whether it be 10,000 or 30,000, is it possible to say about how many shots you take of the same subject at the same time in order to get one that you like? So, in other words, are you taking shots of hundreds of subjects or hundreds of shots of a few subjects or something in between? Thank you.
Posted by Richard Ditch on August 16, 2010 at 4:06 PM
I'm probably a bit on the conservative side when I shoot, rarely taking more than 1-200 frames on a typical morning outing. But that's a lot more than I took in the days of film. But on some days out I won't take any shots at all if nothing appeals to me.
When I find a cooperative subject I'll work with it as long as it stays in range and the light is good. You never know in advance which shot will be the best of any session. It seems foolish to walk away from a good opportunity without working it completely. For a resting bird you might get small changes in posture that make a large difference in the final image. If I'm working at a low shutter speed (can't beat low contrast light at dawn), then taking a series of frames gives a higher probability that one will be acceptably sharp. With feeding shorebirds then I'll keep shooting as long as possible because there are so many variables outside of my control that will kill an image, and I need to take an abundance of shots to maximize my chances of having one frame where all the factors come together.
But sometimes it is the very brief encounters that don't last long enough to play the Numbers Game that produces the most interesting images. In these situations I just take one or two shots while I can without thinking about any camera settings, relying on my gear and experience.
You inspired me to make a count from last week's bear shoot Barbara. In about 8 hours of shooting spread over 4 days (ROTTEN weather), I exposed 713 frames- all bears, and mostly of 5 individuals. I've made my first pass through them selecting and processing a total of 119 shots, and I'll probably pick up another 50 or so on a second pass. Call it a round number of 20% keeper rate, and that's very high for me.
The weather may have been rotten for people and camera gear, but it was great for photos. Based upon experience I had anticipated shooting about 700 frames per day in planning the trip and assuming the weather would be more cooperative. I think the message is that I should shag my hiney out into the bad weather a little more often!
My "estimate" of 700 frames a day is based on lots of trips to the Southwest for landscapes and more, plus wildlife trips up here. It just seems to be a good round number for me. When I translate that to film (roughly 20 rolls), it would have been an especially high day of shooting rather than average, so it definitely reflects some greater freedom in what and how much I'm willing to shoot.
In our commercial work, shooting volume varies greatly with subject and locale. My wife only averages around 40 frames on portrait shoots in the studio, but the conditions are carefully controlled and intimately familiar.
At the opposite extreme is an "event," whether an evolving industrial process or a true social happening. When my wife and I are shooting together we can top 2,000 a day, but I'm much more prolific that her, usually shooting 2/3 of that total, though our "keeper" totals are usually similar.
Bottom line, I tend to take lots of shots of fewer subjects, rather than roving free and shooting everything in sight. I'm very conscious of framing and possible marketing opportunities, so I'll shoot both verticals and horizontals of a subject, as well as placing the subject in all sorts of places around the frame in anticipation of more ways (and print layouts) that it can be used.
I've attached one example. This bear hung around, so I framed him close and far, hor and vert, then started moving him around the frame. I bet I can market this to someone who wants an ad layout with their message at the bottom of the frame. Hard to sell to that market if all my shots have the bear in traditional position in the bottom.
How many frames depends on the subject. How many frames does it take to get a good family group picture? The numer of frames needed to get one good picture increases with the number of people in the group.
Sometimes I shoot birds and sometimes landscapes/scenes. How many of each subject depends on how many I think it takes to esure that I got the good one. If the light changes, get another picture. If it's a good scene, get more than one, check your settings and get anther one. If you're pushing the technical limitations, take several. Now that I've started selling pictures for advertisements, I try to vary the composition - high, low, right, left, vertical, horizontal.
In the film days with a mechanical camera with a thumb-winder, three rolls of 36 of birds was a pretty good morning. Nowadays my camera will do ten frames per second. If I'm shooting birds in motion (I love a dancing reddish egret) it's pretty easy to get 5-15 shots in a burst, and hard not to get at least 2. For birds in flight or moving quickly, it's impossible to time one shot to catch the perfect pose or wing position. That's the beauty of a high frame rate - even then sometimes the perfect position happens between shots. On a good bird morning, I'll shoot at least 300-400 of multiple subjects and sometimes well over 1000. I usually eliminate about 80% to 90%, and of the ones I don't delete, I may only show 1 or 2, or none.
