Topic: How often do you get out? (Read 14640 times)

Scott_H · « **on:** February 03, 2004, 08:59:59 pm »

I try to get out at least once a week, and shoot 50-75 frames. Somtimes I get out more, sometimes less.

There are a number of nature centers in my area, one I can walk to. Not grand iconic landscapes, but there are trees and wildflowers, bubbling streams, and some wildlife. I just like to get out and shoot, and practice. Even if I don't take any shots at all I'm out getting some fresh air and enjoying a little peace.

b.e.wilson · « **Reply #1 on:** February 04, 2004, 01:50:35 pm »

Perhaps the next logical extension of not keeping the clunkers is to not take them.

I've posted this link before, and I appologize if it broadens the discussion more than is warranted, but here are my thoughts on the subject:

The Modern Camera and the Dilution of Effort

BryanHansel · « **Reply #2 on:** February 05, 2004, 12:13:15 am »

This is turning out to be an interesting thread. I just read the article, and I don't disagree with it, but I may not agree with this statement, which looks to be the basis of the article:

"the more frames you shoot, the better the chance you'll get a good photograph. It's the biggest fallacy in photography,"

Are photographers who shoot more frames really thinking that they will have a better chance of getting a good photo? And how about those times at the ends of the day when there are so many great shots to take and the light is right to get them all. If you only had one frame, you would miss many other great photos.

I did enjoy the article. It was a good read. BTW, I just got a new flash (SB-800), and I spent two rolls testing it out. It was a blast. Our poor cat was blind by the end of it.

Bryan

RMWagner · « **Reply #3 on:** February 05, 2004, 02:05:53 pm »

I get out 2 to 3 days per week, more if weather permits. I shoot approximately 100 - 150 frames per day. I usually get 1 -2 keepers per week.

--RW

robertprice · « **Reply #4 on:** February 05, 2004, 09:23:11 pm »

I'm a wildlife photographer and head of my household, so I get to go whenever I want......well mostly when I want.......that is once I get through with the vacuuming, washing the dishes, taking out the trash, and, oh yea, cut the grass or shovel snow depending on the season. That frees me up for weekends and I take three or four trips per year with permission.....

BryanHansel · « **Reply #5 on:** February 03, 2004, 12:02:25 pm »

I'm wondering how often everyone gets outside to shoot photos? And how many frames everyone shoots during those times?

I do a full photo day about ever other week where I just spend the whole day outside taking pictures. I do manage to shoot photos here and there in between that time. I manage to shoot between 4 and 5 rolls of 36 on a full day. And another roll or so during the inbetween time. About four times a year a manage a week long trip (not photo specific)or slightly more where I shoot at least 3 rolls a day. I still haven't gone digital.

Dale_Cotton · « **Reply #6 on:** February 03, 2004, 01:18:29 pm »

Last year I shot a total of 650 frames. Mostly in spring and fall. When I go out and am lucky enough to get agreeable conditions, I generally shoot between 10 and 20 frames in a two or three hour stint.

Since I only harvested about two dozen grade A keepers from all those frames, and since I shoot landscape and can't use the excuse of dealing with moving subjects (except clouds;), I consider my hit rate to be absolutely abysmal. If I'm only going to get 20 or 30 keepers per year, I'd rather only expose 20 or 30 frames per year - OK: twice that to factor in experimentation and just-in-case shots. So when I get around to shooting again I plan to try something based on something Victor Aberdeen posted and imagine I'm working under enemy fire - is this shot really worth risking my neck for?

This really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that I shoot film; 25 rolls of Reala is not a huge expense. What irks me when I look at frame after frame of pure dreck is that for every single frame I thought at the time I released the shutter that that was a potential keeper. It deeply troubles me that dreck is so obvious on-screen and so unobvious through the finder...

Tim Gray · « **Reply #7 on:** February 03, 2004, 02:39:31 pm »

I travel twice (usually a week) a year with photography as at least 70% of the itinerary - I'm going to Pacific Rim Nat Park in BC first week of April for a week. Probably 2 or three time a year on a weekend trip here in Ontario and at least 2 or 3 times a month on a Sat or Sun in and around Toronto.

