[J.Scott]

You visit Cuba and you only shot 365 images? Huh?
Wouldn't you have been better off shooting lots more while progressively and scrupulously deleting those images that cannot make the grade. Either load up on the memory cards, shoot jpeg to get more shots per card or download to a portable hard disk or laptop. Why skimp when shooting digital especially since you took the trouble to carry all your gear all the way to Cuba?

Cuba may be exotic to some but honestly it was our cheapest vacation option. Flying (almost) directly from our local airport we can be in Veradaro in 3.5 hours.

I purchased an 8 GB SD card prior to leaving and also had a 4 GB, two 2 GB's and a 1 GB (wife's P&S). One of our group had a laptop and I had a card reader and, if I needed to, could have dumped images onto her HD. That wasn't the issue at all. I never even filled the 8 GB shooting all RAW. My point is, at no time was I cautiously holding back on my clicking for fear of filling up all my memory cards, which you seem to be alluding to. Also, I don't feel I was 'skimping' in any way. I was with a group and was not the only one with a camera; lots of others took lots of images too.

My point to this post is that I feel I took lots of pictures - maybe too many. I come from the film era and must confess I have feelings that rapid-fire shooting like a snap-happy tourist is amateurish and below my skill level. I would trust that out of 365 shutter clicks I would have a better success rate, but I didn't. If I had taken 1000 images I would probably be throwing out 900 of them.

I feel that using a DSLR has made me more careless and less attentive when it comes to photography, as compared to using film. I know I have a pocket full of memory cards so I take too many pictures and waste time reviewing and processing later. There you have it!

[J.Scott]

edit: You shot 365 images? How long were you there - I shot more than 400 images in 6 hours a few months ago down at Pike Place Market. Did your shutter finger cramp up? That is only a few SD cards, I am carrying 3 4GB cards, 1 8GB card and 1 16GB card these days.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

Perhaps if I click more I will be better, but that is yet to be proven. I bought my K10D in September '07 and have taken fewer than 2500 images. I like photography and don't feel that those with a higher shutter count are better or more deserving than me. My daughter used my *ist DS and took 250 .jpg's on the same trip. My wife also took over 200 on her Canon P&S and my son took over 400 images with his P&S. There were 10 others in our group with cameras too. We were all in the same place at the same time for a week. Duplication of scenes seemed unavoidable and inevitable. Should I really have taken 2000 images? Would that make it all better? Would I be a better photographer? Is our skill level measured by shutter clicks?

My shutter finger never cramped but my right elbow was sore from lifting a glass to my lips for a week.

[mithrandir]

What is important is can you improve? What was wrong with the shots that you deem not to be keepers? Can you learn something to reduce the ratio of keepers to lesser shots? Experts are those who learn from mistakes, not those who make no mistakes.

[creampuff]

All I know is whether using film or digital, the secret to getting better photographically is to simply shoot more. One needs to shoot more to understand our gear and improve our technique, no two ways about it.

I honestly don't subscribe to the notion that you'll get more keepers shooting film over digital. The keeper ratio has more or less be constant, when I was shooting film I would consider it fortunate to get half a dozen keepers because I scrupulously write-off those less than acceptable shots. Shooting more and critically examining our shots hastens our growth as a photographer and it brings a positive benefit in being able to increase our rate of keepers.

With digital, it is far easier to jump start the photographic learning curve simply because it would have been simply prohibitive in price and time to shoot enough with film to fully understand the ins and outs of of the camera and lens, what more the photographic possibilities and subjects available. The instant feedback digital offers is a boon and definitely helps shortcut the learning process. It should free us from the mental limitation of shooting less that film induces.

[Wheatfield]

Perhaps if I click more I will be better, but that is yet to be proven. I bought my K10D in September '07 and have taken fewer than 2500 images. I like photography and don't feel that those with a higher shutter count are better or more deserving than me. My daughter used my *ist DS and took 250 .jpg's on the same trip. My wife also took over 200 on her Canon P&S and my son took over 400 images with his P&S. There were 10 others in our group with cameras too. We were all in the same place at the same time for a week. Duplication of scenes seemed unavoidable and inevitable. Should I really have taken 2000 images? Would that make it all better? Would I be a better photographer? Is our skill level measured by shutter clicks?

