Finally!!!!

[BenE]

Originally Posted by PhotosbyChuck

Bah...he said it was his first nude shoot. Give him a break on the shutter clicks! Besides, with shutter life of 100k on many of today's cameras, he might as well get his money's worth!

Chuck, My comment was because I was amused by the fact he asked if she was "up for at least a FEW shots", and then said he took 456. Darn, I wanted to ask, and am asking now, how long was that session? Even if it was 2 hours that is about 3 shots per minute... or one shot every 20 seconds, with no time outs to even catch her breath ....

[isaiahbrink]

Originally Posted by BenE

Chuck, My comment was because I was amused by the fact he asked if she was "up for at least a FEW shots", and then said he took 456. Darn, I wanted to ask, and am asking now, how long was that session? Even if it was 2 hours that is about 3 shots per minute... or one shot every 20 seconds, with no time outs to even catch her breath ....

Hey Ben, when I said that, there was a healthy dose of sarcasm used, lol. Normally, I don't take that many shots, but this time since there was about 5 wardrobe changes and several different locations within that area, I did go a little overboard with the quantity of the shots. A bit of nervousness I guess. But I remember a previous poster mentioning something about shooting 500 and only giving 5. Well, I plan on giving her many more than that, most of them in fact, just taking out the ones that couldn't be salvaged in photoshop or blinking, things like that. But you do have a valid point about the number of shots taken and how few given, as well as maybe not shooting as many next time. But oh, I will be putting some up, after I give the model the pics, which will hopefully be tomorrow.

Isaiah

[Al_Nowak]

Ahhhhh.... The thread has morphed into the old quantity of shots discussion. Time to add my 2 cents worth.

Now then, on the number of shots issue. My feeling is that if a photographer winds up with great shots... who gives a rat's ...er... behind how many shots it took!

The technology has made it possible to do a LOT of shots cheaply, and I've never seen anything about ANY professional photographer using just one sheet of film on a paying shoot, so what's the point. Besides, doing a lot of shots costs in post production time -- sorting, archiving, etc. So if a photographer wants to shoot that way, he's trading shooting time for post production time. But it's his choice. The magazine editors don't much care how you do it as long as it's on time and under budget.

I shoot a lot of shots... when I get on a roll, the ideas start flowing and I want to run until I run out of ideas or fall down exhausted. I'll keep shooting crap shots even when I've temporarily run out of ideas... it keeps the model alert, interested, and involved. Yes, I pay the price in sorting thrugh a bunch of crap, but I also create an opportunity for those "happy accidents" and "spontaneous flashes of brilliance" that sometimes result in really great unplanned images.

Let me point out that I DO do a fair amount of preplanning and setting up of specific shots. But once that's finished and the model's still willing to play, get ready to rock 'n roll!

Besides, who's keeping a box score? As someone else mentioned, the expensive toys we use can do 100,000 (some even claim 300,000!) clicks, so why the hell not use 'em up.

I am an amateur... I shoot the way that produces results I like. It may not be the way the pros work, but then from what I've seen of the pros shooting from contact sheets, TV, etc. they don't count clicks either...

[isaiahbrink]

Originally Posted by Al_Nowak

Ahhhhh.... The thread has morphed into the old quantity of shots discussion. Time to add my 2 cents worth.

Now then, on the number of shots issue. My feeling is that if a photographer winds up with great shots... who gives a rat's ...er... behind how many shots it took!

The technology has made it possible to do a LOT of shots cheaply, and I've never seen anything about ANY professional photographer using just one sheet of film on a paying shoot, so what's the point. Besides, doing a lot of shots costs in post production time -- sorting, archiving, etc. So if a photographer wants to shoot that way, he's trading shooting time for post production time. But it's his choice. The magazine editors don't much care how you do it as long as it's on time and under budget.

I shoot a lot of shots... when I get on a roll, the ideas start flowing and I want to run until I run out of ideas or fall down exhausted. I'll keep shooting crap shots even when I've temporarily run out of ideas... it keeps the model alert, interested, and involved. Yes, I pay the price in sorting thrugh a bunch of crap, but I also create an opportunity for those "happy accidents" and "spontaneous flashes of brilliance" that sometimes result in really great unplanned images.

