordinator that nothing important is about to happen. If there's no wedding coordinator, then discreetly inform the bride that you are stepping away for five minutes. And if somebody asks for a photo, politely apologize and decline.</p>

<p>That said, I do not actually take a "break" at most weddings, that is, I don't step away from the wedding, go outside, sit down and rest. THere is almost always a bit of slow time now and then, while I'm waiting for the bride and groom to appear at the reception, etc. I use that time to catch my breath, check my batteries and cards, etc. If I have time, I try to grab a quick bite to eat at some point. (This is medically important for me as well as a normal need.) </p>

<p>Will</p>

<p><em>"To take, say, 3000 photos, you'd have to be shooting on an average of one photo every 6 seconds!!" </em>That's getting close to video!<br>

<em>"My goal is: fewer, better photos." </em>Amen to that.</p>

<p>Great William!<br>

Thank you for replying!<br>

I'm just here in front of the computer, editing the photos, OMG, there is no END! I don't want to do it again, seriously... It was also because they were my first ones, and with all these traditions, I didn't want to loose any moment... <br>

There was a lot of slow moments, really, but in these moments the guests start to ask for photos, one after the other, there were some guests, that called me take a pic of them with every other table (both weddings had around 250 people)... And now I feel in obligation to delivery these guests photos, because they are gonna ask see it. From what I'm seeing, on the wedding that I took more than 2000, I think that I'll delivery minimum 800. Because they are full of guests with other guests and with the bride and dancing, and this, and that... =/</p>

<p>(and also, even trying to be a invisible spy, there is to much attention at me, because its a very small city, and they had never seen a camera like that, and I'm like a zoo attraction for being the only brazilian here)</p>

<p>=)</p>

<p>Steven comments:<br>

<strong>"That's getting close to video!"</strong></p>

<p>Indeed, although it seems that, at the moment anyway, still photography and video are heading towards some sort of a convergence. I'm rather skeptical about this, but it's happening. I may even take some video for the first time at my next wedding.</p>

<p>But as I said, I'm pretty sure that the folks who are shooting thousands and thousands of photos inside a period of 5-6 hours, must be machine-gunning almost all the time. So if we shot the same wedding side by side, and I came home with 750 photos, they'd come home with 3000 shots that boiled down to the same 750 photos I got. I'm willing to acknowledge that, in a few cases, the fact that they took 30 frames of the bride stuffing cake into the groom's mouth while I took only 4 might mean they get that humorous moment when the groom's eyes got really big, and I missed it. But that particular advantage has to occur only very occasionally. And you have to wade through an awful lot of photos the day after the wedding....</p>

<p>And if the other photographer is coming home with thousands of truly distinct moments, well, I'm not sure whether to be impressed or deeply skeptical. 2000 shots in a 5 hour wedding averages one shot every NINE seconds. Maybe I'm just not good enough to SEE something worth photographing every nine seconds, for five hours in a row.</p>

<p>By the way, I keep my cameras set to burst mode, too—but 99% of the time I press the shutter and release so I get just 1 shot. I will hold the shutter down occasionally when shooting portraits, especially with children or animals, because they are so unpredictable. At weddings, I don't personally find burst mode all that useful. Maybe I'm missing something.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p> </p>

<p>1. <strong>Number of images</strong>. There is no 'normal' or 'average' number of images. Shoot what you need to and want to to fulfill your promise to your client. Being that you are in Albania, no one, other than another Albanian wedding photographer, can tell you if you are overshooting, based on the activities you are asked to cover. Going by an 'image every x seconds' does not take into account the activities typical of weddings there.</p>

<p>For instance, I don't know anything about the traditional dances you mention. Photographers in the U.S. may not know what kinds of wedding customs need to be phtoographed in your country. On the other hand, I can say that asking to have their picture taken with the bride is often partly a social activity and the actual photograph is really not the goal of the request. The goal is personal interaction with the bride.</p>

<p>Just be aware that you will need to process each of those images, unless you cull them severely from the start. I'd ask other photographers there what kind of numbers they generate and what they deliver. You can also do some searches here on the forum. There have been quite a few threads about this in the past.</p>

