Taking too many photos ?

Crotal Bell

Crotal Bell

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,470
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
Yes
Sitting here before bed and contemplating something that's been on my mind lately. So I thought I would share and see what more experienced people think.

I think I'm getting a bit trigger happy, take today for example, a 2 and a half hour stroll and nearly 500 images, of which I have a nice picture of a Robin and a couple of butterflies.

There was a Heron on the other side of the riverbank, I must have taken over a hundred images at various points as it walked the bank. It was never in the right light to be honest, but I kept firing off bursts in the vain hope of getting a good shot. I deleted all of them, because none of them were any good.

Cameras are not cheap. 500 images on a stroll, reacting to whatever I see and firing off bursts. I think I need to be a bit more choosy before I wear out my beloved G9 on pointless subjects?

I realise that as a beginner, practice is important, but I am starting to realise that sometimes, the shot is just not there, and yet I still get drawn into a bad habit of trying to capture nice images when the odds are stacked against me, and I go home to delete 95% of my shots without even considering them, as they are clearly rubbish, (often multiple shots of the same thing) .

Some may say "if you don't take the shot, you'll never know" but surely there's a line where you have to start judging a scenario on it's merits before you burst off a dozen images and wear out the camera only to go home and delete them all ? I bet I'm not the only one whose done this, and I'm starting to get fed up of deleting masses of shots, just because I get tempted to catch things even when it's never going to work out.

Of course it's different if you have gone to a new place for a special day out, when you may be taking new things or have a chance to capture something special. But on a local walk, 500 images and tapping the delete button for 45 minutes back home? This can't be good, I need to be smarter surely?

So my resolution is to be smarter, save the camera, judge the scenario, look at the live view, and consider the light/position etc and think more before just zooming in and firing off another hopeless 20 shots.

Does this all make sense folks? Am I moving forward on the photography learning curve?
 
Last edited:
IMO and FWIW

I have had times when even if I have a camera with me I don't take any photos. Why, well though I observe lots if no particular subject grabs my attention I see no point in shooting just for the sake of it.

The various reasons will include:-
Poor light
Subject not enough of a frame filler
Inopportune situation (poor foreground and/or background).

The above is not an exhaustive list.......just some things that will influence my decision to raise the camera to shoot or not!

I suppose we all reach a point when we become more discerning about when to use a camera.

As for "the learning curve", well IMO with wildlife there are times when it is good to just watch and observe behaviour.....that way lays knowing or being aware of how the creature will behave = being more ready to take your photographs when the potential opportunities arise!
 
Last edited:
I should prefix this reply by pointing out I'm a landscape photographer rather than wildlife, and I know they're different disciplines.

I aim for one saleable shot a day when I'm out with a camera, one that would look good printed big, and hanging on someone's wall. Any more than that one are a bonus. Sometimes when the light is on my side I might come back with 4 or 5 different shots and be delighted, on other occasions I did a 7 day 1300 mile trip around the highlands and never once got a camera out of my bag.

I've come to this solution as I got more experienced, and I am sure you will, as you develop (pun intended) as a photographer, you'll refine your eye to see a winning shot and know when to shoot, and when not to bother. I always reconcile a day without any shots as it having been a day out in nice countryside, around a loch, or a mountain or whatever.

This approach also saves you untold hours culling and developing images.
 
I spend a lot of time looking for images/opportunities, and I take very few images. TBH, I should take more than I do... spend more time with a scene/subject when there is good potential, be a little more experimental/creative, etc. But even when I do take pictures I tend to delete more than I keep, and I edit even fewer.

My point is; yes, be more discerning. But don't limit yourself to only the "obvious"/"good" pictures. Worrying about the wear on the gear should not be a primary concern...
 
Better to have a couple of keepers out of a thousand shots than to have missed the opportunity because you didn't think it was worth the shutter wear! I reckon you'll probably upgrade any kit long before it wears out.
 