Let me point out that I DO do a fair amount of preplanning and setting up of specific shots. But once that's finished and the model's still willing to play, get ready to rock 'n roll!

Besides, who's keeping a box score? As someone else mentioned, the expensive toys we use can do 100,000 (some even claim 300,000!) clicks, so why the hell not use 'em up.

I am an amateur... I shoot the way that produces results I like. It may not be the way the pros work, but then from what I've seen of the pros shooting from contact sheets, TV, etc. they don't count clicks either...

Yup, that's what happened here, the model and I had some ideas going into the shoot, and things just progressed, and we did like you said, just rolled with it, and took it from there. Got some good ones, and I'll be giving the model her copies this evening, and then I'll put some up for everybody to rip apart.

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Al_Nowak

Now then, on the number of shots issue. My feeling is that if a photographer winds up with great shots... who gives a rat's ...er... behind how many shots it took!

Yes, I pay the price in sorting through a bunch of crap, but I also create an opportunity for those "happy accidents" and "spontaneous flashes of brilliance" that sometimes result in really great unplanned images.

Besides, who's keeping a box score? As someone else mentioned, the expensive toys we use can do 100,000 (some even claim 300,000!) clicks, so why the hell not use 'em up.

Unless you have a newer dSLR, most of them do not give you even 100,000 shutter activations. In the last year, the more expensive dSLRs do offer the 100,000 and higher range, but I suspect that most of us have dSLRs that are more than 1 year old.

The problem with shooting a multitude of shots is that often it is the method by which the photographer gets a few good shots. Sheer quantity of shots means that they eventually have to "luck out". But is this what we want? We won't always have the luxury of shooting unlimited shots. There will be times when the time period is too short so we want to be able to frame and shoot quickly and efficiently and know that we can get the shot.

I see lots of results from the "spray and pray" method of photography where 1/3rd to 1/2 the shots don't even have the proper exposure. That's a waste of time since most such shots will be difficult to work with. Better to slow down, observe good technique, and take 10 or 15 good shots of each set and then move on. If you shoot at a pro level (which in this case I'm defining as using good technique and having a good eye for what makes a quality photo), then of the 10 or 15 good shots you take in such an example, 8 to 10 of them will be pro level shots and highly usable --- and 1 or 2 will be outstanding shots.

But even with all the potential for luck in shooting many hundreds of shots of each set, it is surprising how bad some of the photos are from such sessions. I know dozens of "photographers" who never produce a decent shot, no matter how many shots they make. A thousand shots made with bad technique and no eye for what makes a photo will just produce a thousand poor shots.

This, of course, holds true in all disciplines. I have a friend who practiced doing a Side Steal (a sleight of hand technique with playing cards) for 20 years. He had practiced it hundreds of thousands of times. He did it absolutely perfectly --- unfortunately it was worthless because he used a bad technique and it was clear to any observer that he had done something suspicious looking. In other words, a good Side Steal must looks so normal to the viewer that they are unaware that anything out of the ordinary happened. I spent 30 minutes teaching him a "good technique" and he practiced it for a few hours and now he does a very good side steal. What is the moral of this little fable: practice the wrong technique thousands of times and you can do the wrong technique perfectly, and it has no value. Practice good technique for even a short time, and it has great value. Or another way to say it --- shoot a thousand shots at 1 1/2 stops overexposed and what do you have?

Cheers,
rfs

[isaiahbrink]

Originally Posted by R_Fredrick_Smith

Unless you have a newer dSLR, most of them do not give you even 100,000 shutter activations. In the last year, the more expensive dSLRs do offer the 100,000 and higher range, but I suspect that most of us have dSLRs that are more than 1 year old.

The problem with shooting a multitude of shots is that often it is the method by which the photographer gets a few good shots. Sheer quantity of shots means that they eventually have to "luck out". But is this what we want? We won't always have the luxury of shooting unlimited shots. There will be times when the time period is too short so we want to be able to frame and shoot quickly and efficiently and know that we can get the shot.