<p>It does sound like you are being too nice re image requests, though. If only a few, I just do them, but if they get to be too numerous, I will cut them off. It is easy enough to politely tell the person requesting that you need to do something else before fulfilling their request, or just get away from the vicinity of the bride or couple so that you don't start a feeding frenzy of requests.</p>

<p>2. <strong>Table shots</strong>. I do them, but obviously, if there are a lot of guests, I usually don't have time. I certainly don't get 3 hours of time where the couple is doing nothing but watching people dance. Up to you whether to do them. If you ask the couple, of course they will say yes. People will take whatever they can get if there are no consequences for them. Some cultures like to do table shots with the couple there, others don't care. I would say that today, the trend is to <strong>not</strong> do table shots or photos of guests at tables.</p>

<p>3. <strong>Taking a break</strong>. You just have to be assertive. Just politely say you'll be with them in 10 minutes--that you need to tend to your gear, or whatever. Or just disappear (while keeping an eye on things), if you can manage it. If you need to, just tell the DJ or Master of Ceremonies or whomever is in charge, that you need to do something for 10 minutes, and then actually disappear--go out of the room.</p>

<p>Re the weight of the gear--1) you will get used to it the more you shoot and 2) wear good camera straps or support (hand strap or what have you) so that you aren't gripping the camera ll the time. Consciously put the whole thing down for a few minutes here and there. A brace for the affected parts can help until you get more used to it.</p>

 

<p>Hi Jessica,<br>

As far as the amount of photos I end up for the day. It can vary. I try no to set in stone how many I am going to shoot. I am Asian and as a result get asked to do alot of Asian weddings (Filipino, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Etc. ) These weddings can often have alot of tradition and alot of people involved which would allow for more photos because of the variety of shots possible, change of outfits, amount of people, etc. So your amount of shots for that 14hr period may not be that unusual. Things that may help cut down the amount of photos you end up with is, not to do table shots, not too many repetitive shots. As far as guests asking for photos, this sometimes happens at weddings I shoot, even though we advertise we are photojournalistic, many of the guests don't know that. I see it as more of an opportunity (they will end up wanting to look at their photo on your website) and I take their photo if they ask and its doesn't interrupt the flow of things. Since these photos don't really fit my style, I usually put them in a separate photo from the photojournalistic ones. This way they don't clutter the work I want to show. I also don't show these regular shots to the public, since they won't really attract customers.<br>

How many photos do I end up with? Usually I aim to give only the best quality photos so I could end up with about 1/3 to 1/4 of what I've shot. If I experiment with different techniques I tend to end up taking out much more. I think about 50 an hour is a good number to aim for. Don't ever put a number to how many photos you will end up with. Do strive to shoot less and better quality, but don't be afraid to shoot more if you want to experiment with different angles, lighting, flash techniques, etc. As you get better you will not have to take as many shots. I have shot very few photos at times if I find nothing interesting or if things are repititious and at times I have shot tons of photos when I am trying to experiment with different looks and techniques. One thing to remember is that the less photos you take, the less you'll have to edit =).<br>

I understand your pain with the Nikon D700, Db900, and 24-70mm combo. I have the same combo x2. I've lightened my load by shooting with primes more frequently. My new main lens is the Nikon 24mm 1.4G. I'll let you know how that works, I will be taking it out tommorrow for a wedding, I can't wait! I also like using the 50mm and 85mm ranges. I use 2 bodies frequently, so primes definitely help! Also invest in good straps. I use the R-Strap from Black Rapids and a Gel strap on my 2nd camera. Its not a perfect system, but it helps. Also look for a comfortable pair of shoes and clothes. Comfortable shoes can help cushion the stress on your back.</p>

<p>William--I remember when motor drive just came out long ago. You had people extolling the virtues, but then others who point out that even in a burst of images of a particular action, you could miss that one, great image that would be iconic--it would be in between a couple of the burst frames--while a photographer that anticipated and waited for that moment would have gotten it. Whether true or not, I'd say just pick your method and let the other guy do so as well.</p>

