How many shots does it take to get a few great pictures?

[chimera_h]

I took some pictures of my daughter today. I shot about 100 pics and

came up with several ( 6-8 maybe?) that were good. It was windy and

she kept squinting and she's not quite 3 yrs. and all over the place.

How many pictures, on average, would you say you have to take to get

enough good ones to choose from? Of course, as I gain experience I'm

sure I'll shoot more accurately. I used the rapid burst setting, but

getting that darn camera to focus is going to be the end of me.

 

Here is one good picture from today. Well, good considering I'm still

trying to get the hang of this.

[glen_evans1]

Hey Paige, If you are losing shots to focus probs. maybe there's a fix available. Which camera body and lens combination did you use for the Spring portrait?

[ristic]

Wow, nice shot... yes I see the focus prob but I think its an issue that you are not focused on the part you want. It looks to me that you have focus on the hair (fringe) ....

 

As mentioned, which camera, lens, etc give us more info so someone can help.

 

To answer your question though, I think it all depends. Kids are tough, I have a 6 month old niece with the most AMAZING smile but its so difficult to capture because she only does it when she is jumping around... hang in there. I took 40 pics and found 4 that were usable and 1 that I thought was great. (If that helps)

 

Cheers,

Peter

[wbowman]

Ansel Adams said "Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop." and he took a lot of pictures! Many other photographers seem to echo a similar thought. You should not expect 36/36 photos in a role to be great. Professional photographers can take thousands of pictures in a shoot to produce just a few great images. Once you perfect your skills (spot-on focus, exposed correctly) you will certainly have more acceptible images, but then you become picky about framing, focal length, etc. It is a never ending quest for perfection.

[ranong]

depending on the subject this may vary a bit. i have just broken through another "learning layer" and my photography is improving. i have begun to shoot medium format and large format (all manual) with a handheld light meter, and have been processing my own film, after a lifetime of 35mm and this has helped my photography huge! i can expect to get 30-40% of "great shots" well atleast they come out exactly as i had envisioned in my mind. the handheld light meter and my own processing has given me great insight.

 

as for your focus problems, you will just need to learn how to make your camera function as you want. you should be able to shoot 36 out of 36 shots that are in focus and exposed "correctly" first. this may require you to slow down and pick your shots, as well as a firm understanding of your particular camera. also a tripod may help. this way you can look at the whole picture, slowly, and make the appropriate corrections. well good luck and most of all HAVE FUN!

 

eddie

[doug grosjean]

Out and about with a squirmy kid? Yes, the number you'll get that you'll consider really good will be a small fraction.

 

Last roll of film I shot was this last Sunday, my 11 y/o learning to ride a unicycle, many of the same problems you have - handheld, low light (inside a gym), no tripod, movement - I got one nice shot out of a 12-exp. roll. Add more light (outdoors), and my % goes up - sometimes to 10%-25% being nice enough to keep. But shooting moving stuff, that's about as good as it gets with kids. And that's on the best of days.

 

Once, and only once, I shot a roll of film of displays at the Henry Ford Museum to illustrate a short piece I was writing about the place. 9 out of 12 shots were usable. That's still subjects, tripod, small aperture, long exposure. I remember it well because never before or since have I gotten so much good stuff out of a roll.

[frank uhlig]

In adverse conditions, such as with movement or wind, maybe you should let up on your wide open lens approach and close down to f/8, maybe f/11. And in order to freeze the action you might then need higher ISO settings/film also.

 

If you can't change the weather, simply try adjusting to it. That sounds simple enough for me. Good luck then!

[mdcarma]

Over 40 years. A few acceptable, none great. But, I'm not ready to stop yet.

[chimera_h]

I used my Canon Digital Rebel XT and 2 lenses. 1) 50 mm, 1.8 and the 18-55mm lens. The "spring" picture was taken with the 50mm.

 

I try to slow down enough to focus and think about the shot, but she just moves so fast. Maybe I need glasses. There are several pictures where the hair is just very slightly more in focus. Could it just be that the fine hairs stand out so much that that area "appears" to be more in focus? Her soft face just isn't going to be as defined as other areas.

 

Thanks for the help.

[daydreamsart]

I don't think using the rapid fire setting will improve the "keeper" odds for portraiture. But when chasing a child, you might want to close your aperture down a bit. The shot you posted seems too shallow for the depth of field. Get comfortable with accurate focusing first, then start opening the lens more. I think 1 in 3 for keepers is a realistic ratio.

 

What lens, camera, and settings are you using?

[chimera_h]

Micheal....If that's your picture on your gallery site, then has anyone ever told you you like like Robert Goulet? :) That's a compliment, by the way. Thanks for the encouragement.

[daydreamsart]

Well, we posted at about the same time. The 50mm lens will give you sharper pictures than your zoom. Tack sharp, in fact. I love that lens! With kids, there is no moment to think, at the exact same moment you think "ahh! how CUTE!" you shoot. I took pictures of my neice who was 2 and got some cute ones, but the moments are quick!