When shooting landscapes, I usually will get fewer than 100 frames in the period of an hour before sunrise to about two hours after sunrise, including test shots, bracketing, and filter changes. It depends on the changing light, clouds, and what I see. I may change my position and/or subject a dozen times. I will delete most of these. I'm thrilled if I get one picture I'd like to show off.
I'm currently averaging about 20,000 frames a year, shooting mostly on weekend mornings. In 25 years, I've accumulated fewer than 200 pictures I'll show with pride and the great majority of these have been in the last 5 years. Not a very efficient process, I guess, but I do enjoy it. I use SLRs and obviously a large format photographer will expose far fewer frames.
One thing I've learned is how to avoid bad pictures. I occasionally will hear somebody say, while shooting a bird in poor light or too far way, or half hidden in deep brush, "It's better than nothing." No it's not. It's no better than nothing.
Shoot as many as you need to to get the picture you want. If it's worth shooting, it's worth more than one. Don't wast your time on a picture that isn't going to be any good no matter how many frames you get of it. You eventually will fall into a way of shooting that suits you. Don't worry about how many frames you shoot. What's important is how many good pictures you make.
So, the answer to you question, I guess, is "It depends."
Sorry for rambling on so. I'm in the office with no work to do.
Posted by Ron Dudley on August 16, 2010 at 6:17 PM
In a typical 3 hour morning of shooting birds I probably average about 600 clicks. It's been as high as about 2000 more than once though. Been skunked a few times too (no clicks). Usually the number of avian subjects for those 600 shots is fairly small - perhaps a dozen or less. But then I shoot a lot of raptors and other larger birds who tend to cooperate for longer periods of time than small flitty birds do (if you can get close to them in the first place). But as others have said, it depends...
As for how many images I take before I "get one I like" - well that's a crap shoot with a lot of variables. Sometimes in a morning of shooting I won't get anything I'd post but I usually like some of them enough to keep just for me. Other times I may get dozens of shots of the same bird that I like very much but are very similar (which makes culling a nightmare). Then there's the sliding scale of just how MUCH I like them - a little or a lot. So, yup - it depends...
Posted by Nathan Buck on August 16, 2010 at 6:35 PM
I shoot mainly static subjects Barbara (mainly flora). When I shoot an intriguing subject, I find that I can easily shoot a couple hundred shots of the same flower or group of flowers. Shooting above, below, in front, behind, a little to each side, etc. All of these different perspectives and angles allow me to shoot a lot of shots. Throw in different framing and DOF and they add up. I still do not get into the 10s of thousands of shots in a month, but when I am really working a subject I can shoot a lot of frames.
Nathan
Posted by Luke Ormand on August 16, 2010 at 8:33 PM
I've never taken more than 500 on a single outing, and it rarely goes over 200 but it can if I am shooting birds starting at sunrise and going for a few hours. I do, however, cull images in the field (especially if I was shooting stationary birds in bursts). I also tend to take a lot of flight shots so those are often easy to delete in the field because the angle of your subject is off or it's obvious that it's not sharp.
As for keepers, it all depends. If I am shooting a new species or a species I seldom see (like saltmarsh sparrows this weekend) I will keep a large percentage of them because you don't know when you will get the chance again. However, if I am shooting something like a Great Blue Heron I will likely only keep a few as it's a species that is commonly seen and that I have plenty of images of.
I'll easily shoot 1000 images in a 1/2 day at a nearby bird place, since I do a lot of bursts of birds in flight.
At Yellowstone last year, in a week, I took 3000 shots, again, with a good bit of bif.
I won't move away from a cooperative subject until I have the shots I want, or until my back gives out - whichever comes first.
I'l also cull in the field, when time allows, to save all the editing later at home.
Don't be afraid to take lots and lots of shots. that is the joy of digital - the delete button is your best friend; no more expensive film in the trash can.
Shoot all different angles, lighting, dof, etc and experiment. that's how we all learn!
Sandy r
Posted by Hali Sowle on August 17, 2010 at 8:05 AM
I shoot between 200-600 for a local shoot but if I go on vacation somewhere I can shoot up to a 1000 frames in a day especially if I'm only spending one day in a place and I want to make sure I've covered it as well as I can (assuming I've got willing subjects).