Since 2000 when I started to shoot semi seriously I've averaged between 8 and 10,000 per year. My keeper rate (ie ones I'll spend time on in PS) has improved from 1 in 20 to about 1 in 5.

Over the next year I'm going to try to start developing a specific style or theme. I want to focus on compositions in two main areas:

1. Where scale is the "message", and as a sub theme, where the scale is ambiguous.

http://www.timgrayphotography.com/galleri....53.html

2. Where the composition has a minimum number of disparate elements, and as a sub theme, where texture/repetition is the theme.

http://www.timgrayphotography.com/galleri....60.html

My Webpage

I post regularly to http://www.photocritique.net/ and
http://www.photoblink.com/

Wim van Velzen · « **Reply #8 on:** February 03, 2004, 04:06:57 pm »

Here some numbers from my last trips to Scotland:
Summer and Winter.

My average number of films during the rest of year is about 30 (120 film).

Far too low, admittedly

Aaron · « **Reply #9 on:** February 03, 2004, 09:25:38 pm »

I really shoot a lot. Since I have a job doing almost all the photography for the local high schools sports, I rip through plenty of frames. Last week I had three events in two days to shoot and I ended up shooting a little over 450 frames ( of which I'm using about twelve). This doesn't mean I solely do "action" photography (to tell you the truth, I'm really doing this for the experience) I shoot lots of abstract and wildlife as well.

Someone said something about if they only get 20 good shots per year they'de prefer only pressing the shutter 20 times a year. I dunno, I just feel as though there is ALWAYS something else to learn, as cliche as it sounds. Sure, I get disappointed when I think I got the shot I wanted but I didn't, we all get that way. But I bet if, say, Michael were to post how many frames he takes vs how many he publishes, we'de be flabbergasted. I try not to look at photography as a task to be done.

Jonathan Wienke · « **Reply #10 on:** February 03, 2004, 09:59:57 pm »

In the last 2 years, I've taken about 35000 frames. I've got about 30 images on my web site listed for sale. You do the math...

jeffreybehr · « **Reply #11 on:** February 04, 2004, 12:20:47 pm »

Edward, you should indeed be wondering about keeping all those images on what soon will be MANY HDs. My opening comment was serious--I simply dont't keep images that don't have the potential for becoming 5-star (=portfolio-quality) images. They not only consume space but they do indeed consume time and attention--and to the folk who say 'doesn't consume my time...I never look at them', I say 'then why keep them'?

Both Steven King in 'On Writing' and our own Mike Johnston in one of his columns quote an English writing professor--if we want to get better at writing (or fotografing, or painting, etc.), we must learn to kill our babies. We must throw away the less good and create more really good. And Fred Picker whom you reference says it too in different words. I recently looked thru a binder of my pics I had assembled about 2 years ago and then ignored. I don't toss images just because they're old, but of maybe 75 pics, I tossed about a dozen because they just weren't good enough to keep. I didn't want anyone seeing these clunkers as representative of my art. Obviously a HD is NOT an album of pics one shows to others, but the point is the same--toss the clunkers.

rickster · « **Reply #12 on:** February 04, 2004, 03:21:06 pm »

Well I just finished reading "The Modern Camera and the Dilution of Effort" and agree that the time spent composing without a camera in hand is as important as taking the picture. (There is a barn I have been studing for months, I've yet to take a picture of it). But at the same time technical competance comes from taking a lot of pictures, deconstructing them, and learning from your mistakes. So I guess it comes down to both. Learn how to take a picture and then learn how to make a picture. Then burn the bad ones.

Scott_H · « **Reply #13 on:** February 04, 2004, 08:35:47 pm »

I've wondered if a medium format camera wouldn't teach me discipline. I would be much more careful before I pressed the shutter than I would on a digital camera.