 

When focusing, go for the eye area, like the edges of her eye or the eyebrow area, there needs to be a contrast for the auto focusing to work well. If your aperture isn't open too much, then there will be enough behind and in front that will be in focus. Be sure to use the manual settings so you can control the DOF and shutter.

[chimera_h]

Cindy, Thanks. I tend to do very shallow dof when shooting. I'll try stretching it a bit. If I have a smaller aperture, then I will have to have a slower shutter, right? Well, slow shutter speed and fast kids don't mix. I'll practice and find a balance.

 

Thanks.

[chimera_h]

I realize this is not a great picture, but does this look any sharper? I can't get the data at the moment, but I think it was taken at f/7 and shutter 1/200 sec. ISO: 400

Thanks

[daydreamsart]

Try using a higher ISO, I wouldn't use a shutter speed less than 125 with little kids, and keep your aperture at 4.5 or smaller, unless they're holding fairly still, or they're asleep! BTW, your daughter is a doll!

[daydreamsart]

Yes, that looks a lot sharper.

[chimera_h]

Thanks Cindy! I'm always afraid to use a higher ISO, for I don't want the graininess. Can't remember if I said in a previous post, but I enjoyed looking at your gallery. Great pictures. Have you studied photography formally or are you self-taught? Thank you for all your help.

[ristic]

Paige, yes much sharper!

I shoot with a Rebel also. How do you use the focus points? Are they all on and on

automatic or have you selected one focus point and then use that?

 

If you press the button on the back on the far top right you can then roll the wheel and

choose your fous point. I use the centre one when shooting kids because I dont want it to

try focusing on something else... no time to press the button half way again :)

 

 

 

Cheers,

Peter

[amy_c1]

hi paige,

 

your daughter is beautiful! i agree with the helpful feedback given so far. it is very hard to get the focus exactly on the eyes when using such a shallow depth of field. i sometimes run into this problem too when using available light (espeically indoors) because i need the aperture wide open. it is not always easy to position a young child by a window or to get them to sit still enough! with my niece (one year old and on the move) what i have tried to do is give her something new and interesting to hold her attention for a few moments so i can focus while she explores it. then usually she will look up at me and smile and we can interact for a few moments. the other thing i have found helpful is to have someone standing behind me interacting with her and then i can focus on, well, focusing! this may all be very obvious to you already, so i am sorry if my response is too simple.

 

to answer your original question, i am by no means a professional, but i would say that i usually get about 2-3 really good shots out of a roll of 24 when photographing children. hope this is helpful!

 

amy

[mdcarma]

Hi Paige, I meant my comment as encouragement. You're doing very well, and a cute model. Keep it up!

For me, my photography is a flash card for a poor memory.

[mdcarma]

ps thanks for the compliment. ;-}

[chimera_h]

Amy..thanks for the advice. For that picture I set out a basket of oranges and those flowers. She ran to them to check them out! To get her to look at me, I asked her if there was a butterfly on my shoulder. Worked every time!

 

Peter...I still have to become more familiar with this camera. I don't really take advantage of the focus points like I should! Thank you so much for the help!

 

Michael..I know you were encouraging me! Thank you! After several dozen imperfect pictures, I sometimes just want to give up! I will remember you each time I feel that way. :) Gosh..sounds like one of us is dying. :)

 

Best wishes!

[daydreamsart]

Thanks Paige! Yes, I'm self taught I guess. I spend a lot of time studying books, magazines, the internet, and by taking lots of pictures. I started out taking pictures of my two daughters, then their friends, then school teams which got me into weddings and senior portraits. I'm loving it!

[plasma181]

Before the days of digital, there used to be old joke: What is the difference between and amateur and professional photographer?

 

About 20 rolls of film.

[bill c.]

One of my mentors, Martin Rogers, came back from his first National Geographic shoot with about 100 rolls of Kodachrome. They gave him a disbelieving look and--without looking at any of the images--said "That's not enough, go out and shoot at least twice that much more."

 

Then there was a National Geographic photographer (who will remain nameless) who was flown to New Zealand to get one shot to round out an article. He came back and placed one roll of film in the hand of the photo editor.

 

"Where's the rest?" the editor said.

 

"That's it," said the photographer.

 

"You mean we flew you all the way to New Zealand and you only shot 36 frames?"

 

"No," said the photographer, "I only shot three frames. I bracketed a quarter-stop each side."

 

The editor was ready to throttle the photographer, but he waited until the film came back from the lab. The shot, of a little boy carrying a sheep, ran on two pages.

 

The daughter of my across-the-street neighbor is Carolyn Drake, who has an article in this month's National Geographic on the Hasidic Jews of Crown Heights in Brooklyn (yeah, there are an absurd number of high-level pro shooters on my street, including three or four people who have or still do shoot for NGS, and shooters for major papers and a photography professor at Univ. of Md., and there's only about 100 houses on it). On Wednesday she gave a presentation at National Geographic, part of the Masters of Photography series. She said that the editor told her that she should be shooting about a hundred rolls of film per week while on assignment.

 

Of course, when you shoot for Geographic your film and processing get paid for, which is helpful.

 

Happy shooting. -BC-