Posted by Kent Staubus on August 17, 2010 at 9:22 AM
At one time I'd shoot film like water out of a hose, but then I got into shooting medium format, and then 4x5. Those require a LOT of thought and planning. At nearly ten dollars per shot, you tend to not burn through a box of 4x5 sheets very quickly. Everyone was telling me when I bought my D80 a few years ago that I'd be taking thousands of shots with it and it would totally change me. What actually happened was I got into night photography taking shots of moving trains with a big multi-flash system. There might be two or three trains at most in an evening, and because of the flash recycle time I only got one shot. So, I was coming home with 0-3 shots from five hours of shooting. I have kept the discipline of 4x5 shooting now that I mostly use a Nikon D300. I've also been using a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye (c. 1959) and just bought a Voigtlander Bessa (c. 1937.) Both are 120 roll film cameras which I normally take one or two shots per day with.
Last month I spent a couple of weeks in Iceland, which of all the exotic places I've been was by far the best. We'll probably never again go to Hawaii. I took an 8gb and 16gb card for my D300 and about 16gb for the D80. I only filled the one 16gb card, total of about 1,000 images for the entire trip. The way I take photos now is to carefully look over a scene and just think about it. I think about the feelings I have, study the light, and think very specifically what story I want to tell about the place. Only after lots of thought do I take a shot, and usually it's not very many. I've already taken dozens of shots in my mind--I don't need to actually see them on an LCD. Instead of messing with a camera and focussing my attention on it, I focus my attention on the light and the "essence" of my surroundings. I would have been almost as happy with just a 4x5 and 50 sheets of film in Iceland, I think. I did regret not bringing my old Brownie.
Kent in SD
Posted by Brad Mangas on August 17, 2010 at 10:02 AM
I listened to a podcast recently of world famous wildlife photographer Moose Peterson. Moose was one of the first professionals to go all digital I believe that would have happened in the late 90's to early 2000's. He said that his digital archive consists of over 600,000 files! That is averaging well over 100 images per day every day for the last 10 plus years.
Posted by Richard Ditch on August 17, 2010 at 10:18 AM
Kent makes a strong argument for restraint, and I agree with his philosophy in general. It works best, of course, with landscapes or other essentially static subjects, and not so much with active subjects like birds in flight.
But I'm shocked at the daily volume some people report, and it makes me wonder how much they actually think about their subjects, the setting, and the light. 1000 images in a 10 hour day means 100 frames an hour, or 1 frame every 36 seconds on average.
I've averaged about 36 frames per day over the four plus years I've had my D200. I might only get to shoot 1 or 2 days a week, but that's still a lot of stuff to edit.
When I was using 35mm film I would make about 36-72 shots on a very busy day. When I switched to 645 MF, I'd shoot about 15-30 shots per day. Now, with 4x5, on a busy day with good light, I may shoot 8 to 10 sheets.
This low volume across the board is primarily due to being picky about subjects and light, and also because I like to take my time.
Posted by Jim Sabiston on August 17, 2010 at 1:37 PM
There is a pretty clear pattern evident here: Active subjects require more frames, static subjects require fewer, which makes sense of course.
My preferred approach is similar in kind to Kent's, in that about half the time I've got an idea for an image in my head before I start shooting. My shots are then done in such a way to obtain that end. In these cases, if shooting with a tripod, I will probably shoot only a few frames with subtle changes in framing to try and get the best composition of the subject, which tend to be static. I might return home with only a couple of dozen frames. The frame count goes up according to the following:
Shooting freehand - I will take a few extra 'insurance' frames, then select the sharpest later.
Unfamiliar Territory/little time - such as my recent Peggy's Cove shoot (see 'Harbor House' in last weeks EP's) - 1 hour to cover this really interesting area. I get very selective, giving the area a quick visual scan, then hit the interesting bits with quickly but carefully thought out shots, typically 2-4 of a particular angle and move on to the next. I came away from Peggy's Cove with about a hundred frames, many of which are 'insurance' shots, as I was moving fast and shooting freehand, with maybe 20 actual subjects covered.
New Territory/plenty of time: Here I probably end up closer to Hank's style. With plenty of time to explore, I will try lots of subjects and angles. 200+ in a typical day is fairly average for me, with about a 10% keeper rate.
