> From: Bob Sullivan <[email protected]> > > Tom, > In the film days, each shot was $.25 and only pros took lots of shots. > Now the cost per shot is almost zero, and the tyros 'spray and pray'. > I enjoy taking more shots now, trying to work things out and saving > money on film. > I hope it's improving my photography. > A new K-3 costs less than 150 rolls of Kodachrome (...if only we could > process it). > Regards, Bob S. >
> From: Paul Stenquist <[email protected]> > > I agree to a certain extent. In some situations, preparing and shooting at > the right moment is most critical and taking numerous shots can be a > detriment to getting the one you want. In other situations, multiple > exposures can be helpful. For example, when shooting the great blue heron a > couple of weeks ago I knew that he was likely to take off, so I had > preselected the central focus point and made sure I had plenty of shutter > speed, then I just waited. When he did take off, I got one shot as he lifted > off the water and waited to take a second until he was directly adjacent to > me. If I had kept firing after liftoff, I probably wouldn't have gotten a > good in-flight shot. On the other hand, when shooting cars for publication, > I'll record numerous exposures of the same shot, sometimes turning the > polarizer a bit or reframing slightly. Too many choices are just enough. But > I rarely bracket, since a good average exposure provides plenty of working > room when the RAW is converted. > > Paul Bob, As a general statement, I don't believe in the spray and pray approach. It leaves too many things to chance. Yes, if you have a moving model, race car, airplane, children, wildlife, etc., being in continuous shooting mode may increase your chances of getting an image that excels above others. That's what it's for. I was responding to the notion that the *secret* to getting good shots is taking a lot of shots, which was the statement made. If that's true then photography is like the lottery. I see many examples of that approach, and the chances of getting a good shot are about the same. As I said, shooting in continuous mode may be required at times due to the subject matter, but then if one gets an exceptional image the difference between that one image and the two or three surrounding it that are unexceptional is likely just the random timing of the shutter syncing up with the subject at just the right moment. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. In my opinion taking a lot of shots does not improve one's photography any more than throwing a 1000 darts at a dartboard blind folded improves one's game. Will one get more bulls eye's the more darts one throws? No doubt. But possibly the ratio of bulls eye's to misses actually decreases with that approach. I'm probably stating the obvious, but getting good shots is usually a matter of having a good eye for composition, paying attention to technical details, shooting in the right light, using the right tool for the job, knowing one's gear. All those will contribute more to getting a good image than simply taking a lot of shots. I'm not stating something you don't already know. I realize that. :) Paul, Agreed. Even in landscape photography, which seldom requires shooting in continuous mode, I can get in a rush because of the excitement of the moment while at the same time believing I'm paying attention to details when I'm not. My brain can essentially turn off and it's Ooh! Ah! Ooh! moments. Then I look at what I captured. Very very often, I can see that I wasn't really thinking. When I slow down and carefully take the time to compose, frame, consider exposure, use a tripod if needed... those are most often the times I get excellent results. Then I was a real contributor to the image, as opposed to simply the person pressing the shutter release. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
