I just did a job today where I had to shoot between 600 to 800 bikers(Harleys)leaving the first checkpoint on a charity run and the client only wanted one shot per rider. It was spaced out by 100 or so shots on 2gig cards. Once I shot one card he (the client) would run it to a booth at the end point to display it on a screen at an event.

My client not only wanted one shot per biker but each shot to be a slow ss pan shot (motion blur the bg). The trick was that many of the riders came in clusters so I didn't have time to reshoot....

Starting on film can teach you alot.

I try to value each shot, but I usually don't because I can ultimately just delete it, like others have said.

But taking one shot may not be the best idea, especially since you may not be able to get the same shot later.

Great topic. If I am doing a portrait shoot with a professional or landscape work I try to "make every shot count" I have the time and would rather get everything I can done in camera.
Now on the other hand I have been fortunate to be able to shoot a few burlesque shows and it really is more of a shotgun approach.(there are some things that are not suppose to be shot but the movements are so quick it happens. Also facial expressions change so quick on the performers you want them to look their best.
I did just do a trash the dress shoot and it was a shots count because once the spraypaint came out there was non(hey I need to change the exposure on that last one)=)
So Like others have said I think it depends on the situation.

~Cheers

NikoDoby said:
I still make each shot count just like the old film days. Old habits die hard. However I do shoot multiple frames in rapid succession when doing slow shutter low light photography hand held. I usually do three quick shots. The first and third tend to be blurry but the second shot is always sharp.

I think in a few short years DSLRs video will be good enough to just use screen captures after the fact. Right now only the high-end RED cameras and a few others can do that.

Hi all,

And to be clear, I 'care' about each of the shots. The point of the massive amount to capture nuance that might be lost in singe shooting, missing 'the moment' of a single character's brief moment on stage. He or she might play 20 brief roles in a play or wear or wear 20 costumes, that I would want to capture action.

Even the Red Epic hasn't a 1/4th of the resolution of the D7000. Croping 10% would be terrible, ultimately unwise.

My best,

Mike

I still make each shot count just like the old film days. Old habits die hard. However I do shoot multiple frames in rapid succession when doing slow shutter low light photography hand held. I usually do three quick shots. The first and third tend to be blurry but the second shot is always sharp.

I think in a few short years DSLRs video will be good enough to just use screen captures after the fact. Right now only the high-end RED cameras and a few others can do that.

I find that is isnt rreally necessary to use a burst with sport, it just verifys that you have a keeper. I usually keep the 3 best important shots from a multi burst or sequence. Bracketing is a thing I seldom do as I can always fix it in post film or digital (with the exception of E-6 slides)...

I shoot several pictures and inspite of being a ruthless deleter of less than optimum photos, I find that lately I have a lot of keepers because I am very comfortable with burst shooting.

like in many other cases sports photography dictates that 70% of time you use the machine gun approach, the difference is in knowing how to use it. You pre-focus because you know where your object is now, and going to be within a certain time frame thus the pictures are sharp and well composed too. That's why the manufacturers put that feature there. Anyone who says that they sit in front of the easel for hours and create masterstrokes when inspiration strikes them is fooling themselves more than others. I see technology as my friend, and using it to its optimum as a artistic skill.

limitations: In sports many places don't allow flash anyways, so I don't see the lack of it as a limitation. However, you have to be disciplined in culling a few bad shots here and there.

rbid said:
Now I understand... You use your camera as an automatic shoot-gun, many photos per minute, because you miss the adrenaline from the front line. (Just kidding).

Back on topic, this technique opens a lot of opportunities... but it may have some limitations, like the use of a flash may be limited.. Can you point out other limitations? (Other than disk-space or memory-space)

Have a nice day.

If not trying to get a "set" of pictures showing a figure in motion then it might be bad because you aren't really taking the one picture you want and instead just firing off lots of unfocused or unprepared photos. It seems like for every thing there is an opposite though...like a bald eagle picture I took where several didn't turn out, but I did get one great one of it flying by me and that made the machine gun style worth it in that case.

Recently impatience with the heat and mosquitoes led to lots of pics and many with bad framing and focusing.

Mike Gunter said:
I wish this is the technology I had when I was doing catalogs (for the money) or covering fast action stories like Vietnam (for the feeling it gave one). I tell my wife that if I were younger or even if I were in a little better health, I would try to go to Afghanistan or Darfur. I miss it.

