On Oct 30, 2013, at 7:31 PM, Stan Halpin wrote: > > On Oct 30, 2013, at 3:20 PM, Eric Weir wrote: > >> >> On Oct 30, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Tom C <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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…. >>> >>> 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. >> >> Yeah, you definitely are. >> >> You don’t need to size up the situation? You don’t need to look through the >> viewfinder? You don’t need to think about what you want to accomplish? You >> don’t need to check your settings? You don’t need to think about what >> settings are called for in the situation given what you want to accomplish? >> You don’t need to check the results you’re getting and adjust? >> >> How stupid do you think I am? >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Eric Weir >> Decatur, GA USA >> [email protected] >> > > I am not sure where you are coming from in your response to Tom, Eric. He was > stating some fundamental truths, presumably to bring the discussion back on > center. > > There are two separate notions confabulated here. One is: what does it take > to improve in one's photography. The second is: what does it take to take a > good image. > > The answer to the first question is that you need to practice, study, > observe, practice some more. That means taking many shots, thoughtfully, then > examining the results and thinking about what went right and what went wrong, > then going back and doing it again (hopefully applying some of the lessons > learned from the intervening study and reflection). In the process of taking > your first 10,000 or first 100,000 images, some will most likely be > "keepers." Good subject, good composition, appropriate settings on aperture, > shutter speed, and ISO, no camera shake, no glare. etc. The more you shoot, > the higher your odds are of getting those special images that you will > treasure. Taking lots of shots can not only help you get better, it can also > help you get lucky. Presumably we all want to rely on more than luck. > > What it takes to learn a craft, to gain the skills, is not what it takes to > execute those skills. Yes, photographers who have moved from beginner to > novice to journeyman to some level of expertise will still practice > techniques, study and reflect on the results. But they don't need great > volumes of images to enable that study because they have learned to look at > the subtleties that make the difference between a good picture and a great > one. So, yes they are still in a learning mode, hopefully always will be, and > most of what it takes to learn as a novice is still true of what it takes to > learn even after becoming an expert or master. But going into the studio or > into the field is something else. Setting aside the special case of > fast-moving wildlife or race cars or athletes, getting good shots isn't about > taking a lot of shots. It is about choosing the right subject, the right > composition, the right lens, the right level of artificial illumination when > called for, appropriate settings for speed, aperture, & ISO. When you have > all of that right, there is no need for more than one shot. Take it and move > 3 feet and recompose and do it again. > > Which is what I thought Tom was saying in fewer words: quality of process > beats quantity in the long run. > > stan > > In the interests of clarification, let me extend me comments a bit.
I totally understand what Bruce and Rob have said about taking lots of shots during a model session and have no criticism whatsoever of that way of operating. Trying to capture fleeting expressions, looking for minor variations in framing, yes it is a good thing to work the subject and be willing to take lots of shots. In nature photography there are situations where the same applies - e.g., the changing light as the sun rises over a forest lake. For me, the issue of careful deliberate shooting vs. take a lot and evaluate in post-processing comes down to a question of balance. My instructor in the workshops in August and again earlier this month kept reminding us not to get stuck on one scene, not to be so deliberate that we miss opportunities. On a perfect fall morning - sun rising over a mirror-calm slightly misty lake with colorful trees reflecting in the water - there are many images to be captured in a short period of time before the good light goes away and/or the breeze comes in. More or less a direct quote from the instructor: "Don't be afraid to get the shot and move on. Under these conditions I would be all over the area like a weasel in a chicken coop. You may never again have this opportunity with these special conditions. Look around, choose a scene, frame, focus. Check ISO (low) and aperture (narrow). Let the camera meter give you the shutter speed, shoot a frame. Check the RGB histogram, adjust the speed as needed, then shoot THE shot. Consider a bracket sequence for later HDR processing. Consider variations in focus for later focus stacking. Do one or both of those sequences. Panoramic view? Flash fill to light the foreground object? Do it. Pick up the tripod and move to the next spot. One-two minutes elapsed time. A wide variety of shots, with a variety of lens FOV settings, is possible in that small time window. Take advantage while you can." His approach assumes that you have developed your eye for composition, that you know your camera thoroughly, etc. In a slightly different setting during the workshops, we took the 2.5 hour commercial boat tour along the Pictured Rocks on Lake Superior. The first time out I carefully and deliberately took about 950 shots in the 1.5 hours we spent along the photogenic portions of the lake shore. Rather than use a wide angle, I chose to use my 60-250, mostly between 90-175mm or so. I was visualizing a series of panoramas and did in fact get several sequences that stitched nicely with pleasing results. I was not happy with many of the shots however; I let my "panorama" notion get in the way of well framed individual shots. When we went back in October the light was not as favorable, but still not bad. This time I shot about 850 shots in the 1.5 hour window of opportunity. A mix of panoramas plus still shots, many of which I did as a 5-shot bracketed burst for later HDR. So, a bit more emphasis on choosing the scene the second time, fewer distinguishable scenes captured with, I believe, better results. (BTW, I keep looking for the scene where I can profitably shoot for later panorama stitching [3-5 frames] with focus stacking [2-5 frames] and HDR bracketing [3-5 frames] - from 18 to 125 images to be processed together. Just to see if I can. As a learning experience.) So, quality vs. quantity? As with most complex issues, the answer is "it depends." While learning, a higher volume of shots to study and reflect on should help speed the process. While "seriously" shooting, sometimes fast changing conditions call for fast reactions and many shots in a short period. But dozens or hundreds of poorly framed, poorly exposed shots aren't going to be helpful in either situation. Quality is key. stan -- 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.