My shutter finger never cramped but my right elbow was sore from lifting a glass to my lips for a week.

Taking more pictures won't make you a better photographer, taking better pictures will make you a better photographer.
I don't subscribe to the theory that taking lots of pictures will automatically make a person a better photographer. Composition takes time. Rapid shooting tends to be less than conducive to thoughtful composition, so often all you end up with is more bad pictures.

[ryan s]

Am I the only one...?

I use the digital preview on the K10...lots. I probably sound silly but I don't like have a memory card full of the same picture. I've taken less than 5000 pics in the last year, but I bet the camera's shutter count is around 8000. Maybe I'm weird? Normal is relative soooo...

And also, personally, I get more keepers from film since I'm more careful...and to be honest sometimes I'll use the K10 to see what the shot will look like.

(I don't mean this post to sound condescending...too much rambling I think )

[J.Scott]

Taking more pictures won't make you a better photographer, taking better pictures will make you a better photographer.
I don't subscribe to the theory that taking lots of pictures will automatically make a person a better photographer. Composition takes time. Rapid shooting tends to be less than conducive to thoughtful composition, so often all you end up with is more bad pictures.

I'll buy that!

I would say that the majority of rejects were due to errors in composition or subject matter followed closely by lighting problems.

Sadly, I am almost wholly self-taught and I am convinced my teacher is not too smart.

[séamuis]

Sadly, I am almost wholly self-taught and I am convinced my teacher is not too smart.

that is one hell of a quote.

[ll_coffee_lP]

Whether you take your time with film and land more keepers, or shoot a little loose with digital because you are experimenting (less overhead)....does it really matter?

You are learning in both situations, just doing it in a different manner. There is no right, there is no wrong. Quit beating yourselves up and enjoy your camera and the images you produce.

c[_]

P.S. I would never judge you by how you shoot, what you shoot, or what you shoot with. I'm just pleased that you have the same interest as I and hope that we can learn from each other.

[PDL]

Perhaps if I click more I will be better, but that is yet to be proven. --snip -- I like photography and don't feel that those with a higher shutter count are better or more deserving than me.

Photography is a learned skill - you learn by doing. Take what you need. You ask if 10% keepers are "enough", are you expecting that every image you take is supposed to be NG cover quality? No one is that good - to where they go on a trip and take the "5" essential images that describe the entire adventure. I see your comment as a not so subtle slam at some people here (including me) that we just "take too many pictures because we only use 1 or 2 out of a <fill in the blank>".

My daughter used my *ist DS and took 250 .jpg's on the same trip. My wife also took over 200 on her Canon P&S and my son took over 400 images with his P&S.

You seem to have a fetish with the number of images taken - lighten up - this is not a numbers contest. It is all about the image - not the count of image(s).

There were 10 others in our group with cameras too. We were all in the same place at the same time for a week. Duplication of scenes seemed unavoidable and inevitable.

Ah - the crux of the issue. Why do you think that everyone in the group was duplicating images? Part of the photographic process is to put your own twist on the view. Change your position, change the composition, wait a minute for the light to change, MOVE, crouch, stand on a table, put the camera on the ground-wall-your shoe, turn around and shoot what is behind you. Do something different - experiment, if it is a "common/duplicated" image you can always ask someone else for the "standard" image. It's called creativity and it occurs behind your eyes - not in the camera and it is unrelated to image count but it is related to experience - which is related to image count.

Should I really have taken 2000 images? Would that make it all better? Would I be a better photographer? Is our skill level measured by shutter clicks?

I think you have answered your own question. It's all about the image - if you got the image(s) that you wanted/were capable of getting - then 2,000 would be a waste.

My shutter finger never cramped but my right elbow was sore from lifting a glass to my lips for a week.

There is a place and time for taking images, there are other places and times to "be on vacation". If you spent most of your time bending the elbow rather than taking images, then you probably have more images than you "need". The emoticon says it best - your inner child's attitude needs some adjustment or some maturity. You stick your tongue out at some answering your question? How 12 of you.

In another post, you state that your instructor does not know all that much. If you go into a class with that kind of attitude - why go at all?