<p>I personally am the latter type, but see the advantage of burst mode for some things. A couple of weeks ago, at a wedding, a guest was shooting over my shoulder (I'm sure he was asked to do so). For every separate shot he wanted (these were also formals), he shot a burst of 5-6 frames. By the end of the day, I shudder to think of how many images he took. I hope he was using the 'cull immediately' method of organizing his images...</p>

<p>Jessica writes:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm just here in front of the computer, editing the photos, OMG, there is no END! I don't want to do it again, seriously...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right. ONE of the reasons I want to take fewer, better photos is completely selfish. I simply want to have fewer photos to deal with in post-processing. Of course brides don't care about that, at least not directly. But if I'm going to wade through that many photos, I'm going to have to start charging more. </p>

<p>*</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It was also because they were my first ones, and with all these traditions, I didn't want to lose any moment... </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, here's a little bit of wisdom you can hang on to for the rest of your life. You are going to MISS more shots, FAR more, than you get. Get used to it. ;-)</p>

<p><a href="http://williamporterphotography.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/you-miss-more-than-you-hit/">http://williamporterphotography.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/you-miss-more-than-you-hit/</a><br /><br /></p>

<p>*</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There was a lot of slow moments, really, but in these moments the guests start to ask for photos, one after the other, there were some guests, that called me take a pic of them with every other table (both weddings had around 250 people)... And now I feel in obligation to delivery these guests photos, because they are gonna ask see it. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>You bet they are! My contract states very clearly that I'll deliver somewhere around 150 photos, that this is NOT the total number of photos that I will take at the wedding, and that the choice is mine. I even go further and try to explain to brides that they aren't really missing much—that a lot of the photos I reject before she sees them are exposure tests, or photos where somebody blinks or are simply BAD photos. In spite of all this educational outreach, brides still ask to see every image. Now I try to delete as many photos as possible WHILE I AM SHOOTING, and the first thing I do when I get the photos on my computer is mark as many as possible for deletion. I am nowhere near as ruthless as I want to be, but I keep working on it.</p>

<p>Sorry, don't mean to hog your thread here. I'll shut up now. ;-)</p>

<p>Will</p>

 

<p>When I see these extremely high numbers I can only think that the photographer is not making a distinction between the number of "photos" shot and the number of "frames" or "images" or "files" shot. There simply aren't 3,000 "photos" to be shot at a wedding, at least not that I'd want to look at. But if you click the shutter 10 times for every actual photo -- either to bracket exposure or trying to get a good expression -- that gets down to more reasonable 300 "photos." It depends on the picture, but I would hope I wouldn't have to shoot 10 frames of each and every shot to get one keeper. (Getting the key bride and groom formal portait I'd shoot whatever it takes. But the grab shot of the third cousins twice removed at their table isn't going to get more than a frame or two.) And I certainly would not be showing the client all 3,000 frames that came out of the camera, only what I had edited them down to.</p>

I liked it better, Nadine, when the motor drive was my thumb on a Bronica Speed Grip. I was desperate to make every picture count. I had a little bit of time fo think about what I was doing.

<p>I generally do less than 500 images total. Culled down it is about 200. That is enough for me to tell the story.</p>

<p>But, I have had potential clients that choose another photographer because "he takes 2000 images and you only do 500". So be it. When I used film I only took six rolls of 24 exposure film to the event and did not use all the exposures on each roll.</p>

<p>The right answer for the number of images is something only you can answer. Do what you need to do to get the job done the way you want it done.</p>

<p>Just be cautious deleting photos in the camera while shooting. I've heard of card corruption (even with high-end dSLRs) doing this. I prefer not to futz with the cards at all until I have them backed up in duplicate.<br>

My first act after an event is to sit down and rate all of the images using the star system in Bridge. Anything that wasn't at least 3 stars immediately drops into a Cull folder and don't get looked at again. I then choose the final shots I'll deliver from the 3-star plus rated remainder. Any requests to see "all" images come from that remainder - I consider anything in the Cull folder to be gone for good.<br>

As stated, there is no "normal". I usually end up with 100-300 (depending on wedding length and events covered) images I'd consider delivering to the Bride/Groom. Again, depending on the event, I might shoot 1000 images- but that would be over a couple of days (think Rehearsal Dinner, etc.).</p>

