But is less is more?

[justin_hall]

The more I learn about this photography lark the more I try to stop, think and

compose shots, do everything you are supposed to do. I do try and "think film"

but shoot digital to encourage discipline in what I do, rather than shooting

3,000 frames and picking the lucky 75 good 'uns.

 

Just recently I've tried to really cut down the number of shots I take onsite

and be really brutal in the final selection I post online (i.e. shoot 300 and

post up just 40 or 50).

 

My thinking is that I don't want to dilute all the better shots, the reputation

building shots with "average" shots (well average to the likes of us anyway).

 

Do you do the same? I'm even thinking about taking just one, small 256mb card to

home portrait shoots to limit the photos I take, am I going mad?

 

j

[peterlyons]

Well...

I'm a sports shooter, so I don't limit my shooting. I still shoot lots and lots of frames,

reasoning that I can't always predict that perfect moment. The big downsize is, after the

shoot, I don't have time to go through everything critically to choose the shots the really

worked great. Instead I keep them all, and post them all online for my clients (or prospective

cleints) to view. Some others in my field are even critical of this, and I do understand that.

 

IMO there's no final perfect solution. But I will admit, it would sure be nice not to have to

store so much data! I have more than a Terabyte for one year's shooting.

[surfidaho]

Blast away, but with method, not madness.

 

Experiment with all sorts of settings. Try to freeze motion. Try to capture motion. Experiment. Have fun.

[picturesque]

Do whatever works for you. Emin Kuliyev, who posts his great work on this forum often shoots 3,000 images by himself. There are others who still shoot 300 images at weddings. Are either one wrong? No. I haven't tried to cut down on what I shoot because my count hasn't gone up that much. I just feel like I'm not wasting film if I want to shoot to cover action or experiment.

[picturesque]

Sorry for the grammar--have to type slower.

[william-porter]

<blockquote><em>The more I learn about this photography lark the more I try to stop, think and compose shots, do everything you are supposed to do. I do try and "think film" but shoot digital to encourage discipline in what I do, rather than shooting 3,000 frames and picking the lucky 75 good 'uns.</em></blockquote>

<p>I try never to point and shoot and hope for the best. There's very little fun in that and no satisfaction even when you get lucky. Anybody with a camera can get lucky once in a while, but a single prizewinning shot of a dog in the street does not a Cartier-Bresson make. What separates good photographers from wannabes is that the good photographers have taken lots of good photos and get good results consistently. My personal goal is to get a higher percentage of keepers from my attempts.</p>

<blockquote><em>Just recently I've tried to really cut down the number of shots I take onsite and be really brutal in the final selection I post online (i.e. shoot 300 and post up just 40 or 50).<br>My thinking is that I don't want to dilute all the better shots, the reputation building shots with "average" shots (well average to the likes of us anyway).</em></blockquote>

<p>I think this is very sound.</p>

 

<blockquote><em>Do you do the same? I'm even thinking about taking just one, small 256mb card to home portrait shoots to limit the photos I take, am I going mad? </em></blockquote>

<p>Yes. Let's not get carried away here!</p>

[jonj]

Justin,

 

I post only 40-50 images on my site, but I give the client close to 150. There are tons of photos the bride and groom will want of family and friends but other potential couples could care less. Oh I shoot close to 300 per wedding which I thought was on the low side.

[david_sparks2]

This is always an interesting question. We as professionals look at photos differently than clients do. It's easier for both groups to agree on what constitutes a "Great" photograph. But it's another thing to decide the keepers vs. the ones you delete/throw away.

 

There are obvious pictures to trash...faces blocked by arms, flash didn't fire properly, lots of blinkers in the formals...etc. But I am always surprised with prints clients choose. Ones that I was on the brink of deleting and now am glad I didn't.

 

So...what do I do? I deliver about 550-600 photos on average. I do give away a DVD but also include prints in my packages. I feel I've been paid well enough to do my job and that those are the couple's/family's photos to have and to hold until death do them part (sorry, lame joke!)

 

We as professionals may only want to show our best work to our prospective public but a lot of photos that we may consider "mediocre" are just what our clients want. Why? Because it's the people they know in those photos that matter. And that's a big reason why some, although a lot of us hate it, request table shots.

 

The other way I look at it is I am being paid more or about the same as guys who haul big heavy equipment and break their bodies down so when they're retired they are aching and/or have some kind of career related health issues. That's a pretty darn good deal to me. I'd rather take some photos that I don't particular have much artistic input/skill into but at least I don't have to risk a hernia on the job.

[darrenbeattyphotography]

I am in the same boat as Peter's. I found with sportsphotography (you didnt specify weddings or not) that the shot may seem slow, or boring to the photographer, but its exactly what the client wants. I've also learned to simply put the pictures (almost all of them) in the gallery and let them sift through and find the ones they really like. What I can say is over the time I have gotten into high speed objects (sportbike racing), I can say that my "duds," number, go down almost everytime I shoot. Less deleting, more good shots.

 

Also Justin, I always remember the phrase "if you saw it, you truely missed it." Obviously referring to us. Not the viewer or audience. Shoot shoot shoot, cant lose.

[visionzof]

Wow. I show my clients over 2000 photos for a wedding. (if I am with them for the entire day) I let them decide which ones are keepers and which ones arent. Of course I go through and delete out the ones that don't turn out.

[fotografz]

"(you didnt specify weddings or not)"

 

This is the "Wedding and Social Event Forum".

 

I'd tend to agree with Nadine, it's up to the individual on how many images one shoots or

shows to a client. No two people are the same.

 

From my perspective, sorting through 2000 or 3000 images seems to be quite an

undertaking even for a trained eye ... and delegating that to a client seems unecesssary.

 

Consistancy, focus and anticipation, plus sharp editing, can go a long way toward cutting

back on overshooting, while often improving the over-all impression of a body of work.