Birds are another matter. Get a big card, switch to burst mode, then sit on the shutter button!
Posted by Luke Ormand on August 17, 2010 at 2:13 PM
I agree with Rich... how are you people taking thousands of photos in a 1/2 day? I'd rather invest my time in composition and attempting to get something original than holding the shutter down.
Obviously everyone who is posting here has a love for wildlife/nature photography and we are all very talented but I simply don't get how you can take that many images and have time to delete them all.
I've only taken 500 in a day twice. The first time was when shooting seals @ montauk which was a first for me. I also had multiple subjects and did some bird and macro photography.
The second time was an entire day worth of shooting including birds in flight and a whale that had washed up on shore alive (which certainly warrants lots of clicks).
Subjects vary in what they require for coverage or even allow, in terms of opportunity.
Markets beyond art prints also vary in their requirments, and whether or not photographers even intend to market their work.
Posted by Ron Dudley on August 17, 2010 at 6:10 PM
Rich and Luke seem surprised, even dismayed, at the number of shots some of us take. I can only speak for myself. Based on the images in my gallery, almost 40% of my shooting is BIF. A significant percentage of the rest are action shots (fights, wing flaps, feeding behaviors etc) - all of which beg for burst shooting. The burst rate of the 7D is 8fps. Believe me, at that rate you can go through a lot of clicks in 3-4 hours of even sporadic shooting.
Yes, I do think about my subjects, setting, light and composition. A lot. Especially when the bird is static. Less when the bird's in flight, by necessity.
And yes Luke, culling that many images is a real pain in the patoot but it certainly doesn't detract from my "time in composition and attempting to get something original".
The situation determines my shooting style and rhythm, like several have mentioned above already. If it's moving, I'm shooting more, if it's parked, not so much. Being flexible is key for me. More important to me is the time I spend with my eye in the camera. It takes a lot of looking through the glass to get good at seeing. For beginners, I teach setting the camera on single shot to get the mechanics solid before moving on to the rapid fire necessary for bird in flight, cheetah chasing gazelle, skier on a slope or snowboarder in a half-pipe. Good technique trumps numbers every time. If you can't get one right, the chances of 2 through 8 being anything to write home about are pretty slim. If, however, you are on target when the mirror comes down, you are ready to step up to multi frame burst. Practice, practice, practice.
Just as important for me is the time I spend with an image in post production. My skill levels continue to evolve and I am reworking images from ten years ago that I thought were as good as they were going to get and making them better. I actually spend more time in the digital darkroom than I ever did in the wet Darkroom.
The image in the camera is just the beginning for me.
Happy Imagining!
Neil
There's been a lot of good comments above and I think it's hard to to generalize on this topic. I have noticed that I almost always shoot far less than those I'm with, i.e., I tend to be more selective (not sure if it's good or bad, simply an observation). During photo tours that I lead I have watched what I term "machine-gunners" really click through the frames (5,000+ shots per day) and I had assumed that they missed NOTHING. However, when I looked at their images after the fact, turns out they did. I guess my time watching and thinking didn't hurt me. But...that all being said, if I have a couple of bears sparring right in front of me I won't hesitate to let it rip!
Cheers...
Brad
PS: I think one of the things that keeps me from shooting huge numbers of images is that I spend a lot of time in post-processing (per image), so I don't bother to hold my finger on the shutter unless I know I'm getting stuff I can work with and produce images that will interest me. i enjoy my processing time as much as my shooting, and there's only so many hours in the day!
Posted by Luke Ormand on August 17, 2010 at 9:27 PM
Ron,
Perhaps I was a but curt. Though, I did not state that culling images takes away from composition (it does cut big time into post processing though) I said that it took away from composition and originality in the field. You know I am a big admirer of your work and I am continually amazed at the images you produce (particularly of birds in flight) but I still don't know how one can take so many images in one day. BUT, that might be a reflection of not having the opportunity too... if I had raptors close to me of different varities like you have in Utah, I would perhaps be more apt to click more. All I know is that for my style and my goals, I have learned from Brad and others that it often pays to take a minute between shots to compose and figure out what you want and what will work then to just hold down the button and hope for the best.