<p>Garry Morris writes:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Just be cautious deleting photos in the camera while shooting. I've heard of card corruption (even with high-end dSLRs) doing this. I prefer not to futz with the cards at all until I have them backed up in duplicate.</strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yikes! I haven't heard this. It's only in the last couple of months that I've started trying to delete WHILE I'm shooting. Have to do some research into this. Thanks for the tip.</p>

<p>Will <br>

<br /></p>

<p>William, look at Tom Boston's post in the following thread.</p>

<p><a href="00Whuy">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00Whuy</a></p>

<p>I don't think that deleting photos in camera can <em>cause</em> corruption--as Tom states, it increases the chance of fragmentation, meaning <strong>if</strong> one is trying to retrieve files through a recovery process, it will make it harder. I confess that I delete files in camera all the time. I don't recommend it if you are not a careful sort. You can easily mess up with buttons. But even that would not mean the files are gone (telling the camera to delete all by mistake). You'd just set aside the card and recover the files later. It just means you need extra cards.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“I use D700 with 24-70mm and a SB900 = more than 2kg, I couldn't sleep well because of the pain . . . I'd appreciate a lot any kind of help!”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Three points on this particular matter:</p>

<p>firstly, considering the number of images you captured over the duration, you had the camera “at the ready” position a large proportion of the time – it is very likely that you were NOT <strong><em>relaxed</em></strong> in this position. (i,e. you hold the camera in the "at the ready" postion with your muscles, particularly arms, neck and upper back in unnecessary tension)</p>

<p>secondly, it is likely that you are shooting UNBALANCED: many photographers do as it is not something that many Photographers are taught how to do properly – it is just (wrongly) assumed that because you bought a camera you know how to stand, position, hold and execute the shutter release correctly: ( <a href="../wedding-photography-forum/00WsZ2">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00WsZ2</a> )<br />(FWIW: another example which can cause physical pain and damage is that many children are taken to swimming lessons and acquire a basic good technique; but very few are taught how to run correctly)</p>

<p>thirdly, as this is you beginning Wedding Photography, irrespective of your general physical fitness and capacity, the load (weight) and carriage of that weight for a long period of time, is foreign to you – exercises are mentioned in the tread I linked above – many (beginning) Wedding Photographers fail to realize that the activity is quite physical and as well as exercising, rehydration, electrolyte replacement and correct choice and timely eating habits are all imperative, for optimum performance.</p>

<p>One question: where was your second camera?</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>First of all, thank you all for helping me! <br>

Well, I'm thinking of some decisions to make, based on the experience I had and the advices I got here. <br>

First, i'll discuss the guest issue with the bride in our first meeting. I don't mind doing the guests, but the problem is that because we didn't have anything arranged, I did 2x! One at the table, and them one with the couple. <br>

About the weight of the gear, I also use a think tank bag, so I was resting the camera like on top of the bag. But always holding the camera. But I'll definitely do some exercises and maybe use something to help. (My right arm is already completely different from the left one, I have visible bigger biceps since I'm using this gear).<br>

Great article about the missing the shots William, have you ever missed some key moment in a wedding? I'm so afraid of it... It is such a big responsibility to freeze these key moments that are so important for the couple... <br>

I'm thinking that I'm not gonna be so attached at quantity of photographs right now, because I'm just starting and the traditions here are different. But I'll definitely try to reduce as much as I can every time, because its just too much work to do after, and I'm a bit lost on the workflow with that amount of photos to organize, and I use Aperture and for some pics Photoshop. So its driving me crazy here. Plus, I'm really feeling the pressure of making sure that I have it backed up safely. So, I won't tell you how many gigs between photos and backups and final ones that I have. I'll let you imagine it...<br>

For backup camera, I have to be honest about what was in my mind: "Ah nothing is gonna happen." BUT, yes I have a Panasonic GH1 with good lenses that could do the job, at home tho. I thought that if anything, somebody could bring it to me in 5 min. But, I had 2 flashes with me all the time (sb900 and sb800). Because of the over heating issue in the SB900 (I did the upgrade, but it was overheating all the time and I didn't want to damage it). And it was very handy. <br>

