Posted by Brad Mangas on August 17, 2009 at 1:57 PM
I found myself exploring some new landscape last week in which I had a couple of days to spend alone with my camera. Knowing I wouldn't get back anytime soon I ended up capturing as much as possible in as many different ways as possible. I was shooting scenes multiple times at different exposures in an attempt to "make sure" I captured everything I could. Mostly varied exposures (bracketing) to capture brighter skies with darker foregrounds knowing I would be doing some blending of these scenes. I am perfectly comfortable with knowing the dof I will receive at any give f stop, so most of my bracketing was basic exposure adjustments. Relying on the histogram I usually felt satisfied with around 3 to 4 shots of any particular scene.
I became curious about how others approach their shooting and the capture of high dynamic scenes or "any" shot for that matter.
Are you satisfied with one, or maybe the second one after seeing results of the first? Or maybe 3-4 if you plan on doing some blending? Or, do you take many shots of the same scene in attempt to "make sure" you get everything you want just the way you want it?
To me time out with camera in hand is much better than time spent setting at the computer.
My results in 2 days of shooting yielded 400 + images. This was covering many many miles of landscape with many many new scenes. But it just seems a little crazy to have taken this many shots hoping to have a "few" excellent ones.
As an ending note. It accrued to me, is digital making me a better photographer (willing to experiment and learn from hands on experience) or a lazy photographer knowing I can just delete the bad stuff?
Posted by Kurt Budliger on August 17, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Interesting questions Brad. Be glad you're not shooting transparencies, at .35$ a click it added up pretty darn quickly. Your approx. 400 shots in two days would have been just shy of 10 rolls (36 exp. each) and cost you about $100 with quality processing.
I don't think your 400 frames seems outlandish especially if it was a dedicated shooting trip, new environment and you were stimulated and creative. Even when I shot film it was entirely possible to run through that much film in a few days especially if the conditions were good and you consider normal bracketing and in camera dupes.
As for covering the bases when bracketing for DR blending I'd say I may shoot anywhere from 2-4 exposures depending on the scene and how big the DR is. I've been starting to do more and more of this lately and plan to continue, my GNDs are starting to get pretty beat up and need replacing anyway.
I don't digital is making me a better photographer of a more lazy one (my kids seem to be taking care of that one). I would say my keeper percentage is about the same as it was when I switched from film perhaps a bit higher. But I wouldn't say it's because of digital technology as much as the normal progression of me as a photographer. Unfortunately, I probably shoot less now then I did 5-6 years ago.
In my case, I find that I return from the field with fewer shots than before. I like to think it's because I'm getting better, but maybe I'm just lazy. These days, I probably shoot ~ 50 images on an average day out hiking. I don't mind spending time in front of the computer; in fact, I kind of enjoy that aspect of photography.
If I'm shooting a scene that I know will require a blend, I shoot like a madman. I'll typically get 10-20 shots of a given composition, and then deal with the results at home. I don't auto-bracket, I just use the brightness histogram as a guide and make the necessary adjustments to capture as much detail as possible.
I don't think there's any downside to taking lots of photos as long as you're just as trigger-happy with the delete button when you get home. Learning to delete the bad and mediocre shots from my hard drive was one of the best things that ever happened to my photography.
Posted by John Williams on August 17, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Interesting thoughts Brad. My shooting style has changed a lot with experience. I find myself spending much more time scouting and composing, and thus less actual shooting, then I used to. Where in the past I might have taken 30 or 40 scenes in a day, I typically shoot one to six now.
I often blend for both dynamic range and DOF. (Even though I know my lens pretty well, I'm currently in a "crowd the foreground" mood that often requires even more DOF than the maximum the lens allows.) This means that I'll often have three or four shots go into an image. Since I bracket each of these, the number of photos adds up rapidly. Because digital photos are essentially free I don't mind, and I often take even more insurance shots if I'm worried about motion blur, etc. I hate getting back home and finding I missed an essential part of a great image. The upshot is that I come back from the field with "ore" that then needs to be "smelted." It means more time with the computer, but I actually enjoy that part a lot.
Posted by Rob Graham on August 17, 2009 at 7:23 PM
Brad, I just filled an 8GB card with the same subject, from 4 visits this weekend. I bracketed a lot due to the light conditions. The quickly changing light and clouds brought new images constantly. I usually don't get this focused on one subject either, but I felt it was necessary this weekend. I don't hesitate to shoot lots, from various angles, trying to figure out what works best. I'd have never made a good film photographer :).