Now I understand... You use your camera as an automatic shoot-gun, many photos per minute, because you miss the adrenaline from the front line. (Just kidding).

Back on topic, this technique opens a lot of opportunities... but it may have some limitations, like the use of a flash may be limited.. Can you point out other limitations? (Other than disk-space or memory-space)

Have a nice day.

Hey Bland,

I think I was just being to sensitive to you comments. No worries.

Ansel said that you don't take a photograph, you make on. With medium equipment and Polaroid backs, that meant getting the light just right, with digital it means the same thing for me. I have many shots in the POD that began as a series of similar shots by moving lights, running down values on one set, up values on an another set, adding gels here and there.

Volume shoot is a new tool in the box and I really appreciate it. My client - the production company does, too. For the first time ever, several dozen folks can peruse thousands of pictures of their photos in cooperation with their colleagues to pick their portfolio pictures for their own uses. It's a win-win.

I wish this is the technology I had when I was doing catalogs (for the money) or covering fast action stories like Vietnam (for the feeling it gave one). I tell my wife that if I were younger or even if I were in a little better health, I would try to go to Afghanistan or Darfur. I miss it.

She tells me that is easier on her to let me take pictures of pretty girls. It keeps me younger and out of trouble.

Hey Rbib, thanks for the shout out!

My best,

Mike

Mike Gunter said:
Hi Bland,

Not to be too defensive, but particularly what I am referring to is performance, too, but largely for the artists and agents themselves - directors, costume designers, lighting designers, puppeteers, actors, property masters and mistresses, etc., who want minute documentation of their work. This methodology gives the group a wide range of images from which to choose a set of their work at what they see as their personal best during performance.

Mike, agree with you. I do not work as photographer, photography for me is a hobby that caught-ed me almost 40 years ago, and now with the digital era, we can take advance from it.
BTW Nice new avatar you have!

TaoTeJared said:
Ouch that does hurt.

I shot a reception for a friend's wedding and the lighting situation was a nightmare. Bank florescent lighting along 2 walls with a DJ in the corner with two each of purple and green, and one each of red, yellow and blue 100watt flashing stage lights and the rest of the room was lit only with 4 tea candles at each of the tables. 7 foot deep coffered ceiling that was dark green with a light shade of walnut wood which made a bounce flash useless. Colors of the wedding? White and Red. The mix of Greens caused ugly B&W- too much contrast and pulled out imperfections in skin. Everything else looked like whirling dervishes - good for a festival but not a traditional Lutheran wedding. Usual spot meter reading: 1/30, F/2, ISO 3200 OR 1/200 F/2, ISO 1600 with the DJ lights. Did I mention I was not planning of being the photographer but became it when the hired one couldn't make it due to a snow storm. Only flash I had? A SB-400 and my D300's on camera flash.

I shot over 2,500 images in 3 hours and prayed.

These light conditions are by sure a nightmare, but I guess, with your experience, you didn't need to pray, and I'm sure you rescued some good shots also from there.
When I get into such situations, I try to make them an advantage instead of nightmare.. but when your job is photography, you can't take the luxury of waiting for the opportunity, you just shot and then get the nice surprises with lightroom (or whatever)

Have a nice day

tcole1983 said:
On the other hand I recently had a couple I only took 1 or 2 shots of and then they both didn't turn out.

Ouch that does hurt.

I shot a reception for a friend's wedding and the lighting situation was a nightmare. Bank florescent lighting along 2 walls with a DJ in the corner with two each of purple and green, and one each of red, yellow and blue 100watt flashing stage lights and the rest of the room was lit only with 4 tea candles at each of the tables. 7 foot deep coffered ceiling that was dark green with a light shade of walnut wood which made a bounce flash useless. Colors of the wedding? White and Red. The mix of Greens caused ugly B&W- too much contrast and pulled out imperfections in skin. Everything else looked like whirling dervishes - good for a festival but not a traditional Lutheran wedding. Usual spot meter reading: 1/30, F/2, ISO 3200 OR 1/200 F/2, ISO 1600 with the DJ lights. Did I mention I was not planning of being the photographer but became it when the hired one couldn't make it due to a snow storm. Only flash I had? A SB-400 and my D300's on camera flash.

I shot over 2,500 images in 3 hours and prayed.

This was most.