Another thing I have noticed with taking a lot of shots (even of birds in flight) is that I miss what actually happened. Sure, I have photo documentation of it but it's not the same as SEEING it. When your mirror is flipping up and down 8 times/second you don't see the action - you blindly move the camera in the direction of your subject and review the pictures later. I like watching my subjects and have gotten some great photos as a result of watching them and applying what I just learned to my photography of them.
To each his own, I'm not slamming anyone for taking a lot of pictures, I just can't wrap my mind around it because I have never done it.
Posted by Ron Dudley on August 17, 2010 at 9:36 PM
" I'm not slamming anyone for taking a lot of pictures"
I know you're not Luke. And I agree -" to each his own". I just do what seems to work for me, in my situation.
Posted by Nate Chappell on August 18, 2010 at 5:00 PM
I take a lot of images when I'm doing avian photography but that's because I don't think about my subjects, the light or the setting Just kidding, of course. I'm often thinking of what subjects I'm going to shoot before I go out based on past experience at the site I'm going to. If it's a local shoot I'll check the lighting conditions and weather before I go to decide if I think it's going to be worth going out and then I'll judge them and shoot some practice exposures at the site. I'll set up in a place where I think I'll have some success and I like the setting and then when birds come within range, I fire away in bursts. While, I'm shooting if possible I try to get the best composition but with moving birds sometimes that's very difficult. I'm doing a lot of flight and action photography generally.
When I'm shooting small birds I also usually shoot in bursts. With small birds it's usually 3 to 4 shots at a time, while with flight or action the bursts can be anywhere from 3 to 15 or so. The reason I shoot bursts with small birds also is because birds will typically move their head's slightly toward and away from the camera, this happens very quickly and you can't plan for it, take just 1 image and get the best head angle. So by taking several images at a time I increase my chances of getting a good head angle. From my experience with students on our workshops, I find that more often than not beginner and intermediate bird photographers aren't taking enough images. They often don't have their cameras set to continuous shooting and when action is going on they often don't get on the birds fast enough, usually because they are spending too much time thinking about exposure, depth of field etc. Ideally you get to the point with a lot of practice where these adjustments are second nature and you are pre planning the exposure, depth of field, etc of your future shots based on what you see going on around you.
In a typical morning or afternoon of 3-4 hours of bird photography, 200-300 images is probably the most common number of shots that I'll take, although the range is probably from close to zero to about 1,000.
I don't spend too much time culling images or deciding which are my best images. I can quickly review a morning's shooting and see which few images are really standout. As far as photos that are not standouts but just good photos if I have for example 10 shots of a Black-bellied Plover in the same pose, I will check and pick 1 or 2 sharp images and add them to my files on the computer. I don't agonize over which of 10 very similar images is the best. I keep the best photos I select on my computer hard drive and back it up. However, after quickly deleting all the out of focus and poor shots I do keep all the other raw files which is probably about 50% of the shots that I take. These are backed up onto DVD's with date, location and important species in case I ever need to go back and go through a day's shooting for a specific project. This happens about once every 2 months. I think this practice lessons the time that needs to be spent on culling because I can always go back to the dvd's and go through a full day's shooting if necessary.
Posted by Richard Wong on August 19, 2010 at 2:13 PM
The most I've only shot in one day was about 700 - 800, which was for my cousin's wedding. I've also come close at the Rose Parade one year when it was raining so I had to shoot from the hip since I couldn't see through my viewfinder very well then another time at an immigration rally. Those were all events. For nature shooting, I shoot way less. Even in Alaska this month shooting grizzly bears, the most I took in one day was 450 images and that was with spending the majority of the day in the field. The amount of time when there is good enough action to warrant heavy burst shooting is relatively short so I don't think I could possibly do any more than 1,000 and still spend time considering what I am doing before hitting the shutter. I find what helps is to consider how much work it takes to edit and deal with that many files.
Posted by Don Grall on August 23, 2010 at 11:42 AM
When shooting a lot I have to remind myself of how much computer time I'm creating for myself. This makes me think more about quality than quantity. I have had days of reaching the 1000 mark, such as in Antarctica or the Falklands, but mostly I'm in the 100-200 range per day when there is ample subject matter. The camera body being used will also impact the number of shots, since 3fps won't burden one as much as 5fps or 10fps.