Posted by Mel Ladewig on August 17, 2009 at 8:31 PM
I usually take two shots per setup on 4X5. It takes a while to compose, meter and setup filters, so I take my time and try to get the shot right. I don't hesitate to take out the camera if I think there is an image, but I do take more time when I choose to setup the camera. I might use two different films or I might bracket the exposure. On 35mm, when I was shooting digital capture I would take a couple hundred shots per day. Now I might take 100 in a day on 35mm film and I think my keeper rate is much higher.
Brad - Sometimes 1 is enough. Sometimes 100 isn't enough.
I don't enjoy culling a big batch of photos, but I love tripping the shutter. I often will make multiple exposures, bracketing exposure or slightly different versions. I'll make seven different exposures if the scene covers a wide range of shades, for use in HDR, although I've found that I usually will choose one of the exposures and dispense with the HDR manipulation. The most I've ever taken in one morning's shoot is about 1300 (birds in motion at 10 frames per second) It took me weeks to wade through it -Ugh - but I sure enjoyed the shoot. If I make one great picture, it's a successful shoot - It doesn't matter how many I had to delete. What kills me is when I make a lot of versions and still don't get the picture.
It doesn't matter haw many frames you expose. The bottom line is how many pictures you make. The number of keepers is what's important, not the percentage. We all have our own ways of working. Whatever works for you, whatever methods or techniques get the job done for you, whatever you are comfortable with - that's what you should do.
Does digital photography make you a better photographer? I think the instant feedback of digital is very valuable for learning, but mostly it's the photography that makes you a better photographer. If shooting lots of frames results in the occasional great picture, it's a successful technique. If all the iterations approximate the final result and help you to zero in on it, good - Keep doing that. If all you get is piles of mediocrity, then it's time to try a different way.
Posted by Richard Wong on August 17, 2009 at 9:03 PM
If it's general stock stuff I'll do one or two per scene. If it's landscapes with tricky lighting I might do 5 - 20 variations of exposure / compositions as the lighting plays out. Anything more is a waste of hard drive space and machine gun photography IMO.
I have "rules" that guide my shooting. I ALWAYS compose both vertical and horizontal versions of each shot. I also get down low and move around to change vantage points, all dedicated to varying the foreground in comps, looking for ways to use foreground details to lead into the back and help with the overall comp. It varies with the scene, but by the time I compose vert and hor, shoot low, and shoot the same scene from 3 or 4 vantage points, it's easy to expose 40-50 frames with a little bracketing.
Posted by Frank Winters on August 18, 2009 at 8:34 AM
GBS said "The most important decision a person makes is choosing the right grandparents." For photographers its choosing the right moment to shoot. Subject, comp, lighting. My hero Henri Cartier-Bresson didn't bracket, filter or blend. He relied on his EYE to guide him and then poof -- took his shot.
I like that esthetic. Cartier-Bresson described himself as an anarchist so his approach might be called extreme but I think that a nature photographer can learn from from it. The lesson is this -- spend as much time as needed getting to a place that is worth photographing. For modern nature photographer the challenge is to not repeat the same National Park scenes over again. Have a personal view and express it in great captures. Often this can be done with one (poof) exposure.
(Edited to change grandchildren to grandparents, a rather moronic typo!)
Posted by Don George on August 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM
I shoot both Film and Digital. I find myself shooting 2-3 times the amount of images with digital. After 30 years of shooting film I got to the point of about 98% success rate. I am now paying about $5.00 a roll and about 12.00 for processing which has limited my film shooting. Its taken me about a year or more to learn the post processing techniques etc. related to digital. With digital I will shoot a special scene everyway imaginable and then some. It does however get frustrating when it comes to post processing. It seems the more processing I do the more I doubt that the final image is what I saw. I'm still learning the tools of digital shooting and as I progress maybe this frustration will go away.
Posted by Stan Rose on August 18, 2009 at 11:47 PM
I started photography with a film p&S, and didnt want to change rolls so i always left with a roll of 36 exposures. That taught me to be extremely picky and extremely careful with my shots. I dont have that problem with digital, but i try to learn from that p&s experience, and i rarely fill up my 4GB card (i do keep a spare, but never use it!) I rarely take more than three exposures of one scene (for a blend). I take some shots merely for the memories, but i try to force myself to be very choosey. I beleive if you are too liberal with shots fired, it turns into a crutch, and trains you poorely for those times when you need to make decisions qucikly for a composition.
Posted by Drew M Wright on August 20, 2009 at 1:30 AM
As many as it takes to get the shot . I have often thought about going on a shoot with the intent of only taking 1 shot per day which would force me to slow down and really think about what makes a scene worth shooting. However sometimes its just the process of going out an having fun. I recently came across a scene where an unexpected fawn ran into a meadow of lupine - filled up an 8GB card in about 10 minutes.
