Emeritus wrote:

Paul Rupp wrote:

When did you start photography? Did you start with film and progress to digital or did you start with digital??

I find that the mindset is different depending on what you started with. I started with film and even with digital, I try to make every shot count, not spray and pray. I find that my keeper rate is higher than most because of this.

Whats your take on this??

Paul

I started shooting professionally in 1974.  Obviously, using film.

If you intend to go somewhere with the "spray and pray" idea, it's not happening.  Different people work in different ways, for different reasons.  You don't know what your process would be if you started on digital, because you didn't start on digital.  There is no comparison to be made.

What is "a keeper" is a variable, depending on who is doing the evaluating and who is doing the keeping.  I find that my "keeper" rate is pretty low, largely because I've learned over the years that a lot of stuff I would have kept in earlier times, when shooting film, just wasn't worth keeping.

No intention of going anywhere with the spray and pray comment, just noting that with digital, the care that needed to be taken with film is not there. With film, you had to try and make every shot could as the cost involved could be up there, with digital you can take multiple shots and "hope" you got "the one". I just think the mindset "may" be different with those of us that started with film.

You are correct, a keeper is subjective. I work with 2 other photographers and we evaluate each others shots and as a whole, our "keeper" rate is pretty good. I find that the more we shoot, the higher that rate gets.

Paul

Emeritus wrote:

Paul Rupp wrote:

No intention of going anywhere with the spray and pray comment, just noting that with digital, the care that needed to be taken with film is not there. With film, you had to try and make every shot could as the cost involved could be up there, with digital you can take multiple shots and "hope" you got "the one".

So you are of the opinion that people who shoot digital don't (or can't) take care in shooting?

Really?

I never said that, I just think that the mindset between film and digital is different, especially if someone has never shot film.

Emeritus wrote:

In 1979 I was in the studio of an excellent professional photographer - one of the top ten in his country.  He was shooting for a banner ad in the Tokyo subway system.  Two client reps were there also, along with two assistants, three models, two Honda motor scooters and a makeup artist.  He shot 25 rolls of 36 exposure film to get that one shot.

Nobody present, including me, thought that the slightest bit unusual.

I suppose you would call that "spray and pray".  Maybe, but the vast amounts of money he was paid to "spray and pray" seemed to make it an acceptable practice with a more than acceptable result.

Again, different people work in different ways.  It really doesn't have much to do with film or digital - although digital enables some things that film does not, so shooters can take that into account when shooting.

Paul Rupp wrote:

I just think the mindset "may" be different with those of us that started with film.

Emeritus wrote:

I don't.  I think it is different based on the background of the photographer and his personal style.

PPA Portrait photographers seem to feel that the way to get things right is to "take care" and shoot a small number of pictures, and for some reason seem to take pride in a small number of shots.  Photojournalists (and I was one for several years) work very differently.  You come home with five - or even 50 - pictures from a sports assignment and you never get another assignment.

I have spoken with numerous photographers some that have never shot film, and they would agree with me and think that photographers that started with film DO have a different mindset.

Paul Rupp wrote:

You are correct, a keeper is subjective. I work with 2 other photographers and we evaluate each others shots and as a whole, our "keeper" rate is pretty good. I find that the more we shoot, the higher that rate gets.

Emeritus wrote:

That surprises me.  Normally as you get more experience, you learn to be more discerning in what "a keeper" is, so the yield stays pretty much constant - it's just that "what a keeper is" keeps getting better.

So you think that your skill-set can't improve along with experience to the point that you have more keepers even with the more discerning eye? I find that surprising.

Not trying to start an argument here, just some observations that I have seen and talked with other photographers about.

Paul

John Rayner wrote:

I started shooting many decades ago shooting film when I could barely afford the film, much less get it developed. I learned to try and make every shot count. When I started shooting digital, I kept the same mindset, but shot much more and experimented and learned.

