[krypticide]

Absolutely. My concern is taking so many more than you need that you've gotten in the way.
Now, if there is nothing to get in the way of, then shoot lots.
I often work with non professional models and shoot portraits of people and families.
This may seem like a good thing to shoot until their eyes water, but again, people have limited patience, and they get tired of posing.
Children especially, they get bored, they get listless and when you lose them, there is generally no getting them back.
It's another case of just because we can do it doesn't mean we should do it. If your thing is to explore the photographic possibilities of fire hydrants (been there) then shoot till your eyes fall out if it rocks your particular cradle, but if there is a live subject involved, respect that they may have a life and get good shots quickly, don't take a boatload of pictures and pray.
This is what separates the pros from the wannabes.

Well, if I remember correctly, David Ziser is a pretty well known wedding photographer and he takes something like 4000 images per wedding...and I haven't heard anything but good things about him.

As to the OP's point, does it matter how many shots it takes to get the shot you want? What's the point of taking pictures if you never get the shot you want? At the same time, if you don't learn techniques properly, you'll never get the shot anyway. So it's all just a combination of knowing your technique, thus needing to take fewer pictures and spend less effort and time getting the keepers. What combination of quality vs opportunistic quantity is just up to your personal frustration and effort levels.

[Wheatfield]

Well, if I remember correctly, David Ziser is a pretty well known wedding photographer and he takes something like 4000 images per wedding...and I haven't heard anything but good things about him.

A trained monkey could shoot a great wedding with that many exposures. A great photographer will do the same job in 10% of that number. Dave has done a masterful job of selling himself as one of God's gifts, and I congratulate him for that. Successfully selling oneself as a master is a sure way to make a good living, no matter what line of work you are in.

Here is an anecdote for you:
We have a studio where I am that is renowned as being the place to go for family portraits. The proprietor is a nice chap and quite a talented photographer, but his real skill is public relations, and he has, over the years, built a cult of personality around his business.
A number of years ago I was having wobbly pops with one of his retouchers. She was complaining that because of personal vanity, said photographer wasn't buying himself a pair of much needed glasses, and she was actually having to draw sharp details (this was pre digital) into the final pictures because he couldn't focus a camera without glasses, but refused to admit that perhaps his eyesight, which had always been perfect, was failing him.
In no way did this alter the perception that the public had towards his studio because it was a mark that you had arrived to have one of his portraits on your wall.

As to the OP's point, does it matter how many shots it takes to get the shot you want? What's the point of taking pictures if you never get the shot you want? At the same time, if you don't learn techniques properly, you'll never get the shot anyway. So it's all just a combination of knowing your technique, thus needing to take fewer pictures and spend less effort and time getting the keepers. What combination of quality vs opportunistic quantity is just up to your personal frustration and effort levels.

The nice thing about digital is that the learning curve is very cheap when it comes to taking pictures, and I certainly recommend to anyone that taking pictures is a great way to learn how to use your equipment, but it's debatable as to whether taking lots of pictures is a good way to learn photography.
Wading through a veritable sewer of your own images to try to find one choice gobbet that doesn't smell too bad is much more discouraging and painfully more inefficient than taking fewer pictures but ensuring you have some keepers.
With modern cameras, anyone can take a technically acceptable picture with no knowledge at all of technique, and one doesn't need a camera to learn how to compose a picture.
So, does it matter how many pictures one takes to get the shot you want?
If the subject is static and cooperative (a nice rock for example), then a person should be able to get a great picture in one shot.
If the subject is a running back on a football field, then it becomes an experience thing, and practice is required, but I still wouldn't recommend shooting several hundred pictures in a row. It's counter productive.
I'd look at learning something about the game of football instead, which might give me some insight into why things happen the way they do on the gridiron, and help me to predict what is going to happen on the field.
This increases the odds tremendously over pushing the button and hoping.

I think it best to find a compromise where you are limiting the number of shots you take, but spend more time on composing those shots. Spend more time studying the ebb and flow of the game, and take a few great pictures at the decisive moment rather than take a thousand mediocre pictures on the chance that you might hit the target once.

[MRRiley]

In my mind, for some reason, I'm always a bit frustrated when I have to take multiple pictures to get a picture right. Sometimes I take a load of pictures (like 100 or so) before I finally get one that I find is a total gem.

What I'm wondering is this... do good (pro?) photographers take many many pictures to get the right one? Or is that the sign of an amateur photographer?

It depends on the part of profession that the pro shoots...

Sports Photography... hundreds if not thousands of shots and maybe a handful or 2 of "publish worthy" shots. The better the photographer is the more "keepers" he'll get, but there will still only be those few published for each event.

Fashion Photography... the same as sports in general although some high-end fashion photographers can get the shoot in the can in a couple of dozen shots... The "set" is much more controlled too so you can do whatever your "style" demands.

Wedding Photography... usually several hundred shots (for an average wedding anyway) and a large percentage of "keepers." Each moment is important and offers little opportunity for multiple shots. Couples want to look through a couple of hundred shots and have a hard time picking out the 50 or so to put in their album. This is one of the toughest fields of professional photography (even when you are not dealiing with Bride-zillas).