Mike Gunter said:
Hi Bland,

Not to be too defensive, but particularly what I am referring to is performance, too, but largely for the artists and agents themselves - directors, costume designers, lighting designers, puppeteers, actors, property masters and mistresses, etc., who want minute documentation of their work. This methodology gives the group a wide range of images from which to choose a set of their work at what they see as their personal best during performance.

Video has worked, but still work is actually much better since it can (and has) been used in far-reaching media sources. Video is hamstrung due to it't limited resolution.

I would love to be disgustingly covered in riches :-0, but alas, that is not to be.

IMHO, it wouldn't be in good form to charge much for this sort of service.

My best,

Mike

Mike, my apologizes as I see now what you were saying. Please note I wasn't directing my comment about you but only those that dump shoot. Your work I honor and place at the highest of levels.

I am way too conservative in taking digital photos. I grew up on film, and weven with motor drives and high capacity backs, you gotta be somewhat conservative. I'm trying to get over that, and am getting better (more shots, different exposures, etc.) I'm also trying to get myself emotionally set to delete photos that are not great. Wow, that's hard for me. I keep almost everything except the real disasters.

TaoTeJared said:
For me it really depends on the situation and goal. Landscapes and non-skittish things - If I'm out to shoot something I frame and everything else and take usually 3 shots to make sure I got one that is sharp. Keep the sharp one and dump the rest. Macro and moving items I do play with the Aperture/ shutter quite a bit and do take it seems 10 of each viewing angle with different settings. This drops for subjects when I find the setting I want on reviewing images.

When the goal is to walk downtown to get something to eat, I take my camera and shoot randomly at things (some call it scouting) that may catch my eye. I usually dump 99% of them but many times, I do go back with my bag to get a shot I actually want.

I have been shooting about 1 roll (36) of film a week for fun really, and yes I do tend to slow way down and really work at an image. I find between shooting film and also by limiting my outing to a single focal length, it improves my shooting and it does flow over to my digital stuff.

I do believe it can be easy to snapshot your way out of great images with a Digital camera with huge zoom ranges.

Yeah that seems about right with me. Landscapes I take far less shots then I do with macro or moving things. On the other hand I recently had a couple I only took 1 or 2 shots of and then they both didn't turn out. Makes me wish I had been more careful.

I also have noticed that with a prime it takes a little more thinking and planning...then I seem to have some better luck.

Bland said:
I see way too much of this at a lot of the events I shoot. It's disgusting what they put out to sell or provide the promoter. But many times that is all the promoter wants, as the promoter and photographer are just after a quick buck.

Hi Bland,

Not to be too defensive, but particularly what I am referring to is performance, too, but largely for the artists and agents themselves - directors, costume designers, lighting designers, puppeteers, actors, property masters and mistresses, etc., who want minute documentation of their work. This methodology gives the group a wide range of images from which to choose a set of their work at what they see as their personal best during performance.

Video has worked, but still work is actually much better since it can (and has) been used in far-reaching media sources. Video is hamstrung due to it't limited resolution.

I would love to be disgustingly covered in riches :-0, but alas, that is not to be.

IMHO, it wouldn't be in good form to charge much for this sort of service.

My best,

Mike

Bird photography pretty much dictates that you take a lot of shots. Finding the magic moment is part anticipation and part luck. Coming from a film back ground it took some getting use to the thought that I could just hold my finger down. I always throw away more than I keep.

Mike Gunter said:

High volume jobs, such as three to four thousand images, that can be gang processed for the customer (generally passed off as jpgs) with little or no touching), something that wouldn't have even happened 40 years ago.

I see way too much of this at a lot of the events I shoot. It's disgusting what they put out to sell or provide the promoter. But many times that is all the promoter wants, as the promoter and photographer are just after a quick buck.

As far as this topic, I try to shoot 3-5 shots of the same subject when shooting events. Even though it's basically the same shot all 3-5 pics normally offer difference and your much more likely to capture that moment we achieve for in a shot.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

Hi,

Yes. I tend to arrange my shots, so there is some variance of the lighting, staging and many shots so that 'the many' are narrowed to 'one' by design.

But this isn't too different from film shooting for me in either editorial and advertising which is nearly the same - or journalism (in which there wasn't staging, but shooting many shots for the right shot).

Digital is different in that instead of 6 or so cameras and dozens of rolls of film, I use one camera and 2 to 4 cards and 2 batteries in a few hours.