When I started shooting models I quickly learned that every shot does indeed count. It is the models time not just mine that is wasted on a bad shot. I experiment and learn more with still lifes, although I do take much more time with each shot. Then hone those skills with models.

There are times to spray and pray. Then there are times to wait for the shot and capture the subject at the best possible time. Knowing when to do either is where one makes the money.

Exactly.

-I was given a camera as a kid in 1966. My father purchased a dark room setup for the family to develope and print about that same time.

-I shot film most of my life and figured the film and developing were both cheap. I've always carried lots more film than I felt was necessary (as insurance) shot a lot more images than most (as insurance).

-I purchased some of the first digital cameras and shot quite a bit with these also. I have always kept everything I shoot as hard drive storage is also cheap.

Some of the best shots I've got were the "tweeners" which were not planned, not setup and not expected.

-has my attitude changed between film and digital?   ... ummm no.

Yeah...... I'm a shooter. Make my day Sucka.


WWII Japanese Machine Gun Camera





movie versions


A more up-to-date Canon.

Technically, I started shooting with film (of various types) on very consumer level, cheap, point and shoot cameras. I was very stingy with them. It might take a week or so to go through an entire roll. Then a month or more to develop the film and get prints. "Keepers" were far and few between, but what you got is what you got.

When I got my first digital camera, not only was it my first really decent camera, but I was also to get more immediate feedback, and because I wasn't going to immediately run out of shooting space, I was more liberal with the shutter button. I'd take pictures of things that weren't necessarily important. I was able to experiment and get feedback right away. And the capacity of a single card (in this case, a microdrive) far exceeded that of the longest roll of film, allowing me to be okay with possible wasted shots. But you have to take the risk to get something great.

When I got my first DSLR, I really started shooting. I had my first day of 200 shots in a single outing with this camera. But I had so much more to experiment with and the feedback was even better with this camera than the last.

I take several approaches to getting the picture I want, but it depends on what I'm shooting. If it's a landscape, I take my time to get it right. I might tweak settings between shots. If I'm shooting birds in flight, I'm firing like a mad woman. You have to be quick, but I'm still developing my technique.

I think experience level might be more of what's involved. If you've been shooting on film for a long time, perhaps you're not still learning as much as people who are just starting with digital. *shrug*

Bob,

  I think that depends alot on the client. I have had clients who want to look at one great shot of a pose/subject and others who want to pick out the best shot of the same subject/pose. The more artistically inclined folks would rather have more choices to pick from, whereas the average schmuck is just looking for a shot and can't tell the difference between a great shot and a snapshot. If they could, camera phones wouldn't be so prevalent...

I started photography when I was in 6th grade (30-odd years ago), shot a lot in high school as part of the newspaper and yearbook, then didn't do much until I bought a dslr about 3-4 years ago.  Processed lots of b&w and have had darkrooms in two of my houses.

Having shot film and experienced the delay involved between shooting and seeing the results has given me a deep appreciation for the immediate feedback from digital.  Has it affected my shooting style?  Not a whole lot.  Do I shoot deliberately or rapid fire?  It depends.  Sometimes I get the shot I need with only a few frames, sometimes I'll shoot 300+ per hour.  Sometimes I'm on single-frame and sometimes I'm on high-speed continuous so I can avoid blinking eyes and capture the perfect nuances of an expression.  It depends on what I need, what the customer needs, and the amount of time I have for post processing.  I frequently shoot theatre shows where I shoot in the evening and need finished images the following morning.  Shooting rapidly in this situation tends to give me lots of useless images that I have to waste time sorting.  At the same time, actors move and change expressions rapidly, so I have to shoot fast to capture the right shot.

As I see it, there is no right or wrong method, it's one of balance and appropriateness.

As a side note, I tend to view "spray & pray" as pointing the camera indiscrimenately and shooting a ton of frames, hoping that something worthwhile results.  This is different than knowing your gear and having appropriate settings and a reasonable degree of composition and firing multiple frames to avoid problems and capture nuances.  I'm pretty sure that Bob does the latter of these.

