How many shots are rubbish?

[Byker28i]

Photography is about taking many shots and cutting them down to the perfect few. In any one situation I could take 20 photos and cut it down to 1 - if 1 shot was the original aim. A photographer would be lying if they said they got the perfect shot the first time they pushed the trigger.

Hum, I can see what you're saying but no.

I've just taken some product style shots, knew what I was after, composed the shot and took it. Examined it, corrected positioning, the product, slight changes then retook the shot. Took the shot from a slightly different angle.

What digital allows is instant feedback. It's not always about spray and pray (though sometimes it is)

 

[Gandhi]

In the last 4 years I have taken less than 1000 photos. My keep rate is about 85%. I shoot large format film and think very carefully about every single shot I take because;

1) Film is expensive (Colour film equals £8-10 every time I press the shutter)
2) I have to spend time developing film
3) I have to spend time scanning and cleaning up shots (dust)
4) I have to spend time printing
5) It's all manual (metering, focusing)
6) I can't rattle off 150 shots in the hope that one of them will turn out ok
7) The are 50 ways to leave your lover to mess a shot up

All of those mean I have less time to spend behind the camera, which is what i love most.

 

[Alastair]

Photography is about taking many shots and cutting them down to the perfect few. In any one situation I could take 20 photos and cut it down to 1 - if 1 shot was the original aim. A photographer would be lying if they said they got the perfect shot the first time they pushed the trigger.

If the aim was to take twenty shots to explore the subject and produce one shot to progress with - which may well be the case for a lot of shots/shoots, then you're on brief. No unusual for portrait, fashion, etc.

But of your intent is to produce one shot to a controlled brief, then requiring 20 shots to get the keeper suggests problems some equipment/understanding issues. Taking twenty shots of the same scene in the same shoot for landscape photography (for example) could be interpreted as obsessive, exploratory, impatience or incompetence.

You can't generalise to "photography is about.." with a statement like that, the subject itself is too vast and intents so varied.

 

[intel86]

Sometime not a lot of thought can go into every shot when you have a toddler running around! lol

 

[spaniel]

I find it interesting to see that so many photographs are taken just to get half a dozen decent one's, such is digital photography? At present I will go out with a 35mm film in my camera and take 36 exposures (usually), each exposure is carefully composed in manual mode. When I develop the film I will (again, usually) have 36 well exposed and composed negatives suitable for printing. I'm not saying they all turn out as I would wish, but technically they are as they should be.

So going by what most say here, if I were to go digital I would need to take anything between 300 and 600 images to get the same results? I'm not bashing digital photography in any way, I'm just curious and trying to comprehend why such a huge number of images need to be taken?

I suppose the obvious answer is "because you can". Though I suspect there are other reasons?

 

[srichards]

So going by what most say here, if I were to go digital I would need to take anything between 300 and 600 images to get the same results? I'm not bashing digital photography in any way, I'm just curious and trying to comprehend why such a huge number of images need to be taken?

I suppose the obvious answer is "because you can". Though I suspect there are other reasons?

If you were to go digital you would still be able to take as few shots if you want. Firing them off willy nilly is the luxury of digital. It's not compulsory If you are used to film them moving to digital gives you more options as you can change iso if you like rather than sticking with one. You could easily fix yours and shoot manual and work in exactly the same way. You could even turn off shot review so you could see what you got later rather than straight away.

 

[Phil V]

I find it interesting to see that so many photographs are taken just to get half a dozen decent one's, such is digital photography? At present I will go out with a 35mm film in my camera and take 36 exposures (usually), each exposure is carefully composed in manual mode. When I develop the film I will (again, usually) have 36 well exposed and composed negatives suitable for printing. I'm not saying they all turn out as I would wish, but technically they are as they should be.

So going by what most say here, if I were to go digital I would need to take anything between 300 and 600 images to get the same results? I'm not bashing digital photography in any way, I'm just curious and trying to comprehend why such a huge number of images need to be taken?

I suppose the obvious answer is "because you can". Though I suspect there are other reasons?

There are different mindsets, different standards and different aims at play here. You have to read the answers rather than scan the figures.
Just because a shot is sharp, thoughtfully composed and well exposed, that doesn't necessarily make it a 'keeper' or a 'great shot' it's merely technically competent.

Personally I have bags of prints, slides and negatives of perfectly competent photographs that will sit and rot (and the digital equivalent). Depending what I'm shooting, and what my planned requirement is - my 'hit' rate varies greatly. And I do not ever 'spray and pray', when shooting for fun most of my work will never be shown to anyone, I might post 1% of my motorsport photo's on the internet (again for fun).

However my 'keeper' rate for paid work is about 30%*, which is massive compared to many pro's who shot film in the old days - and sometimes went as low as 1%.
So of your 36 perfect negatives - what do you do with them? Do they all see the light of day in albums, on your walls? Or are they sat in drawers like mine?

*the 'rubbish' isn't mis-focussed or badly exposed - often mistimed or just not as good as a similar shot.

 

[BenUK]

I use maybe 20% of mine, makes you think how easy it is to learn these days. It would take me far longer if I was having to pay to get the film developed every 30 odd shots.