I can't imagine myself carrying more things in those small spaces with so many people squeezing me all the time... Do you leave your backup camera somewhere specifically? Or you carry it on you?<br>

=D</p>

<p>Thanks one more time</p>

 

<p>Jessica writes:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>About the weight of the gear, I also use a think tank bag, so I was resting the camera like on top of the bag. But always holding the camera. But I'll definitely do some exercises and maybe use something to help.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think a lot of young photographers who've never done a wedding or similar event before fail to realize that it can be physically draining HARD WORK. It's mentally stressful—you have to be busy and alert almost non-stop for hour after hour after hour—but it's physically stressful as well. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Great article about the missing the shots William, have you ever missed some key moment in a wedding? I'm so afraid of it... It is such a big responsibility to freeze these key moments that are so important for the couple... </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, I've missed lots of shots at weddings. It's inevitable. You try not to miss The Kiss, but lots of things can be recreated in a pinch.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Do you leave your backup camera somewhere specifically? Or you carry it on you?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I usually always work with two cameras at all Events, mostly carrying two all day. For non recoverable portions of any Event (e.g. Processional at a Wedding) ALWAYS two cameras ON ME - sometimes using three cameras for the Church Service - the third camera would have a telephoto on it and be left on the last Pew / Tripod at side or somewhere similar. That third camera goes to not needing to change lenses in long or large Churches and / or having the option of remote shooting</p>

<p>I keep back up gear, including back up cameras, in my bag, which is close by all the time. (meaning I <em>work</em> with two cameras)</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

With the new cameras out that do video and stills, we surely will see the number of shots increase. Most likely this will happen within just a few years.

 

I usually only take about 500 shots, although this can be increased to about 700, if it's a huge wedding, perhaps around 300 to 400 guests.

<p>Have you edited it down to the very best? Even I don't want to look at 2000 photos of anything.</p>

<p><em>With the new cameras out that do video and stills, we surely will see the number of shots increase.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I don't understand how you make that deduction. If you're shooting video it means that the camera must stand still for the duration of the clip or the viewer will just press stop way before seeing the whole thing. Camera in a fixed position on tripod => can't cover as many angles as you can shooting stills => fewer shots, and far fewer good ones. Besides, stills pulled out of video is not exactly making the best use of the quality of the camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>With the new cameras out that do video and stills, we surely will see the number of shots increase.</em><br /><br />I don't understand how you make that deduction.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I do. It is the already begun, convergence of the two media. An hot topic of conversation amongst many Wedding Pros here, especially those aligned with a video side to their business.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If you're shooting video it means that the camera must stand still for the duration of the clip or the viewer will just press stop way before seeing the whole thing.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Incorrect.</p>

<p>I saw some tests of a 5DMkII + 24L MkII on a steady-cam only last week. Really nice stuff. Once the IQ is acceptable there would be many still frames a Pro could pull from video sequences.</p>

<p>WW </p>

<p>William, with all due respect, are you suggesting that by pulling stills from video instead of shooting dedicated stills, you can produce superior images? Could you show some examples. The claim was that video in DSLR would increase the number of shots delivered to client, if I understood it correctly. I take this to mean that the amount of high quality stills would increase compared to still only shooting, because that would be the only reason why this could be done.</p>

<p>How exactly do you use flash to reduce shadow depth during video? How do you use slow shutter speeds? </p>

<p>I can only see drawbacks in doing this if you're aiming to produce any kind of quality still images. The whole paradigm of photography is different when photographing stills. You take individual images and move to optimal position for every image if needed. For shooting video you cannot do that as easily. I don't care how good a steadycam makes the video look, it's not the same thing as being able to move freely from shot to shot, adjust the lighting optimal for each shot, zooming freely etc.</p>

<p>Maybe we have a different idea of what is an acceptable still image and what is an acceptable documentary.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>William, with all due respect, are you suggesting that by pulling stills from video instead of shooting dedicated stills, you can produce superior images?</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No I am not. Neither did I neither stated that nor imply anything like that. Not at this point in time.<br>