Discussion
24 repliesWhen I find a cooperative subject I'll work with it as long as it stays in range and the light is good. You never know in advance which shot will be the best of any session. It seems foolish to walk away from a good opportunity without working it completely. For a resting bird you might get small changes in posture that make a large difference in the final image. If I'm working at a low shutter speed (can't beat low contrast light at dawn), then taking a series of frames gives a higher probability that one will be acceptably sharp. With feeding shorebirds then I'll keep shooting as long as possible because there are so many variables outside of my control that will kill an image, and I need to take an abundance of shots to maximize my chances of having one frame where all the factors come together.
But sometimes it is the very brief encounters that don't last long enough to play the Numbers Game that produces the most interesting images. In these situations I just take one or two shots while I can without thinking about any camera settings, relying on my gear and experience.
The weather may have been rotten for people and camera gear, but it was great for photos. Based upon experience I had anticipated shooting about 700 frames per day in planning the trip and assuming the weather would be more cooperative. I think the message is that I should shag my hiney out into the bad weather a little more often!
My "estimate" of 700 frames a day is based on lots of trips to the Southwest for landscapes and more, plus wildlife trips up here. It just seems to be a good round number for me. When I translate that to film (roughly 20 rolls), it would have been an especially high day of shooting rather than average, so it definitely reflects some greater freedom in what and how much I'm willing to shoot.
In our commercial work, shooting volume varies greatly with subject and locale. My wife only averages around 40 frames on portrait shoots in the studio, but the conditions are carefully controlled and intimately familiar.
At the opposite extreme is an "event," whether an evolving industrial process or a true social happening. When my wife and I are shooting together we can top 2,000 a day, but I'm much more prolific that her, usually shooting 2/3 of that total, though our "keeper" totals are usually similar.
Bottom line, I tend to take lots of shots of fewer subjects, rather than roving free and shooting everything in sight. I'm very conscious of framing and possible marketing opportunities, so I'll shoot both verticals and horizontals of a subject, as well as placing the subject in all sorts of places around the frame in anticipation of more ways (and print layouts) that it can be used.
I've attached one example. This bear hung around, so I framed him close and far, hor and vert, then started moving him around the frame. I bet I can market this to someone who wants an ad layout with their message at the bottom of the frame. Hard to sell to that market if all my shots have the bear in traditional position in the bottom.
How many frames depends on the subject. How many frames does it take to get a good family group picture? The numer of frames needed to get one good picture increases with the number of people in the group.
Sometimes I shoot birds and sometimes landscapes/scenes. How many of each subject depends on how many I think it takes to esure that I got the good one. If the light changes, get another picture. If it's a good scene, get more than one, check your settings and get anther one. If you're pushing the technical limitations, take several. Now that I've started selling pictures for advertisements, I try to vary the composition - high, low, right, left, vertical, horizontal.
In the film days with a mechanical camera with a thumb-winder, three rolls of 36 of birds was a pretty good morning. Nowadays my camera will do ten frames per second. If I'm shooting birds in motion (I love a dancing reddish egret) it's pretty easy to get 5-15 shots in a burst, and hard not to get at least 2. For birds in flight or moving quickly, it's impossible to time one shot to catch the perfect pose or wing position. That's the beauty of a high frame rate - even then sometimes the perfect position happens between shots. On a good bird morning, I'll shoot at least 300-400 of multiple subjects and sometimes well over 1000. I usually eliminate about 80% to 90%, and of the ones I don't delete, I may only show 1 or 2, or none.
When shooting landscapes, I usually will get fewer than 100 frames in the period of an hour before sunrise to about two hours after sunrise, including test shots, bracketing, and filter changes. It depends on the changing light, clouds, and what I see. I may change my position and/or subject a dozen times. I will delete most of these. I'm thrilled if I get one picture I'd like to show off.
I'm currently averaging about 20,000 frames a year, shooting mostly on weekend mornings. In 25 years, I've accumulated fewer than 200 pictures I'll show with pride and the great majority of these have been in the last 5 years. Not a very efficient process, I guess, but I do enjoy it. I use SLRs and obviously a large format photographer will expose far fewer frames.
One thing I've learned is how to avoid bad pictures. I occasionally will hear somebody say, while shooting a bird in poor light or too far way, or half hidden in deep brush, "It's better than nothing." No it's not. It's no better than nothing.