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

[J.Scott]

Photography is a learned skill - you learn by doing. Take what you need. You ask if 10% keepers are "enough", are you expecting that every image you take is supposed to be NG cover quality? No one is that good - to where they go on a trip and take the "5" essential images that describe the entire adventure. I see your comment as a not so subtle slam at some people here (including me) that we just "take too many pictures because we only use 1 or 2 out of a <fill in the blank>".

I never said I'd take 5 images! Where did you get that number?

You seem to have a fetish with the number of images taken - lighten up - this is not a numbers contest. It is all about the image - not the count of image(s).

No need to "lighten up", I'm as cool as a cucumber - you seem to be the one that is agitated.
This was just a friendly discussion.
You played the numbers game. I was left to kind of defend my puny 365 shots for a weeks vacation.
For example...

-I shot nearly 800 digital images and 216 slides in 5 days
-"required" to shoot at least 72 frames - per day and we had to supply at least 6 rolls of E6 film...
-2 36 frame rolls, you had 1 "keeper" out of 72 per day, which comes down to 5 out of 274 slides. Now if you were me - I shot 6 rolls of film and the rest digital - with about 796 unique digital images...
-I went to NZ for a month in 2006 and between my son and me we shot well over 2,000 images.
-edit: You shot 365 images? How long were you there - I shot more than 400 images in 6 hours a few months ago down at Pike Place Market.
-Did your shutter finger cramp up? That is only a few SD cards, I am carrying 3 4GB cards, 1 8GB card and 1 16GB card these days.

I was simply talking about percentages of keepers and others went off on a tangent saying that I should have possibly taken more images.


Ah - the crux of the issue. Why do you think that everyone in the group was duplicating images? Part of the photographic process is to put your own twist on the view. Change your position, change the composition, wait a minute for the light to change, MOVE, crouch, stand on a table, put the camera on the ground-wall-your shoe, turn around and shoot what is behind you. Do something different - experiment, if it is a "common/duplicated" image you can always ask someone else for the "standard" image. It's called creativity and it occurs behind your eyes - not in the camera and it is unrelated to image count but it is related to experience - which is related to image count.

Sorry, you missed the point. The 'crux' of the issue is comparing my percentage of keepers with digital photography as compared to film.


I think you have answered your own question. It's all about the image - if you got the image(s) that you wanted/were capable of getting - then 2,000 would be a waste.

Exactly, couldn't agree with you more.


There is a place and time for taking images, there are other places and times to "be on vacation". If you spent most of your time bending the elbow rather than taking images, then you probably have more images than you "need". The emoticon says it best - your inner child's attitude needs some adjustment or some maturity. You stick your tongue out at some answering your question? How 12 of you.

The elbow-bending comment was a wee attempt at humour. Sorry it didn't tickle your funny bone. The emoticon was meant to identify the comment as humourous. My deepest apologies if this act offended you.
"My inner child ..." is happy as a lark. How's yours?
That makes me 12??
Now I'm the confused one.

In another post, you state that your instructor does not know all that much. If you go into a class with that kind of attitude - why go at all?

Please read that whole statement. I am saying that I am self taught so I have no one to blame for my mistakes but myself. It was sort of a tongue-in-cheek comment on my skill level; more humour, if you will. Sorry you didn't get that one either. Of course I am always willing and anxious to learn from others.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

Have a lovely day Mr. Elitist.

[khardur]

I think as long as you're happy with what you brought home - then what's the harm in taking 365 pics vs. 3000 pics?

I certainly have many more "bad" shots since I've gone digital. Most are experiments gone awry, things I thought might look cool but didn't. Stuff I wouldn't try with film, or wouldn't bracket as much with film, because of the expense involved. (people sometimes get technical with the "time is money, if you waste xx amount of minutes going through those extra photos it's costing you nearly as much as film" or some BS -
I don't subscribe to that - But I know when something doesn't work either. I know for sure if I'm going on a hike, just trying to find something to shoot, it may take me half an hour to get into things enough and really get into the mindset to create something or get a direction.
But if know what the subject is that I'm exploring, and what I (or a client) wants to end up with as a result, I get a much higher percentage of good shots, sometimes within the first few clicks. It all depends on what I've pre-visualized as being the end result in that instance.

