You take how many pictures?

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I never needed to change an SD card on my M cameras because it got full. The same is with any camera when shooting landscape. On the other hand, I had to change the card once or twice a day when shooting wildlife with my Nikon.

Leica (Stefan Daniel: YT video) recommends keeping your camera on standby. That means having extra batteries ready.

You need a system to handle many images. I use something that I learned from Frans Lanting and is based on a rating system. It is a challenge to evaluate and process many photos.

Washington Post:

Consider this: at his death, Winogrand left behind 2500 undeveloped rolls of 36-exposure 35mm film (mostly Tri-X), 6,500 rolls of film that had been developed but not contact-printed–not to mention 300 apparently untouched, unedited 35mm contact sheets.

[Herr Barnack]

When I am photographing events, I will make around 130-150 images per hour. 

When I am traveling, I come back with a decent number of images.  After a two week trip in Mongolia in 2014, I had a little over 5400 images.  A two week trip to Hawaii in 2019 resulted in a little over 3800 images. 

Sometimes I think I may be overshooting, but then I read of photographers like David DuChemin who makes over 100,000 images a year.  I read the story of a photojournalist who had shot with a Leica Q for four years, racking up a little over 500,000 images.

Maybe I'm not overshooting after all...

[rramesh]

Folks who come from the film era, will naturally take fewer shots, with much pre-planning, checking exposure and other settings carefully before taking shots, knowing that the roll has a limited capacity and there is a cost with every exposure. 

Folks who come from the digital era, have no such constraint. They are happy to fire away many shots, using the technology, and knowing that their SD cards have virtually unlimited capacity.

At the end of the day, I believe, the number of 'keepers' will probably be the same.

I came from the film era and when I first used a Leica, I would take not more than 20-30 shots per outing. These days, for a holiday trip about 80-100.

[LocalHero1953]

Since this is an internet forum, I guess I should say that 'real photographers wait for the decisive moment and anyone who takes more than 10 photos a day will never be a photographer'*. But since this is not dpreview and I actually live in the real world, I'm with @FlashGordonPhotography - anything from 1 to thousands is the right number.

When I was small and had to pay for both film and processing here in the UK, I went through a few films per year, mostly in summer holidays. My photography was cr4p because I could never learn from mistakes. When I went to work in SE Asia, buying and processing film cost little more than a beer, and I could get the results in a couple of hours. I often went through two rolls a day and my photography improved dramatically as I got immediate feedback to correct my mistakes. In more remote parts of the Middle East rapid processing was more difficult to find; as film and chemicals were cheap I moved on to home processing of B&W - I went through perhaps a film a week, and the development of my photographic skills slowed down - I was concentrating on the mechanical process, not the eye.

With the advent of digital, and especially with a decent Canon DSLR and, eventually, a M9, I was back to lots of shots, instant feedback and rapid improvement, and I hope I've continued. Back to the original post:

• On holiday in a scenic landscape I may take several 10s of shots a day. Landscape doesn't move, and I have time to get it right in the VF before shooting. (NB I'm a casual landscape photographer, not a serious one).
• On holiday in a city I may take over a 100 shots a day, because people, vehicles etc are always moving and you cannot always predict whether the next shot will be better or worse -  so you take it.
• With grandchildren I may take several 10s of shots in a couple of minutes (then put the camera away to play with them).
• In a portrait shoot session I may take 100-300 shots in an hour or two, depending on what the shoot involves. The success or failure of a portrait depends on tiny little moments of fleeting expression; while taking numbers of shots does not guarantee you will get 'the moment' I am always hoping the next one will actually get it. Sometimes it does.  
• Last week I took well over 1000 shots in the three hours of an outdoor drama performance; I have boiled them down to several hundred for distributing to the cast.

I should add that battery life is only partly determined by the number of shots. I don't remember changing the battery at all for the drama performance (SL2-S, in silent mode). On other occasions I have gone through three batteries for a similar number of shots over 10 hours, because the camera has been on longer and I've been chimping.

 

 * The internet is full of these mantras: "never sell a Leica lens"; "real photographers don't chimp"; [add your own]

[Ouroboros]

Time is money and no one pays me for time wasted wading through 1000's (or even 100's) of unnecessary images from weddings, events and portrait sittings.

It's a mindset that has as much to do with my self confidence as a photographer as it does with simple economics and time management.  Digital allows you to add volume to a workflow without the production cost of film but it does seem rather pointless to me that anyone would lose the advantage through hours of wasted time in pp.

I'm even more reserved with the number of images I take when on holiday ('travelling', if you prefer), I'd rather concentrate on the moment and the experience of being there than needing to capture anything and everything with a camera. 