I totally understand what you mean, Keith.
However, I'm the complete opposite.
I'm always thinking I'm not taking enough images.
I think this may come from my film days when I tried to make every shot count or have a meaning.
A prime example would be from one of my latest postings of the Falkirk Wheel.
One comment mentioned the miniature Kelpies that were there at one time.
I saw miniature, miniature Kelpies in the kiddies play area and the original miniature Kelpies at the actual Kelpies - do I have shots of them? NO, despite spending at least 10 minutes examining them and reading the information board.
Also, the thought of sorting through hundreds if not more images fills me with dread.
I often shoot quite a few hundred images at the Gannets, Puffins etc but when I download them I seem to pick one or two and ignore the rest as I only post one a day on Flickr as I find that any more than that and they don't get viewed.
But that's just me being me ;)
 
I used to take around 200 on a weekend walk as a happy snapper, then I decided I need/wanted to step up my game, joined here, at the start (with wildlife) I would still be taking bursts at anything that moved, but as the months went by I found I was taking less and less, now I'll come home with 10 images from a 3 hour walk, and 80% are normally useable.

Some days I'll come home with nothing and regret not trying a frame even if it ment cropping and editing the image to get a keeper.

I think once you find the gear is 2nd nature to you and you find a style that suits you, you will probably start taking less as you'll be able to 'see the frame' before lifting the camera.

keep going, you'll settle into the 'game' and you'll find your with the camera more than the PC soon (y)

Edit - Just to add I walk the countryside and stalk the odd beast, if I went to a nature reserve or a hide I dare say I'd come home with 100's :LOL:
 
Last edited:
It absolutely makes sense. I'd recommend shooting film for a while. ;) You do it because you can. It's habit really. I would be lucky to take twenty on an outing, and that's because I grew up with film. So I go to the other extreme.
 
There is a great difference between taking photos for a specific reason, e.g. to sell, and taking them because it is your hobby.
Who would go out on a walk on the local path in expectation of a photo to sell, but for the sheer pleasure of the walk and the hobby of photography ... yes of course!
So I would say don't over-limit the number of photos you take, continue to enjoy your hobby but maybe just be a little more selective - after all, the forum is full of the same sort of photos of birds, buildings, buses, people etc and without them it would be a short read!
Of course you don't have to post a dozen 'snaps' in every thread, just a very small selection, or one, of those you like most ... and don't worry you are not going to wear your camera out anytime soon. ;)
 
Firstly I doubt you'll wear the G9 out - these new cameras can take a lot of shots, especially if you use the electronic shutter.

But I'm another who has gone the less is more route. The bit I like about photography is the being outside looking for shots, but what I don't like intensely is the processing side. When I first got my G9 I was coming home with hundreds of shots, too and the thought of sitting down and working through them was just ugh, especially as I instinctively knew what would be good and what wasn't, and there was never much of the good stuff.

These days I might only take a handful of shots - if any - but hopefully they'll be good ones.

It's also getting ever harder, if not impossible, to be original, which might not matter, but is the big thing on my mind.
 
Apart from the film thing that Neville mentioned, why not change the setting on the camera to shoot less in a burst? That could be a first step. Another, film-related idea - I recently went out for a dog walk, and took a disposable film camera with me, shot the whole 36 exposures during the walk, but I had in my head the whole time that I needed to pace myself due to the limitation of 36.
(None were any good, but I only paid for dev and contact sheet, so not too expensive)
 
Maybe less bursts?

Electronic shutter is going to cause very little wear.

I imagine you get more pleasure from the G9 than you do TV, how much does an average person spend a month on a TV package?
I've seen people who spent £15-20 a week on coffee in the mornings, bet they spend a lot more during the life of your G9 than the G9 costs :)

Cut down if it won't affect your results or enjoyment, other wise enjoy the camera and the walks :)
 
Crotal Bell said:
I must have taken over a hundred images at various points as it walked the bank. It was never in the right light to be honest, but I kept firing off bursts in the vain hope of getting a good shot. I deleted all of them, because none of them were any good.

Cameras are not cheap. 500 images on a stroll, reacting to whatever I see and firing off bursts. I think I need to be a bit more choosy before I wear out my beloved G9 on pointless subjects?
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with taking photos to see if they 'work', or just because something looks interesting. Everyone takes bad pictures they delete later. It's how you learn to take better pictures.