As Stan said - "I beleive if you are too liberal with shots fired, it turns into a crutch, and trains you poorely for those times when you need to make decisions qucikly for a composition." This is a good point and it has happened with me. Sometimes, though, there may be something unexpected, where you need to just start shooting and hope that you get at least one nice result. It all has to do with our different styles.
Discussion
13 repliesI became curious about how others approach their shooting and the capture of high dynamic scenes or "any" shot for that matter.
Are you satisfied with one, or maybe the second one after seeing results of the first? Or maybe 3-4 if you plan on doing some blending? Or, do you take many shots of the same scene in attempt to "make sure" you get everything you want just the way you want it?
To me time out with camera in hand is much better than time spent setting at the computer.
My results in 2 days of shooting yielded 400 + images. This was covering many many miles of landscape with many many new scenes. But it just seems a little crazy to have taken this many shots hoping to have a "few" excellent ones.
As an ending note. It accrued to me, is digital making me a better photographer (willing to experiment and learn from hands on experience) or a lazy photographer knowing I can just delete the bad stuff?
I don't think your 400 frames seems outlandish especially if it was a dedicated shooting trip, new environment and you were stimulated and creative. Even when I shot film it was entirely possible to run through that much film in a few days especially if the conditions were good and you consider normal bracketing and in camera dupes.
As for covering the bases when bracketing for DR blending I'd say I may shoot anywhere from 2-4 exposures depending on the scene and how big the DR is. I've been starting to do more and more of this lately and plan to continue, my GNDs are starting to get pretty beat up and need replacing anyway.
I don't digital is making me a better photographer of a more lazy one (my kids seem to be taking care of that one). I would say my keeper percentage is about the same as it was when I switched from film perhaps a bit higher. But I wouldn't say it's because of digital technology as much as the normal progression of me as a photographer. Unfortunately, I probably shoot less now then I did 5-6 years ago.
In my case, I find that I return from the field with fewer shots than before. I like to think it's because I'm getting better, but maybe I'm just lazy. These days, I probably shoot ~ 50 images on an average day out hiking. I don't mind spending time in front of the computer; in fact, I kind of enjoy that aspect of photography.
If I'm shooting a scene that I know will require a blend, I shoot like a madman. I'll typically get 10-20 shots of a given composition, and then deal with the results at home. I don't auto-bracket, I just use the brightness histogram as a guide and make the necessary adjustments to capture as much detail as possible.
I don't think there's any downside to taking lots of photos as long as you're just as trigger-happy with the delete button when you get home. Learning to delete the bad and mediocre shots from my hard drive was one of the best things that ever happened to my photography.
I often blend for both dynamic range and DOF. (Even though I know my lens pretty well, I'm currently in a "crowd the foreground" mood that often requires even more DOF than the maximum the lens allows.) This means that I'll often have three or four shots go into an image. Since I bracket each of these, the number of photos adds up rapidly. Because digital photos are essentially free I don't mind, and I often take even more insurance shots if I'm worried about motion blur, etc. I hate getting back home and finding I missed an essential part of a great image. The upshot is that I come back from the field with "ore" that then needs to be "smelted." It means more time with the computer, but I actually enjoy that part a lot.
I don't enjoy culling a big batch of photos, but I love tripping the shutter. I often will make multiple exposures, bracketing exposure or slightly different versions. I'll make seven different exposures if the scene covers a wide range of shades, for use in HDR, although I've found that I usually will choose one of the exposures and dispense with the HDR manipulation. The most I've ever taken in one morning's shoot is about 1300 (birds in motion at 10 frames per second) It took me weeks to wade through it -Ugh - but I sure enjoyed the shoot. If I make one great picture, it's a successful shoot - It doesn't matter how many I had to delete. What kills me is when I make a lot of versions and still don't get the picture.
It doesn't matter haw many frames you expose. The bottom line is how many pictures you make. The number of keepers is what's important, not the percentage. We all have our own ways of working. Whatever works for you, whatever methods or techniques get the job done for you, whatever you are comfortable with - that's what you should do.
Does digital photography make you a better photographer? I think the instant feedback of digital is very valuable for learning, but mostly it's the photography that makes you a better photographer. If shooting lots of frames results in the occasional great picture, it's a successful technique. If all the iterations approximate the final result and help you to zero in on it, good - Keep doing that. If all you get is piles of mediocrity, then it's time to try a different way.
I like that esthetic. Cartier-Bresson described himself as an anarchist so his approach might be called extreme but I think that a nature photographer can learn from from it. The lesson is this -- spend as much time as needed getting to a place that is worth photographing. For modern nature photographer the challenge is to not repeat the same National Park scenes over again. Have a personal view and express it in great captures. Often this can be done with one (poof) exposure.
(Edited to change grandchildren to grandparents, a rather moronic typo!)