 

 

 

 

 

[fisheess]

I think many did not differentiate between professional and casual shooting. Even in film era professional photographers took a lot of photos per shooting, one can know this from the famous magnum contact sheets book. In casual shooting when geting the shot is not as important, shooting less is of course the economical choice.

But the digital era has given us the choice to shoot a lot and not miss a shot, even in casual shooting, so why not? And shooting more means faster (though not always) improvement of skills.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

Time is money and no one pays me for time wasted wading through 1000's (or even 100's) of unnecessary images from weddings, events and portrait sittings.

It's a mindset that has as much to do with my self confidence as a photographer as it does with simple economics and time management.  Digital allows you to add volume to a workflow without the production cost of film but it does seem rather pointless to me that anyone would lose the advantage through hours of wasted time in pp.

I'm even more reserved with the number of images I take when on holiday ('travelling', if you prefer), I'd rather concentrate on the moment and the experience of being there than needing to capture anything and everything with a camera. 

 

 

 

 

 

They sure as heck paid me. I ALWAYS calculate processing time into my fee structure.

Gordon

[Ouroboros]

1 hour ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

 I ALWAYS calculate processing time into my fee structure.

 

 

You seem to have missed the point about time required to process unnecessary images in my previous reply.

Hint: the thread title

 

 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Ouroboros

[Ko.Fe.]

On 6/26/2021 at 12:10 AM, IkarusJohn said:

That question is rhetorical, of course.

Coming from film, I was always careful about how many pictures I used to take - film and processing was expensive, especially Kodachrome 64 and 25, which I used when I could afford it.  I didn’t bracket as much as I should have, and I certainly didn’t machine gun.  I took care to get the exposure right, timed it, and took the picture.  There was no point in taking more than one image …

Now, I’m reading a number of comments - the battery is too small, I need a large capacity SD card for a day’s shooting, and then if you love your photography, you really must print … I don’t get it.  How much processing must these photographic heroes do, and what on earth do they do with all those prints?

Back in the day, I’d go through a 36 exposure roll of film a week.  With digital, I do take more, but the process of seeing an image unfold, thinking where to take the picture from and when, exposure etc is pretty much the same.  Once I’ve downloaded the images, very few would make the cut for printing - lots of processing, and then getting it printed (I print so few, I see no justification in buying a printer, though I’m thinking of it).  Once printed, it serves no use if it isn’t hung on the wall, and that includes framing …

So, for those who fire off enough images to need to carry three spare batteries and spare high capacity SD cards, how long do you spend processing, and what on earth do you do with the hundreds of prints you must accumulate in a year …

I am genuinely curious.

 

Is M10 this bad?   I don't need any more SD than one for days of taking pictures with any camera. Even by using three batteries per day.

How many exposures? It depends on you. Before entering photography I exposed two rolls in months. And was getting prints for each exposure. Old days of no scans, no digital. But now you need not so many prints . Only those you really need. 

I print quick test photos and only few makes into OK prints. 

After getting into photography I didn't count rolls, but was getting it in bulks.

Where is well bitten GW exposures count example, but HCB exposed a lot as well. Just look at his contacts (Available via Magnum Contacts book).

In some of the books I read astonishing number of rolls HCB used on one of his trip to Asia. 

And it was on film.

 

If you want to grow in photography, the only way is to take exposures, not counting them.

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Ko.Fe.

[Likaleica]

I went to a lecture given by Eliot Porter in 1983.  Granted, he used a Linhof 4x5 view camera.  However, at the end of his talk a gentleman in the front row asked a very complex question, referring to aperture, shutter speed, film choice, subject material, etc.  Dr. Porter was standing on stage immediately above him.  The gentleman finally got to the point of his question, which was, "After you've decided on the exposure parameters, how many exposures do you make?"

Dr. Porter just looked down at him and after a pause said, "One."

[Guest]

In May I attended a Workshop in Arles, it was helmed by a photographer who works primarily in the field of photographic art after decades of regular assignments. He uses a Leica MP pretty much exclusively and yes he works only in film, no digital, ( "......that's what the iPhone is for" ). Sometimes he said a roll of film in his MP will take a couple of months to finish up the 36 exposures. Deliberation.........It was a cathartic, valuable week and confirmed the change I wished to make in the way I approach my personal work.

Edited June 30, 2021 by petermullett

[LocalHero1953]

58 minutes ago, Likaleica said:

I went to a lecture given by Eliot Porter in 1983.  Granted, he used a Linhof 4x5 view camera.  However, at the end of his talk a gentleman in the front row asked a very complex question, referring to aperture, shutter speed, film choice, subject material, etc.  Dr. Porter was standing on stage immediately above him.  The gentleman finally got to the point of his question, which was, "After you've decided on the exposure parameters, how many exposures do you make?"

Dr. Porter just looked down at him and after a pause said, "One."