John Rayner wrote:

I think that depends alot on the client. I have had clients who want to look at one great shot of a pose/subject and others who want to pick out the best shot of the same subject/pose. The more artistically inclined folks would rather have more choices to pick from, whereas the average schmuck is just looking for a shot and can't tell the difference between a great shot and a snapshot.

John, there is a difference between how many pictures you take, and how many you show the client.  Two observations:

1.  A long time ago I learned never to include a shot I wasn't happy with in a group sent to an editor or art director for selection.  They'd choose it every damned time.

2.  I once heard a somewhat facetious definition that still has something of a ring of truth to it:  the difference between a pro and an amateur photographer is that a pro only shows his good stuff.

Emeritus wrote:

A side note on "keepers":

Typically in a commercial shoot or a "portfolio shoot" you can only use one shot from a set (or "look").  That one is the "keeper".  All the rest are not.

Very true, and I think another instance of needing a better definition or another word to describe the results.  For instance, Tuesday I shot a theatre production.  I shot 504 pictures of the show, of which I discarded 34 because they either had technical issues (usually focus failure or highlight blowouts) and published 61.  The 61 were what would be called "keepers" in this case because they were the shots selected for publication to promote the show and each showed a distinct scene and/or character.  So what do you call the 409 remaining pictures?  They don't have technical failures, and many would be perfectly acceptable for publication but were not selected for arbitrary reasons.  I think a lot of people would refer to these as "keepers" (and actually that's what I call them and I refer to the 61 as "publication" images) because they are acceptable images from a technical and composition standpoint.

So, how do you (and in all cases I mean the generalized "you" not any specific individual) define that large number of pictures that are not the images selected for publication or portfolio, yet are otherwise acceptable?

As an example, I have about 10 tight shots of one particular character showing a variety of facial expressions.  All are equally good from a technical standpoint.  One image was selected to use because of the particular expression, the others were not.  That one image was the "keeper," what do you call the others?

Jon Gilchrist wrote:

One image was selected to use because of the particular expression, the others were not.  That one image was the "keeper," what do you call the others?

-experience.

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

Whenever I see one of these pray and spray versus get it in camera with one good exposure threads, I have to keep reminding myself that the audience is filled with amateur photographers that wouldn't last a minute on a commercial set with an attitude like that. No one will be handing out awards for the photographer that had the most winning shots within the fewest amount of actuations. If that is a source of pride for you, you're probably missing the point.

I have done the same thing as you, shot for a client and shot 2-300 shots of one thing to get the one shot that they loved.

I think that the main question of this thread has been missed.

If you started with film, where you had a limited amount of film, you would tend to think about and set up your shots more thoughtfully as you had to get the shot whiten the limits of your film, you could not modify them in PS, you had to do all your work in the darkroom.

With digital and PS, you can take a shot with the end result being totally different than the actual shot taken, this being true, the thought about the original image and time taken to set up the shot is different.

Paul

Paul Rupp wrote:

I think that the main question of this thread has been missed.

If you started with film, where you had a limited amount of film, you would tend to think about and set up your shots more thoughtfully as you had to get the shot whiten the limits of your film, you could not modify them in PS, you had to do all your work in the darkroom.

-I think I shoot very much like I did with film and I do not consider a difference of running out of film any different than running out of space on a compact flash card.

Paul Rupp wrote:

With digital and PS, you can take a shot with the end result being totally different than the actual shot taken, this being true, the thought about the original image and time taken to set up the shot is different.

-While it may be true for some, I don't feel this is the case with many photographers. I am asked regularly to teach Photoshop and Lightroom.

-Many a photographer has no idea, and oft times no desire, how to manipulate the images they have taken.

-As mentioned by Roger, darkroom photographic manipulation has been going on for a very long time. If you doubt this, google "conspiricy therories" surrounding subjects like moon landings or JFK assaination photos.