<strong><em> </em></strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>Could you show some examples. </em></strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No I cannot. As per my reply above.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>The claim was that video in DSLR would increase the number of shots delivered to client, if I understood it correctly.</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I agree in part to you interpretation of what Bob B wrote but – but the quote you lifted <em>was out of context in the paragraph it was written. </em>It did not include the sentence: <strong><em>“Most likely this will happen within just a few years.”</em></strong><br>

<strong><em> </em></strong><br>

Therefore my understanding, <strong><em>of the whole paragraph,</em></strong> is that Bob B was referencing convergence (and I mentioned that) and that this convergence will, <em>in the future</em>, allow adequate quality stills to be lifted from video.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>How exactly do you use flash to reduce shadow depth during video?</em></strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>One would not use Flash: one would light the scene as per cine. As an example only.<br>

Available light could be accomplished also.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>"How do you use slow shutter speeds?</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be mostly irrelevant for aspects such as dragging the shutter for example.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>“The whole paradigm of photography is different when photographing stills.”</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes at the moment it is, mainly limited by the fact that a still frame is (usually) poorer quality – though a frame from 70mm can be reasonable to 6x4 print, for example (just referencing quality).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>"(for stills) You take individual images and move to optimal position for every image if needed. For shooting video you cannot do that as easily."</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>And for video one can have various camera vantage points and multiple cameras: two or three, just as one example.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>"I don't care how good a steadycam makes the video look, it's not the same thing as being able to move freely from shot to shot, adjust the lighting optimal for each shot, zooming freely etc."</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It seems to me closed minded to the future adaptation change and the application of future technological development to begin a discussion with <em>“I don’t care how much . . . </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

With all due respect, Ilkka, I have usually found that people involved in research are generally more open minded to all possibilities and results, lest they bias their outcomes by their own limited thinking. Moreover, have you used a steady-cam? </p>

<p>Also, I again reference the point that we are not discussion <em>“the now” </em>we are discussion the future and further – any increase in images that lifting from video might provide, will at first be <em>additional to the</em> stills captured. Let’s not assume that we are discussing lifting stills from video to <em>replace</em> taking stills altogether – at least not in the first instance. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>"Maybe we have a different idea of what is an acceptable still image and what is an acceptable documentary."</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, with a modicum of effort, a little research and a little subsequent scientific assumption, IMO it is easy to establish that we actually do have similar bench marks for quality and as it happens, also similar tastes in photography.<br>

(Though I do sometimes show some less than technically perfect images for the sake of interest and learning – e.g. the shots of” Moonset” here : http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=944717).</p>

<p>For example your “Medieval Atmosphere” seems to exhibit similar characteristics to these: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=933809">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=933809</a><br>

<a href="../photo/9199113&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/9199113&size=lg</a><br>

Though I do make the assumption that you used a tripod, whereas I used a monopod. And for the latter - it was hand held.<br>

Noted also on that image you use Spot Metering, so therefore I extrapolate theft the exposure if 2 seconds was manually calculated – as I also do most often . . .</p>

<p>Your, “Chinese New Year Celebrations” show similar attention to detail as these: <a href="../photo/10442964&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10442964&size=lg</a><br>

<a href="../photo/9567764&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/9567764&size=lg</a></p>

<p>And it seems your people images, for example “Samba Dancer” exhibits the use of available light such that you would have need to time the shouter release no be at the correct vantage point - both issues I fully understand.</p>

<p>So personally, I am not particularly interested in taking the bait offered with that tag line: and further I ma not interested in discussing who, between us, has what technical standards or who is more vigilant in that regard, than the other. . .<br>

As it is obvious to me, after a tad research, that we both take reasonable quality images and understand what it takes to get to that point when shooting in the field . . .</p>

<p>If we both understand photography at this level: and as it seems we are both somewhat technicians: it seems utterly incongruous to me that you are dismissing technology developing and understanding the principles of technological divergence and therefore accepting as a possibility that it is well within the realms of likelihood that still images lifted from video could, in the future form additional images to the stills coverage . . . or the development of one camera which surpass the need for the two mediums. </p>

<p>Thinking laterally non this, maybe, as a rest from the day to day researching and analysing in detail, one just likes quoting out of context to flesh out “the argument” and other’s point of view to attain the substance of it, all for the sake of arguing? I don’t know?</p>

<p>WW</p>