Portrait Photography... Limited number of shots, usually in the tens, seldom in the hundreds... Ample opportunity to take a lot of shots, but customers only expect a handful to chose from so you might as well be careful and frugal with the shutter snaps.

Photojournalist... Depends on the subject. Breaking news... Blast away! Shots to support feature stories... Be as focused as possible and take shots that support the theme of the story.

These are naturally just examples. In general I find myself becoming more frugal with the shutter, because I just don't want to sort thru 1500 photos of a single event. For instance, I only shot 250 photos at the Inauguration this past Tuesday.

Mike

[tranq78]

With modern cameras, anyone can take a technically acceptable picture with no knowledge at all of technique, and one doesn't need a camera to learn how to compose a picture.

I've told this story before, but every once in a while it's a nightmare worth resurrecting.

I was at a wedding once where the bride & groom didn't have an official photographer. One of the bride's friends had a F100 and 28-300mm zoom, with no flash, no tripod/monopod. She appointed herself the official photographer and went out of her way to sabatoge anyone else's efforts to take a picture if they had a SLR. She then made every mistake imaginable. The bride told me afterwards that not a single picture turned out. Each and every picture was blurry, horribly exposed, badly composed.

Telling a middle aged bride to arrange herself into a top-shelf pose in garish, harsh midday sunlight is beyond belief. As least that particular picture wasn't out of focus. *shudder*

With friends like this you don't need enemies.

[Wheatfield]

I've told this story before, but every once in a while it's a nightmare worth resurrecting.

I was at a wedding once where the bride & groom didn't have an official photographer. One of the bride's friends had a F100 and 28-300mm zoom, with no flash, no tripod/monopod. She appointed herself the official photographer and went out of her way to sabatoge anyone else's efforts to take a picture if they had a SLR. She then made every mistake imaginable. The bride told me afterwards that not a single picture turned out. Each and every picture was blurry, horribly exposed, badly composed.

Telling a middle aged bride to arrange herself into a top-shelf pose in garish, harsh midday sunlight is beyond belief. As least that particular picture wasn't out of focus. *shudder*

With friends like this you don't need enemies.

That's funny. It does prove the adage that the world will always build a better fool to frustrate those who would make things foolproof.

[lamgray]

In a word....yes.

As an example, those sports photographers parked court-side fire off machine gun blasts of photos for each opportunity in the hopes of getting just one with everything right. This is true of many photographers. While it's true that an experienced photographer may not fire quite as many as an ametuer, they still take many more than a single photo. The difference is they are more experienced on where to be at the right moment and how to use their equipment without thinking much about it. But the more photos you get, the better chance you will take one that is perfect. And as rormeister says, it's digital, so fire for effect.

When I do a sunset, as an example, I'm firing almost constantly...making adjustments here and there to the exposure, bracketing, changing composition slightly, filter adjustments, etc.. You just never know what colors will appear. I always think that "this or that" picture is the perfect one. Then when I get back to the office and look them over, the best one is always one that I thought was a failure in the field.

You can always delete pictures later...you usually can't recapture the moment. Once it's gone, it's gone...and you are left wishing you could get it back. It's kind of like the three things a pilot can never get back when something bad happens....1) the altitude above you, 2) the runway behind you, and 3) the fuel you left back at base.

Make a plan and shoot away! Digital electrons are virtually free!

I would take exception to this. . .I do concert photography. . I get 30 seconds to three songs to get my shots for freelance work that I do. . .While there are many in the take as many photos in the limited time to get the action (which you can render lucky). . I have most success, setting myself up correctly, anticipating a moment and grabbing it, in focus with the right lighting. . .I've gotten much better at it, and am down to about 30 shots (50 max) per show. . .

Though, take as many photos as you can, fiddle with the settings, learn what works and doesn't. . you'll find a few years in. . you start to become your own lightmeter and know what settings to apply prior to the shot. . .its strange. But, to speed the learning curve, I suggest taking notes for each shot, just like they used to in film. This is what sped up the process for me (well, and not to mention my old film camera light meter broke on me after a year into taking photography classes, so it forced me to learn).

[elkarrde]

A trained monkey could shoot a great wedding with that many exposures. A great photographer will do the same job in 10% of that number.
The nice thing about digital is that the learning curve is very cheap when it comes to taking pictures, and I certainly recommend to anyone that taking pictures is a great way to learn how to use your equipment, but it's debatable as to whether taking lots of pictures is a good way to learn photography.
Wading through a veritable sewer of your own images to try to find one choice gobbet that doesn't smell too bad is much more discouraging and painfully more inefficient than taking fewer pictures but ensuring you have some keepers.
With modern cameras, anyone can take a technically acceptable picture with no knowledge at all of technique, and one doesn't need a camera to learn how to compose a picture.
So, does it matter how many pictures one takes to get the shot you want?
If the subject is static and cooperative (a nice rock for example), then a person should be able to get a great picture in one shot.
If the subject is a running back on a football field, then it becomes an experience thing, and practice is required, but I still wouldn't recommend shooting several hundred pictures in a row. It's counter productive.
I'd look at learning something about the game of football instead, which might give me some insight into why things happen the way they do on the gridiron, and help me to predict what is going to happen on the field.
This increases the odds tremendously over pushing the button and hoping.

i couldn't agree more.

this is one of the best bunch of thoughts about this topic i've seen in quite a while!