BryanHansel · « **Reply #14 on:** February 05, 2004, 12:23:09 am »

BTW, Bruce,

I love your climbing at the Pal pictures. I used to climb at Blue Mounds, MN almost every other weekend about 5 or 6 years ago. It reminds me of the good times I had there.

Bryan

MatthewCromer · « **Reply #15 on:** February 05, 2004, 01:33:14 pm »

One thing that taking as many pictures as you like for free does for you is make you more open to taking lots of chances with your photography.

With a view camera that takes 10 minutes to unpack and set up, and costs $2 or more to trip the shutter, you want every shot to count, and you aren't very likely to "play around" with the camera.

This seems very likely to lead to a lot higher percentage of good pictures, but it seems almost certain to lead to less experimentation with the camera on choices of subjects, angles, character of light, etc. Not even to mention the problem of immediate feedback versus waiting days for your mailer to come back from the processor.

I find myself when I browse through the images on the screen that the shots I thought were the best out in the field are not the ones I end up preferring, and that often the "flyers" end up being the portfolio-grade images.

RMWagner · « **Reply #16 on:** February 05, 2004, 02:07:07 pm »

I get out 2 to 3 days per week, more if weather permits. I shoot approximately 100 - 150 frames per day. I usually get 1 -2 keepers per week.

--RW

Scott_H · « **Reply #17 on:** February 05, 2004, 07:56:25 pm »

Taking chances can be a good thing, and the instant feedback of digital can be nice.

I think I need to slow down and be more disciplined though. EXIF data is nice, but it doesn't include exposure compensation on any camera I use. It doesn't tell me what I thought I saw at the time I pressed the shutter. If I was taking fewer frames and making notes I might actually learn more.

jeffreybehr · « **Reply #18 on:** February 03, 2004, 12:40:15 pm »

Good question; I'll be interested in the answers.

I'm a landscape fotografer. I just don't shoot people*, urban scenes, rodeos, parades, auto races, etc., so I need to get away for my work. I do several several-day trips per year and perhaps several more one-day trips per year. I shoot digitally (a Canon EOS 1Ds) and bring home maybe 50 frames per day. I believe in culling images--I've been shooting since April 2000, have ALL my images (even the odds'n'ends) on my computer's 140GB HD system** and it's not full, and have just over 50 pics in my portfolio.

* One of my goodbuddyfellowfotogs says 'if it has a pulse, I don't shoot it'. I've adopted that.

** Seems this is relatively rare. The other digital fotogs I know have at least one and usually more LARGE, external HDs they use to store their image files. One of those guys shoots a lot, culls virtually nothing, and still has ALL the images he's ever shot. Soon he'll be running out of desk space, or maybe power outlets, or maybe FireWire ports, for all those HDs!

Image Northwest · « **Reply #19 on:** February 03, 2004, 03:07:00 pm »

I shoot a variety of subjects, but focus on landscapes and wildlife. The number of frames I shoot is dependent on the subject. Wildlife, for example, requires lots of patience and time, and when I find a willing animal, I unload. If I get 1 out 10 for keepers, I'm happy, but normally it's twice or three times that. Wildlife is that way, and a small change in position or twitch of the nose, and the whole animal gets a different look. That's one reason I went to digital; I can blast away and not worry so much about finances, and then I can cull to my heart's content. For landscapes, that's a different matter. I take longer to set up and I'm more conscience about individual shots. My ratio of keepers is higher, maybe about 1:3. Although I do use digital for landscapes, most of my images are shot with a 6x9 film camera.

Altogether I probably take about 5 to 8 thousand exposures a year, but I have never really counted. I usually go on about four main expeditions annually, from 1 to 3 weeks, with a number of one and two day trips in more local areas. I'm really careful about planning and researching areas before I go so I can increase the odds of getting a good shot.

But taking pictures is easy compared to photo-management and self-promotion, which is becoming more and more time consuming. But It's all fun!

www.imagenorthwest.com

Author Topic: How often do you get out? (Read 14640 times)

Aaron