But taking bursts is only worthwhile (IMO) if you have a reason to do it. For example I did it yesterday to overcome the wind buffeting me having no image stabilisation available to me.

As @lindsay says, maybe back off the burst rate. If you have it set quite slow you can fire off a single shot easily, but still get a burst if you need/want to. Back in the old days cameras didn't shoot bursts and lots of good pictures were made of subjects that is now deemed essential to 'mash the trigger' for. ;)
 
Last edited:
As Neville mentions, if your from a film background, you usually never had more than36 shots, It's rare I shoot more than 2 shots of one subject .
With cameras now able to take 30+ FPS it's easy to get into the "Beirut-unload" attitude and blaze away until the words card full come up. Maybe I'm too tight to shoot like that:) . Maybe I dont fancy the editing, more likely it's force of habit from shooting film.
But it's whatever works for you.
Maybe chimping after every shot will slow you down or help to see if a shot works or not?
 
Coming from a film background it took me a while after going digital to realise I had plenty of shots available. However planning the shot helps avoid too much surplus, that can be difficult in some situations, wildlife is frequently grab it while the bird is there. I was at Brands Hatch on Wednesday, and that is another scenario where you end up with a lot of shots, panning at low shutter speeds means that not all are successful. Enjoyment is the name of the game, if having to delete too many results in that then shoot less.
 
I am also one who is the opposite, I rarely take any shots unless I know it is going to be a good one before I have even lifted the camera to my eye. However, I often see photos posted where I wouldn't have even thought about taking the shot.
 
Make you think about having a camera setting that doesn't let you take another photo for a certain length of time - a second or something like that!
 
I'd back off the burst rate, but carry on taking as many photos as you need. If you get the urge to make a photo, don't fight it.. take the thing.. you're using digital it doesn't matter!

Don't delete them either, but go through them and have an internal dialogue with yourself around which photos you like and which ones you don't. Store the photos you like in a folder somewhere and keep adding to it.

Then regularly go through that folder - see if you can spot patterns, similarities, create relationsips between photos .. this will begin to make you aware of what's common in those photos that you like. I think this process will help you eventually cut down on photos
 
As has been mentioned a few times now, those of us who learned our habits in the film era are parsimonious when it comes to pressing the button. Those of us who used 120 roll film, even more so. Those who regularly used plates or cut film would be happy to come back with four surfaces exposed! :naughty:

I seldom use burst mode, on the basis that if one image doesn't do it, 30 are unlikely to be better. However, the important thing to remember is that we are all different. If burst mode works for you, use it. Otherwise, don't.
 
Last edited:
Simple - if it doesn't look good in the viewfinder, don't press the shutter release.

I have the same view as Andrew as I too started with film over fifty years ago. I still find it hard to 'waste' shots even though I've been shooting digital for fifteen years or more.

Pretend you have film in the camera and that each shot is going to cost you a fiver. If that doesn't work, try using a film camera for a while - it's still great fun and may help kerb your enthusiasm for pressing that button. ;)
 
Last edited:
When I used to take photos of the wife and her horse at shows or competition, I'd come home with 800-900 shots. The shots she liked and the shots I liked were pretty different. So it was worth taking so many photos Horses for courses as they say.
Nowadays as she doesn't have a horse, I don't take all that many, unless I'm trying a new (to me) genre, then I'll take lots and I'll (hopefully) learn what works and what doesn't work.
 
Very grateful for all the comments, viewpoints and advice. Lots to consider in the comments above.

I think I just need to get a better balance, and shoot when it's potentially worth it, and lessen the times when (if I'm honest) I know I'm wasting my time, and I think that's all part of being a better photographer, and I think that sometimes I expect too much from a local riverside walk.
Coming home with a handful of shots because I know there was nothing there to capture may do me good. And when there is something worth capturing, then it's time to start shooting !
 
Sky said:
Simple - if it doesn't look good in the viewfinder, don't press the shutter release.