[wildman]

What I'm wondering is this... do good (pro?) photographers take many many pictures to get the right one? Or is that the sign of an amateur photographer?

This logic escapes me:

"do good (pro?) photographers"...
...IE "good photographers" = someone who is paid for a commodity (images)

and

The implication that the techniques and practices of a "pro", as defined above, are necessarily superior to someone who is not paid for their images.

[navcom]

This logic escapes me:

"do good (pro?) photographers"...
...IE "good photographers" = someone who is paid for a commodity (images)

and

The implication that the techniques and practices of a "pro", as defined above, are necessarily superior to someone who is not paid for their images.

Ahh, the "what makes a pro" argument again.

Of course some of the "pro's" are terrible and some ametuers will blow you away...there is no black and white line between pro and ametuer.

The reality? There is no sure-fire way to define a professional universally. To one it's merely the fact that one gets paid. To another, it requires years of study and experience. To even others, it's achieving industry recognition of some sort or another. And then there is the argument between a "professional" and "professionalism".

In this case, I think we are talking about the profession of photographer...in other words, those who has embraced photography as their calling in life (paid or not) and their photography stands out (which of course is all relative)....do they take tons of pictures to get just a few good ones.

That's how I take it anyhow.

[tranq78]

Ahh, the "what makes a pro" argument again.

Of course some of the "pro's" are terrible and some ametuers will blow you away...there is no black and white line between pro and ametuer.

In this case, I think we are talking about the profession of photographer.

The local "pro" who annually takes photos of my kids' sports teams is, um, not the best. I use the term "pro" in quotes because I'm being polite.

I've seen him snap & snarl, kick things across the room, make little kids cry. He has been specifically hired to photograph young children but he has no patience for them, nor anyone else for that matter.

His pictures are hideous. Skin tones blasted to Hell by flash (he only uses hotshoe mounted flash when/if he does use a flash); bad compositions (tilted photos, bad poses); horrible distortion of people/kids at the edges in group pics; he never bothers using a tripod and handholds everything. I've seen him check every picture he takes on his LCD (he doesn't bother tethering to a laptop) so he knows exactly the type of image he has taken each time.

What I've learned is this: People who have ugly natures take ugly photos. Period.

Back to our regularly scheduled discussion of machine gun versus the sniper.

[navcom]

What I've learned is this: People who have ugly natures take ugly photos.

I think that pretty much says it all.

[rfortson]

Sure, take all you need to get the one you want. I've read that the difference between a "good" photographer and a "bad" photographer is that the good photographer doesn't show off his bad shots.

While it's meant somewhat in jest, there's also some truth there. If you never saw my bad shots (and I have lots of them), you'd think I was a good photographer.

Also, it comes down to the skill you want to develop. In theory at least, your hit/miss ratio should improve as you learn more about handling your camera and about composition in general. That takes lots of practice (which probably means lots of bad shots).

[kenyee]

Also, it comes down to the skill you want to develop. In theory at least, your hit/miss ratio should improve as you learn more about handling your camera and about composition in general. That takes lots of practice (which probably means lots of bad shots).

That's the best description yet.
I'd wager people take extra pics if the situation includes:
- new subject matter they've never tried
- new gear
- lighting conditions are challenging
- the set is challenging
- subject is challenging
- they're just fussy about getting "the" shot
The hit/miss ratio is improved w/ experience (and w/ better gear) which is what a "pro" should have, but it doesn't mean they're not just fussier than we are (Chase Jarvis, Art Wolfe, etc. take thousands of pictures just to get a few dozen for a shoot because they wants the ones that "pop").

[creampuff]

We have some actual pros who have posted samples of their work here. Obviously it can vary with different kinds of photography but it would be interesting to hear how many shots they typically take during a session.

I know two photographers who were awarded an Associateship with the Master Photographers Association and for their wedding shoots, they definitely shoot a lot more than what has been advocated by some here.

I know the high standards of their work and why their services are in demand in spite of the premium rates they command. They only get one opportunity to get it right and they certainly don't hold back when it comes to shooting.

[alderfall]

If you are shooting that much at a wedding you have probably crossed the line from photographer to pest. When I shot weddings on film, I would shot 300-400 images. On digital, I still shoot 300-400 images. The last one I shot was ~250, but I didn't shoot the reception.

True. I hate doing weddings, but when I do, I have to balance volume and quality. I know that many couples and their families are all too happy to pose for a short period of time, but it is those candid shots that fill the void between excellent and dismal. I rarely shoot more than 600-800 shots in a 4 hour span of time including wedding and reception. Yes, I could do thousands of okay, so-so shots or I can wait for the moments to happen, then squeeze the trigger. So far, I have done well but there is always room for improvement.