Sat, November 4th, 2006 by Chantal
Every photographer has his own method of capturing the perfect shot. He may wait the moment out, until all the variables of light, shadow, and composition are in place before he releases the shutter. Or he may shoot a scene continuously, from various angles, capturing 20, 30, 50 images of a specific subject to catch the 'right' one. Or maybe there's a happy medium, the thoughtful shooter who will shoot many frames of a specific subject, but only when he feels the moment is right.
There is no one right way to approach a subject. Our methods and styles as photographers are as diverse as we are. But there is a topic that inspires a bit of thought. In his article, Quantity vs. Quality, photographer Paul Butzi discusses his goal for one year to shoot, print and mount one photograph, every week, for a year.
He quickly discovered how overwhelming a task this can be, but what he learned was that by shooting consistently, large numbers of images for a given project, that his photography drastically improved over time.
This brings up an intersting topic for discussion. Does quanity equal quality? Or does quantity inspire quality? By shooting all the time, of course one will improve as a photographer...practice makes perfect afterall. But isn't true improvement measured by the ratio of 'good' images vs. how many images taken?
What do you think?
November 4th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Work and talent seem to be the solution. But you must take photos. Lot of photos. The only way to learn, progress and achieve.
I was astonished to learn that national geography photographers shot between 300 to 400 (average)rolls of films (36 exposures) for an assignment:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/qanda/index.html#e
Happy shooting!
November 4th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
>>But isn't true improvement measured by the ratio of 'good' images vs. how many images taken?
I don't know why you would call that 'true' improvement. Does that make any other improvement 'false' ? It seems to make photography into a contest of some kind.
But I do think that imposing a discipline or limitation of some kind can force one to become more creative, or creative in different ways. A discipline might be making one photograph every day, for example. A limitation might be to shoot without composing in the camera (e.g. don't look through the finder). I also think the discipline of requiring yourself to make prints is very important.
Many writers seem to benefit from the discipline of a fixed work schedule, where they sit at the computer for the same time every day. Regardless of whether any ideas are coming, they sit there and at least create space for the ideas.
I tend not to take lots of photos though. Of a given subject, I'll usually only take one or two. I do my exploring before I press the shutter. I like to have a camera that fits in a pocket, so I can take it everywhere. That's also a discipline.
November 4th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
I think there's no correct answer to that question. Everyone is different: some will improve his/her photographs by shooting more (and gaining experience) and others will improve by shooting less (and spending more time on planification, etc.).
November 4th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
For me it comes down to motivation. I think that once you've grasped the basics of photography and feel comfortable with the craft forcing yourself to go out and shoot can work for some people if, as Paul did, you set yourself a goal and work towards it, rather than just shooting for the sake of it.
I tend not to shoot that much, though sometimes I don't feel like I've got what I want from a subject or scene that I know can work, and I'll shoot quite a bit then. Other times it's just fun to take a lot of pictures. I was at a street fair in Toronto and there was a bubble machine in the street. I think I took 50 or 60 shots of bubbles, I wasn't really looking for 'the shot', it was just fun!
What you're shooting is also a factor in how much you shoot. If you're photographing sports you're going to be firing off a lot more shots than someone capturing an abandoned couch sitting in an alley, for example.
November 5th, 2006 at 1:14 am
I think it comes down to "final outcome" for me. Are you on assignment, at a sporting event for fun, shooting a landscape, or a product. Each of these instances may require more or less shooting for what you are intending to produce.
I, for example, shoot 15-20 shots a day from my car during commutes and post at least 10 of them daily. I'm not in it to sell prints, wow critics, or win prizes. I just want to share my vision of daily occurences by (hopefully) stimulating images.
November 5th, 2006 at 4:21 am
"Assignments" don't work for me, almost whenever I try to give myself one, either I feel uninspired or the outcome looks "forced" to me. For me the best solution is to carry a number of cameras with me and shoot the moment I feel comfortable with, if you know what I mean. And I don't think quality and quantity (however you may be defining the former) are incommensurable; whenever I feel the inspiration with me, I will at least feel that satisfaction, whether the results will be called quality or not.
N.B: I didn't know every photographer was male
November 5th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
I find that I will often overshoot something, only to find that the best image is usually one of the first. While I do not believe that quantity equals quality, I have often times found myself out on an assignment, and after taking 30-40 shots, I will see a different angle that hadn't occured to me before. The more time you spend at a scene, the more likely you are to have a great shot. I don't think quatity has anything to do with it. I don't think improvement can be measured by the number of "good" vs. "bad" photos taken. Improvement is measured by good photos, there is no ratio involved. Either you have the ability to take them or you don't.
November 5th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
My first post here.
When I go out 'on assignment' I find that my eye is differently attuned to when I'm out and merely 'carrying my camera'. In either case, I like to shoot several times at a scene, trying a few minor differences in settings (I'm still fairly new to it all). Often, it's the earlier exposures which catch the vision which attracted me to the shot, though the later shots might be better composed technically. Does that make sense?
The quality of final selections is definitely improving over time (as you'd expect), but ironically comes more and more from the earlier shots taken of a scene in a particular sequence.
November 6th, 2006 at 10:28 am
I've only had one SLR camera, which is digital, so the cost of film and processing was never an issue for me. I find myself taking lots of shots, whether it is an unchanging landscape, or an active subject. I agree with Moony that often when I'm deciding which picture to post to my blog it ends up being one of the earlier shots in the set of similar shots, making the others a bit of a waste.
Of course there are times when shooting the same shot using different DOFs is important, or different exposure times, etc...
November 6th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Clearly quantity does not equate to quality, and I think that logically the ratio of good to bad shots SHOULD go up as you progress.
However I will say that with a caveat. Your ratio will improve as you develop skills and knowledge of a particular TYPE of photography. I stress that because I would also argue that if a photographer is still trying out new techniques and pushing his boundaries then their ratio may always remain fairly low.
We all have a comfort zone where our percentages improve with time (and a comfort zone that expands with our shooting).
But who the hell wants to stay in their comfort zone all of the time?
November 8th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
I would say there is a direct relation between quantity & quality - you really can't expect to take one photo (or six) and have them turn out perfect & flawless, it just isn't realistic.
You might take a photo of something, but soon realise you could've used a better vantage point, angle, or even dof (I shoot primarily with manual film cameras, that'll explain my point of view) or maybe even composition.
Better photographers would know how to discpline themselves, but still end up taking a ton of photos on assignment, just to see what would work for them in the end.
With that said, quantity without quality, that is, snap shooting mindlessly or continuously and choosing to publish/use/post those photos is something that really turns me off.