I have the same view as Andrew as I too started with film over fifty years ago. I still find it hard to 'waste' shots even though I've been shooting digital for fifteen years or more.

Pretend you have film in the camera and that each shot is going to cost you a fiver. If that doesn't work, try using a film camera for a while - it's still great fun and may help kerb your enthusiasm for pressing that button. ;)
Click to expand...
I agree. There are no good reasons NOT to take a load of extra digital shots, but (regardless of subject) a shot cannot work unless the composition, camera angle, camera height, lighting, exposure and focus are all as good as they can be, but sadly loads of people don't seem to get that and perhaps feel that taking 100 bad shots will somehow compensate for thinking about the shot before actually taking it.
 
I do not go out for a walk with a camera on the unlikely chance that a wanted image will appear before me. I will normally plan a photography shoot so will know what to expect but I am also careful not to take hundreds of similar frames as I will not want or need them. So I went to the local park last Sunday hoping to see a Kingfisher having received a tip the previous day. No sign of a Kingfisher but another photographer informed me the Kingfishers had left 3 weeks ago. However, I spotted a grey heron. I went fairly close say 10 metres and he was standing in shallow water and decided to fish and immediately caught a fish. After swallowing the fish the Heron flew off. I took about 50 shots of the Heron and deleted 35 in LR and processed just 4 of them.

Dave
 
Keith mate it’s the name of the Game shoot in electronic shutter , nothing to wear out . Out of those hundreds a few will be the ONE. .. I don’t watch much t.v so going back through retained shots on a rainy day is fun
 
When I use to go to the airshows I ended up going crazy with shots as had it on burst mode and would use two cameras, come back many times over 4,000 8,000 images. Then when I started my jazz it could be about 3,000 shots, a right PITA to go through so many, now I'm lucky to take even 100 shots a month.
 
Last edited:
Crotal Bell said:
Cameras are not cheap. 500 images on a stroll, reacting to whatever I see and firing off bursts. I think I need to be a bit more choosy before I wear out my beloved G9 on pointless subjects?
Click to expand...

Look at it another way, 500 images on a stroll, lets say you do that once a week, so you're taking 26,000 images a year. Doesnt the G9 have a life expectancy of 200,000?
You can do your once a week 500 images stroll for just over 7 years before you reach a point where you might need to replace the shutter. If you see yourself replacing the G9 within the next 7 years then go out and keep shooting.
Looking at the cost. New G9 £1000, used for 7 yrs is £142 a year, used 52 times a year is £2.74 each time you go out and take 500 images.
Put 1p in a jar for every image you delete, by the time your G9 is worn out you'll have enough in the jar to replace it.
 
You appear to be on the same path that I am - and I have been asking myself the same questions.

The following may, or may not, be relevant.

My biggest problem is trying to visualise what the photo will look like on the computer screen.
@Sky above has pointed out that if it looks good in the viewfinder, then it will look good on the screen. I'm sure that this is absolutely true, but it is of no practical use to me at all. My brain just doesn't work like that, and I don't seem to be able to explain it. A simple example is trying to photograph a Tree. I don't see the background when I am taking the photo. Then when I get it on the computer screen, I often cannot see the tree, because the background is full of .... emmm... more trees. I've recently fixed this particular problem, but I still cannot do landscapes, street scenes, people shots or anything that requires an ability to see the composition.
So, I've been taking thousands of shots over the last two years. The good news is that my hit rate is increasing. I am taking fewer photos, and also getting results that I could only dream about 18 months ago.
 
Personally I separate going for a walk and going to take photos as I’ve found combining them usually resulted in lots of not very good pictures. If the purpose is photos then I’ll spend more time to plan and prepare and concentrate on the ingredients @garry mentions and be more certain of bringing back a few great images.
 
Don153 said:
My biggest problem is trying to visualise what the photo will look like on the computer screen.
@Sky above has pointed out that if it looks good in the viewfinder, then it will look good on the screen.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that's a consequence of being a 'spoilt' modern day photographer as it is so much easier to take a picture and then (almost instantly) get to view it at a larger size. This is a good thing of course, but the downside is that it gives you so many more images that you have to work through.