In my longer post higher up the page I should have added a bullet point: in my venture into large format photography I take at most 4 a day. This is because (a) all the shots are preplanned, and I can't think about more than 4 scenes worth photographing in a day (b) two film holders is a convenient number to fit in my backpack and (c) my developing tank takes 4 sheets at a time.

[Mr Fjeld]

Not much to add to the discussion which hasn't been said already, but I do feel the freedom of not being constrained by a roll of 36 exposures - especially so with difficult light situations such as a scene filled with LED lights and similar, and I appreciate the possibility of having several alternative exposures.

Apart from that I rarely come home with more than 10 photos. Incidentally, during the corona situation I seem to have lost my "mojo" and often come home without having taken a single shot. As in the film days I make a point of not taking a photo if I feel it doesn't make the cut.

[Likaleica]

This is a really good discussion, and clearly there is no "right" or "wrong."  I have used every method from the view camera technique to the machine gun technique over the years.  Personally, I feel more connected to the subject with the former.

[IkarusJohn]

I don’t recall being constrained by 36 exposures - I always carried a spare roll or two in my pocket or my backpack.

As Tim says above, there’s no right or wrong to my original question, such as it was.  For landscape and more static subjects, I see little reason for taking lots of photos, other than to adapt to changing light conditions.  With situational photography (HCB’s decisive moment), most of the time I watch to see the scene unfold and try to think about the best place to put my camera.  For portraits, it is critical for me not to be peering down the viewfinder, worrying about the camera settings and focus - I like to have the camera away from my face, and to be looking at the subject.  This is where the Fotos App is invaluable - I need to engage with the subject, which I can’t do with a camera in my face.

So, I take few photos as timing is important, and generally I only bracket when there are difficult lighting conditions.  The times when I have tried running and gunning, I found fewer keepers than when I have thought more about the subject.

[Mr Fjeld]

44 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

I don’t recall being constrained by 36 exposures - I always carried a spare roll or two in my pocket or my backpack.

Well, I certainly didn't have the means to carry a spare roll or two in my pocket back then. I picked up photography with a restored Nikkormat FTN in 84. I was 13 and I used this camera until the nineties when studying at the uni. I do recall that my financial position was somewhat meager so I had to be economical with every photo. I still am and it works for me. Trying to concentrate on each and every photo just is a process and discipline which makes sense (in my opinion).

[Herr Barnack]

Quote

You take how many pictures?

I always endeavor to take the same number of pictures as the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. 

That way I can rest easy, knowing that the world will acknowledge that I'm a "real photographer.  😊

Edited June 30, 2021 by Herr Barnack

[FlashGordonPhotography]

23 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

 

You seem to have missed the point about time required to process unnecessary images in my previous reply.

Hint: the thread title

 

 

 

 

How do you determine what's an *unnecessary image* at a wedding? I've had emails telling me a grab shot between some random guy and the bride was their most precious because the random guy was in fact a favourite uncle who was dying from cancer. Probably the last photo of him ever taken. Composition was poor. Lighting was rubbish. A snap shot at best. I probably picked the best of two or three exposures because people blink and sneer and squint and a couple of shutter pushes I can avoid those. I don't think I've ever taken an unnecessary image at a wedding. Plenty of terrible ones and a few great ones though.

Each to their own but I know how many images I'll shoot and cull and deliver and it's more than most. The client pays for my time so I can easily work out what to charge. Culling, to me, isn't about getting rid of unnecessary images. It's about finding the best ones. That's what I like most about digital. The freedom to not have to shot count every job.

I reckon I've had more referrals from snap shots at the reception than anything that ever made it into a wedding album. And I didn't mind doing the culling because I was not what you would describe as cheap.

Gordon

[Herr Barnack]

When I photograph groups of people, I will make 8-10 exposures in hopes of having 1-2 that are actually usable.

Why?  Because photographing a herd of people is no different from photographing a herd of cats. 

In spite of your best efforts to get all of them to pay attention,  look at the camera and put on a pleasant, friendly expression for the photo, the following inevitably will happen:  A few will look content.  Some will be staring off into space.  A few will look annoyed.  One will be asleep.  Two will look stoned.  A couple will be snarling, and one will be licking its butt. 

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by Herr Barnack

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jdlaing]

44 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

When I photograph groups of people, I will make 8-10 exposures in hopes of having 1-2 that are actually usable.

Spray and pray.

Why?  Because photographing a herd of people is no different from photographing a herd of cats. 
Cats are more sociable.

In spite of your best efforts to get all of them to pay attention,  look at the camera and put on a pleasant, friendly expression for the photo, the following inevitably will happen:  A few will look content.  Some will be staring off into space.  A few will look annoyed.  One will be asleep.  Two will look stoned.  A couple will be snarling, and one will be licking its butt. 
 

Wear a tie with a naked female on it.