I see lots of results from the "spray and pray" method of photography where 1/3rd to 1/2 the shots don't even have the proper exposure. That's a waste of time since most such shots will be difficult to work with. Better to slow down, observe good technique, and take 10 or 15 good shots of each set and then move on. If you shoot at a pro level (which in this case I'm defining as using good technique and having a good eye for what makes a quality photo), then of the 10 or 15 good shots you take in such an example, 8 to 10 of them will be pro level shots and highly usable --- and 1 or 2 will be outstanding shots.

But even with all the potential for luck in shooting many hundreds of shots of each set, it is surprising how bad some of the photos are from such sessions. I know dozens of "photographers" who never produce a decent shot, no matter how many shots they make. A thousand shots made with bad technique and no eye for what makes a photo will just produce a thousand poor shots.

This, of course, holds true in all disciplines. I have a friend who practiced doing a Side Steal (a sleight of hand technique with playing cards) for 20 years. He had practiced it hundreds of thousands of times. He did it absolutely perfectly --- unfortunately it was worthless because he used a bad technique and it was clear to any observer that he had done something suspicious looking. In other words, a good Side Steal must looks so normal to the viewer that they are unaware that anything out of the ordinary happened. I spent 30 minutes teaching him a "good technique" and he practiced it for a few hours and now he does a very good side steal. What is the moral of this little fable: practice the wrong technique thousands of times and you can do the wrong technique perfectly, and it has no value. Practice good technique for even a short time, and it has great value. Or another way to say it --- shoot a thousand shots at 1 1/2 stops overexposed and what do you have?

Cheers,
rfs

Very good poit!

[Titan]

So, I'll try to steer this one back to it's original topic.

Congrats on just barely beating the curse.

Now where are the photos ?

[isaiahbrink]

Hey Titan, great question, they are done, on the cd, and I'm meeting the model tomorrow for her copies. I've made it a rule not to post the images prior to the model having copies of the images and having some sort of say so, escpecially on TFCD shoots, which this was.

[BenE]

Originally Posted by R_Fredrick_Smith

The problem with shooting a multitude of shots is that often it is the method by which the photographer gets a few good shots. Sheer quantity of shots means that they eventually have to "luck out". But is this what we want? We won't always have the luxury of shooting unlimited shots. There will be times when the time period is too short so we want to be able to frame and shoot quickly and efficiently and know that we can get the shot.


But even with all the potential for luck in shooting many hundreds of shots of each set, it is surprising how bad some of the photos are from such sessions. I know dozens of "photographers" who never produce a decent shot, no matter how many shots they make.

Or another way to say it --- shoot a thousand shots at 1 1/2 stops overexposed and what do you have?

Cheers,
rfs

Absolutely everything you said is valid. One other point (unless I overlooked it).

I just returned from a "shoot", and kept explaining to the models that I would NOT be making 40 to 60 shots of each "set-up", but that did not mean I would not get great shots. I felt compelled to explain since most all others were shooting so much. I thought perhaps the models would think I didn't know what I was doing or didn't like their look.

That said, on the way home, I came up with this thought, which is along the same lines of R Fredrick.

With so much junk and so many photographers shooting 400 to 500 shots of junk, some models believe this is the norm. I am not saying anyone posting on this thread is shooting junk, but making a general statement.

I have had models tell me that _________ photographer says that unless a photographer is shooting hundreds of shots, he doesn't know what to do.

I say, why waste so much time (yours and models) to shoot 100 to get 2.

[jimmyd]

Originally Posted by BenE

I just returned from a "shoot", and kept explaining to the models that I would NOT be making 40 to 60 shots of each "set-up", but that did not mean I would not get great shots. I felt compelled to explain since most all others were shooting so much. I thought perhaps the models would think I didn't know what I was doing or didn't like their look.

I long ago gave up 'esplaining anything to models in terms of what I'm doing. Maybe, if there's a problem with my gear or something like that, I might offer a very short and rudimentary explanation but that's about it. When I'm done shooting a set I simply say, "Cool. That's it. Thanks. We're done." If the model asks if I'm sure I've gotten enough shots I simply say, "Yep. I've got what I need. Thanks."