I wouldn't like to argue that one way is better than the other, but knowing that each release of the shutter is going to cost money does (IME at least) focus the mind a little more which naturally slows you down to take more care with each shot.

When I got my first autowinder in 1985 I was really shocked at how fast I could get through a roll of film. The worse for this was my Nikon F5. :eek:

Watch a few seconds of it here in action and you'll see what I mean:

View: https://youtu.be/gVpvNsQZLig?t=717
 
Last edited:
ScottT said:
Look at it another way, 500 images on a stroll, lets say you do that once a week, so you're taking 26,000 images a year. Doesnt the G9 have a life expectancy of 200,000?
You can do your once a week 500 images stroll for just over 7 years before you reach a point where you might need to replace the shutter. If you see yourself replacing the G9 within the next 7 years then go out and keep shooting.
Looking at the cost. New G9 £1000, used for 7 yrs is £142 a year, used 52 times a year is £2.74 each time you go out and take 500 images.
Put 1p in a jar for every image you delete, by the time your G9 is worn out you'll have enough in the jar to replace it.
Click to expand...
I like the way you did that, I often try and break things down in the same way. Weekday walks, plus weekend photo journeys, I'm probably creeping nearer 2000 a week.
 
I've rarely gone out with a camera and not taken any pictures apart from the time I'd forgotten to put a battery in the camera.

I usually take single digit numbers of pictures to 30 or so and occasionally up to 100 or so but very rarely more.

I think apart from the cost in money through wear and tear on the gear there's the time you'll take to go through 500 shots... but if you're happy to spend the time doing it... why not? :D
 
I think @TimHughes is right. While there's nothing wrong with taking your camera with you for a walk, I'm not sure this is the best way to get good, stunning or whatever you want to call them, shots. Especially if you are visiting the same places.
 
As purely a landscaper I won't run and gun, but on the other hand if the light is right, the location works and I just feel it, I'll fire off as many images as I see fit to capture the best light at the best point in the scene. I know when and when not to get the camera out now, and that all boils down to experience.

On my recent trip though, I photographed some sea otters that popped out the sea eating a fish, and I took about 500 shots of those alone! Digital is free, take as many as you see fit.
 
Going for a walk is when I take the vast majority of my pictures. I just don't have the time or opportunity to go to new, interesting and exotic places. Repeat visits to places that mean something to you are IMO a good idea as you get different lighting and conditions at different times and are likely to see different things.
 
Nostromo said:
I think @TimHughes is right. While there's nothing wrong with taking your camera with you for a walk, I'm not sure this is the best way to get good, stunning or whatever you want to call them, shots. Especially if you are visiting the same places.
Click to expand...


That makes sense, however one of the biggest plusses of photography as a hobby is that it can be combined with other activities, increasing enjoyment
 
Whenever I take one of my constitutional strolls, I always take my smaller camera (R10), even though I often just end up carrying it round with me. However, I know for certain that the day I don't take the camera is the day that I shall curse that I didn't have it with me!
 
John_L said:
Whenever I take one of my constitutional strolls, I always take my smaller camera (R10), even though I often just end up carrying it round with me. However, I know for certain that the day I don't take the camera is the day that I shall curse that I didn't have it with me!
Click to expand...

And there'll also be the day you take the camera but not the battery or memory card :D
 
I think for wildlife you do have to keep in practice so you're ready when a good opportunity presents itself,.. and sometimes there are happy accidents. On my local walk, I often shoot a few frames of a buzzard or kestrel, just to check I remember what I'm doing and that my camera is set up as expected. I also dial down my maximum frames per second.

A few years ago one of our local photographers was a finalist in the Wildlife Photographer of the Year with a backlit egret. It was a great capture as you could see the body shape through the wing. I suspect that it was a lucky capture and it was one of several frames. She couldn't have known that it was about to happen so there is some merit in shooting and then deleting. I also deleted a blurry gannet picture once and as I hit the button I realised there was an in focus dolphin behind it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top