Shoot as many as you need to to get the picture you want. If it's worth shooting, it's worth more than one. Don't wast your time on a picture that isn't going to be any good no matter how many frames you get of it. You eventually will fall into a way of shooting that suits you. Don't worry about how many frames you shoot. What's important is how many good pictures you make.
So, the answer to you question, I guess, is "It depends."
Sorry for rambling on so. I'm in the office with no work to do.
As for how many images I take before I "get one I like" - well that's a crap shoot with a lot of variables. Sometimes in a morning of shooting I won't get anything I'd post but I usually like some of them enough to keep just for me. Other times I may get dozens of shots of the same bird that I like very much but are very similar (which makes culling a nightmare). Then there's the sliding scale of just how MUCH I like them - a little or a lot. So, yup - it depends...
Nathan
As for keepers, it all depends. If I am shooting a new species or a species I seldom see (like saltmarsh sparrows this weekend) I will keep a large percentage of them because you don't know when you will get the chance again. However, if I am shooting something like a Great Blue Heron I will likely only keep a few as it's a species that is commonly seen and that I have plenty of images of.
At Yellowstone last year, in a week, I took 3000 shots, again, with a good bit of bif.
I won't move away from a cooperative subject until I have the shots I want, or until my back gives out - whichever comes first.
I'l also cull in the field, when time allows, to save all the editing later at home.
Don't be afraid to take lots and lots of shots. that is the joy of digital - the delete button is your best friend; no more expensive film in the trash can.
Shoot all different angles, lighting, dof, etc and experiment. that's how we all learn!
Sandy r
Last month I spent a couple of weeks in Iceland, which of all the exotic places I've been was by far the best. We'll probably never again go to Hawaii. I took an 8gb and 16gb card for my D300 and about 16gb for the D80. I only filled the one 16gb card, total of about 1,000 images for the entire trip. The way I take photos now is to carefully look over a scene and just think about it. I think about the feelings I have, study the light, and think very specifically what story I want to tell about the place. Only after lots of thought do I take a shot, and usually it's not very many. I've already taken dozens of shots in my mind--I don't need to actually see them on an LCD. Instead of messing with a camera and focussing my attention on it, I focus my attention on the light and the "essence" of my surroundings. I would have been almost as happy with just a 4x5 and 50 sheets of film in Iceland, I think. I did regret not bringing my old Brownie.
Kent in SD
But I'm shocked at the daily volume some people report, and it makes me wonder how much they actually think about their subjects, the setting, and the light. 1000 images in a 10 hour day means 100 frames an hour, or 1 frame every 36 seconds on average.
I've averaged about 36 frames per day over the four plus years I've had my D200. I might only get to shoot 1 or 2 days a week, but that's still a lot of stuff to edit.
This low volume across the board is primarily due to being picky about subjects and light, and also because I like to take my time.
--P
My preferred approach is similar in kind to Kent's, in that about half the time I've got an idea for an image in my head before I start shooting. My shots are then done in such a way to obtain that end. In these cases, if shooting with a tripod, I will probably shoot only a few frames with subtle changes in framing to try and get the best composition of the subject, which tend to be static. I might return home with only a couple of dozen frames. The frame count goes up according to the following:
Shooting freehand - I will take a few extra 'insurance' frames, then select the sharpest later.
Unfamiliar Territory/little time - such as my recent Peggy's Cove shoot (see 'Harbor House' in last weeks EP's) - 1 hour to cover this really interesting area. I get very selective, giving the area a quick visual scan, then hit the interesting bits with quickly but carefully thought out shots, typically 2-4 of a particular angle and move on to the next. I came away from Peggy's Cove with about a hundred frames, many of which are 'insurance' shots, as I was moving fast and shooting freehand, with maybe 20 actual subjects covered.
New Territory/plenty of time: Here I probably end up closer to Hank's style. With plenty of time to explore, I will try lots of subjects and angles. 200+ in a typical day is fairly average for me, with about a 10% keeper rate.
Birds are another matter. Get a big card, switch to burst mode, then sit on the shutter button!
Obviously everyone who is posting here has a love for wildlife/nature photography and we are all very talented but I simply don't get how you can take that many images and have time to delete them all.