As far as numbers are concerned... Granted I was working 3rd shift at the time and didn't have time to really concentrate on photography, but between 2001 and 2006 I probably took 100 rolls of film, max. I wasn't as into photography then, for time and money reasons. If shot both days on the weekend, it would be lucky if I filled 2-36exp rolls.
Compare to now, on a similar outing in a 3 hour period I easily can come home with 70 images. Having the ability to spot and correct composition errors (that stray branch at the edge of the frame that you may not have seen until the film was developed) - or fix exposure errors on the fly I know I come up with a higher number of keepers in the end - not necessarily in percentage but in the physical number of good shots in a single outing.

[J.Scott]

Thanks Dan; I am very happy with the few good shots I took out of the whole lot.

Apparently 365 isn't very many in the world of DSLR photography.

I will continue to take many images and hopefully learn from my mistakes to improve my keeper to non-keeper ratio.

Thanks for everyone's opinion.

[Mike Cash]

There are times I will go some place, ostensibly for the purpose of taking photos, and come away not having taken a single shot....and yet still count it as having been worthwhile.

I'm more observant of what's going on due to consciously and actively looking for photogenic scenes and situations. So long as I spot them and enjoy them at the time, it is no horrible loss if I don't always get a picture of it. I only need a picture if I want to come back and show it to somebody else. If I wanted to fully capture everything I see on an outing I would duct tape a video camera to the side of my head.

I use taking pictures as an excuse to go out and explore places and experience things. And I use exploring and experiencing as an excuse to take pictures. Sometimes the balance is heavily toward shooting, and sometimes it is heavily toward just enjoying where I'm at. Sometimes it shifts during the course of the day, with heavy shooting at one place and practically none at another.

I do find that with digital I can tend to get more absorbed in the picture taking and forget to enjoy the moment. And sometimes I choose film over digital specifically to avoid that. Sometimes I choose film because I enjoy doing shots more slowly and carefully. Not having the option of boosting ISO, the advantage of SR, together with knowing each shot costs money means more shots with the tripod, more double-checking of composition, focus, metering, etc before each shot. In some situations that would be a pain in the butt, but in others I just hum a little tune and enjoy the molasses-in-january pace and the peacefulness it brings. On those days, it really wouldn't bother me too badly if there weren't even any film in the camera.

As far as "keepers" go, I'm really quite satisfied if from a whole day's shooting I get one really nice photo. I don't refer to my own photos as "good", "great", "fantastic" or any such term. I refer to them as "pictures I don't mind showing somebody". I've never gotten anywhere near 10% of those.

And even if all 365 photos you took had been keepers, in reality you should cull it down to about 30~40 for showing to others anyway. People (even relatives) start to get resentful if forced to sit through hundreds of photos, no matter how excellent they are. But almost anyone can maintain interest through a handful that can be quickly scanned in a minute or two. Self-editing is perhaps one of the most difficult skills the amateur photographer has to acquire.

[calicojack]

OK. So you picked out 36 from the 365 (or so) that you took to call "keepers". My question to you is, 5 or 10 years from now when you look at your keepers, will it represent the whole experience of the trip? If yes, then that ratio is perfect.
In the days before small format (incl. 35mm) cameras, it used to take lots of time to set up a tripod in just the right spot, mount the camera, adjust the camera to reresent the scene properly on the ground glass, load the film, calculate the exposure and take the shot. Then came the idea of quick photography for news, sports, street, candid (etc.) photography. This started with large format and worked it's way faster and more convienient by getting smaller and automated down to the last generation of 35mm cameras. The keeper ratio went from about 50% (some think 100%, but I think not) down to about 10% (on average). Read through some older great photographers comments. My favorite, Ansel Adams generally took about 5 sheets of film to be able to get the "perfect" negative to work from., Yes, the greats can get lucky and get it right in 1 shot sometimes (i.e. Ansel Adams, Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, 1 shot before the light changed and the crosses went dark). On the other hand, he studied half dome for months (possibly years) before taking those sheets of film that yielded 1 "perfect" negative. Think of a 35mm (or digital) news photographer. It may be days between "great" shots. It's always rapid fire for a time and they get 1 shot out of it that might get published. How about the pro fashion photographer. How many shots do they take, on average, to get the 1 or maybe 2 that are used by their client.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a keeper ratio of 10% if it tells the story.

On the other hand, I keep almost all of mine because digital storage is so cheap and takes almost no space.