But digital also allows for things that weren't even on the table some years ago.

High volume jobs, such as three to four thousand images, that can be gang processed for the customer (generally passed off as jpgs) with little or no touching), something that wouldn't have even happened 40 years ago.

My best,

Mike

On digital, ; it depends, shooting birds in flight i often use machine-gu tactics ,
When shooting from a hide , i shot one or to shots at a time, because i want to limit the amount of noise as much as possibe.
Using flash i try not to overheat the flash gun when using my nikon one, th Metz I can shoot rows without this problem..

Shooting medium format film ( i also shoot an old fully mechanical 6x6 Rollei SL66 cam..)its always planned carefull one at a time....

Usually I take single photos from regular stuff, but on situations that require more thought, I do some additional shots using different settings.

I keep all NEF files, and I do only translate to JPG the important ones.
(NEF files are for me like negatives in the digital era)

I did learn to shoot on film, so I can be a little conservative with how many shots I take at times. That being said, I'm not nearly as conservative now as I was with film.

As TaoToJared said, it depends on what you are shooting. For fast moving subjects I often spray and pray, so to speak. For still subjects I often take a few shots, playing around with different exposures usually and pick the one I like the best.

TaoTeJared said:
(...) I find between shooting film and also by limiting my outing to a single focal length, it improves my shooting and it does flow over to my digital stuff.

I do believe it can be easy to snapshot your way out of great images with a Digital camera with huge zoom ranges.

Yup, that's what got me started on prime lenses, and now I'm just dumping the zooms I have.

Back to topic: I rarely shoot a single pic. Yes, you should try to get it right the first time, but at zero cost one might as well shoot two or three, shift a little, change something, and latter analyze and pick the best. I'd say about 40% of the times the best is the first, and 50% the best is the last. Ever got a great composition, took a single pic, loved it when seen on the back screen, and later at the computer found out it was improperly focused or blurred? No excuse for that nowadays.

For me it really depends on the situation and goal. Landscapes and non-skittish things - If I'm out to shoot something I frame and everything else and take usually 3 shots to make sure I got one that is sharp. Keep the sharp one and dump the rest. Macro and moving items I do play with the Aperture/ shutter quite a bit and do take it seems 10 of each viewing angle with different settings. This drops for subjects when I find the setting I want on reviewing images.

When the goal is to walk downtown to get something to eat, I take my camera and shoot randomly at things (some call it scouting) that may catch my eye. I usually dump 99% of them but many times, I do go back with my bag to get a shot I actually want.

I have been shooting about 1 roll (36) of film a week for fun really, and yes I do tend to slow way down and really work at an image. I find between shooting film and also by limiting my outing to a single focal length, it improves my shooting and it does flow over to my digital stuff.

I do believe it can be easy to snapshot your way out of great images with a Digital camera with huge zoom ranges.

Do you shoot each shot like it is the one shot? I try to, but don't always get the job done that way.

I use both the "shotgun" (shoot lots of frames) and the "careful" (get it all set up and shoot THE frame) techniques, depending on where I am and doing, as well as what the subject is up to.

-> Shotgun would be the same if I had a motor drive from the film days (but more shots in digital), so you would have thought that would make it more likely to get THE moment, but let me tell you, I get as many that are each side of just THAT moment as I did before I went digital. :-)

-> Careful would be the same if I did not have a motor drive from the film days. Except that I still find my self shooting more frames now, because the cost is trivial (battery recharge earlier and more electrons to flip about on my laptop hard drive is about it) and lets face it, that is one of the main benefits (trivial per-frame costs) for going digital in the first place...

Now the urge to take shots on the just in case principle is something I learned to overcome quite a few years ago, not because one in every few dozen will be good (they probably will), but because I can get so much better results, so much more often by thinking a little bit about what I am doing first. I still shoot more frames with my dSLR's than within the old film days (see above for cost issues) and growing up when I had to ration myself to one 36 shot roll a week, you kind of realized what the heck you were doing a little bit more than today's P&S crowd ever would.

Obviously, if you see the wild animal running, the great evening scene (with just seconds of magical light left) or that wonderful looking woman walking quickly past your seat at the cafe or whatever, then it all needs to be captured on your camera NOW. Shotgun may just capture it when careful set up and 20 minutes of composition and trial and error, messing with reflectors etc won't cut it!

Does that make sense?