I've only taken 500 in a day twice. The first time was when shooting seals @ montauk which was a first for me. I also had multiple subjects and did some bird and macro photography.
The second time was an entire day worth of shooting including birds in flight and a whale that had washed up on shore alive (which certainly warrants lots of clicks).
And that's the point.
Subjects vary in what they require for coverage or even allow, in terms of opportunity.
Markets beyond art prints also vary in their requirments, and whether or not photographers even intend to market their work.
Yes, I do think about my subjects, setting, light and composition. A lot. Especially when the bird is static. Less when the bird's in flight, by necessity.
And yes Luke, culling that many images is a real pain in the patoot but it certainly doesn't detract from my "time in composition and attempting to get something original".
Just as important for me is the time I spend with an image in post production. My skill levels continue to evolve and I am reworking images from ten years ago that I thought were as good as they were going to get and making them better. I actually spend more time in the digital darkroom than I ever did in the wet Darkroom.
The image in the camera is just the beginning for me.
Happy Imagining!
Neil
Cheers...
Brad
PS: I think one of the things that keeps me from shooting huge numbers of images is that I spend a lot of time in post-processing (per image), so I don't bother to hold my finger on the shutter unless I know I'm getting stuff I can work with and produce images that will interest me. i enjoy my processing time as much as my shooting, and there's only so many hours in the day!
Perhaps I was a but curt. Though, I did not state that culling images takes away from composition (it does cut big time into post processing though) I said that it took away from composition and originality in the field. You know I am a big admirer of your work and I am continually amazed at the images you produce (particularly of birds in flight) but I still don't know how one can take so many images in one day. BUT, that might be a reflection of not having the opportunity too... if I had raptors close to me of different varities like you have in Utah, I would perhaps be more apt to click more. All I know is that for my style and my goals, I have learned from Brad and others that it often pays to take a minute between shots to compose and figure out what you want and what will work then to just hold down the button and hope for the best.
Another thing I have noticed with taking a lot of shots (even of birds in flight) is that I miss what actually happened. Sure, I have photo documentation of it but it's not the same as SEEING it. When your mirror is flipping up and down 8 times/second you don't see the action - you blindly move the camera in the direction of your subject and review the pictures later. I like watching my subjects and have gotten some great photos as a result of watching them and applying what I just learned to my photography of them.
To each his own, I'm not slamming anyone for taking a lot of pictures, I just can't wrap my mind around it because I have never done it.
I know you're not Luke. And I agree -" to each his own". I just do what seems to work for me, in my situation.
When I'm shooting small birds I also usually shoot in bursts. With small birds it's usually 3 to 4 shots at a time, while with flight or action the bursts can be anywhere from 3 to 15 or so. The reason I shoot bursts with small birds also is because birds will typically move their head's slightly toward and away from the camera, this happens very quickly and you can't plan for it, take just 1 image and get the best head angle. So by taking several images at a time I increase my chances of getting a good head angle. From my experience with students on our workshops, I find that more often than not beginner and intermediate bird photographers aren't taking enough images. They often don't have their cameras set to continuous shooting and when action is going on they often don't get on the birds fast enough, usually because they are spending too much time thinking about exposure, depth of field etc. Ideally you get to the point with a lot of practice where these adjustments are second nature and you are pre planning the exposure, depth of field, etc of your future shots based on what you see going on around you.
In a typical morning or afternoon of 3-4 hours of bird photography, 200-300 images is probably the most common number of shots that I'll take, although the range is probably from close to zero to about 1,000.
I don't spend too much time culling images or deciding which are my best images. I can quickly review a morning's shooting and see which few images are really standout. As far as photos that are not standouts but just good photos if I have for example 10 shots of a Black-bellied Plover in the same pose, I will check and pick 1 or 2 sharp images and add them to my files on the computer. I don't agonize over which of 10 very similar images is the best. I keep the best photos I select on my computer hard drive and back it up. However, after quickly deleting all the out of focus and poor shots I do keep all the other raw files which is probably about 50% of the shots that I take. These are backed up onto DVD's with date, location and important species in case I ever need to go back and go through a day's shooting for a specific project. This happens about once every 2 months. I think this practice lessons the time that needs to be spent on culling because I can always go back to the dvd's and go through a full day's shooting if necessary.