10000 shots spent

jadin · Nov 1, 2005

LaFoto said:
There is no one around who takes ONE photo of something and that ONE photo is THE BIG HIT, and he takes another ONE photo of something else and that, too, is the SECOND BIG HIT and so on.

I'm not so sure. I read (probably here) about a guy who got tired of taking so many photos all the time, and chose to take a photo a day for a year. The catch was he could only take that one single photo for the entire day. I can't remember if all the photos were in his book or just the best ones, but it wouldn't surprise me if all of them were. So I think it is possible.

eydryan · Nov 1, 2005

we're not talking about social experiments... we're talking about normal photogs who take a relatively moderate at least number of pics. otherwise you cannot be a photog in the professional sense...

jadin · Nov 1, 2005

eydryan said:
we're not talking about social experiments... we're talking about normal photogs who take a relatively moderate at least number of pics. otherwise you cannot be a photog in the professional sense...

Is this at me? I was replying to the text I quoted only, not the rest of the thread.

eydryan · Nov 1, 2005

well if you reply to it inside the thread you reply to the thread. otherwise just write OT: (off-topic) in front of it.

and what's wrong with discussing the whole thread? why limit yourself?

jadin · Nov 1, 2005

eydryan said:
well if you reply to it inside the thread you reply to the thread. otherwise just write OT: (off-topic) in front of it.

Not exactly, quoting many times means you're replying to just that. Topics shift and change as they progress, so quoting allows you to reply to something out of context of the rest of the thread.

eydryan said:
and what's wrong with discussing the whole thread? why limit yourself?

There's nothing wrong with discussing the whole thread. I was simply explaining my post since you said "we're not talking about social experiments... we're talking about normal photogs who take a relatively moderate at least number of pics."

Why limit yourself? Sometimes you are motivated to respond to a specific point and nothing else, which is what happened here.

Marctwo · Nov 1, 2005

I thought it was completely relevant - the first post of this thread is all about taking too many photo's.

Also, isn't there something slightly pro about publishing the photo's in a book?

panzershreck · Nov 1, 2005

you people are nuts

reminds me of two years ago in europe, two trips in one month... first trip, just my sister and I, with a compact automatic 35mm camera... we did 3 countries and stayed in 4 cities in 2 weeks, never stopping or relaxing (we're young and expendable)... total number of photos shot? maybe 3-4 rolls... then another trip with a large group, to a different country, only 2 small towns + countryside, and one city in 2 weeks... much slower... and not as much... they all brought brand new compact and high-end digital cameras, and between them all, probably each shot 50 photos per day! most of which was nonsense... the end result? whereas ours were of stuff like the interior of the spanish riding school in vienna, various old cathedrals, historic and landscape shots, odd ball stuff like guys surfing in munich... theirs were of trees, doors, signs, the group standing around like 200 times... roads... etc. (of course, constantly moving fast vs. constantly moving slowly might do this)

call me crazy, or masochistic, i'm going for the opposite - as few shots as possible... buy bulk, and only load the rolls with 10 or less frames... if i could, i'd cut a section out of a roll and tape that section - just enough for one frame - behind the shutter... only one shot baby!

jstuedle · Nov 1, 2005

jstuedle u still haven't said how much space the collection actually ocuppies. (in gb and why not in actual space)

My external hard drives is where I keep old images on line. I have 3 120 gig and 4 160 gig externals. All are archive stroage. In my computer I run 2 240 gig drives. Drice C: is boot, operating sys, program storage, and images in process storage. Drive D: is camera download, temp space for Photoshop and temporary storage for finished pics ready for print. So in total I run almost 1 1/2 terabytes. Soon I will need to add another external drive. This is not storing every image captured, many, many have been deleted. Almost all captures are RAW files and all my ready for print files are TIFF stored in final print size at 300 DPI.

jstuedle · Nov 1, 2005

call me crazy, or masochistic, i'm going for the opposite - as few shots as possible... buy bulk, and only load the rolls with 10 or less frames... if i could, i'd cut a section out of a roll and tape that section - just enough for one frame - behind the shutter... only one shot baby!

No, you are not crazy. You just have a different way of looking at things than I do. In my opinion I would rather shoot 100 frames and keep 5 than shoot 2 and wish I had shot 3 more. Electrons are cheaper than air fare or fuel and my time is worth more than another hard drive for storage. If I am going to invest in 3 digital bodies, 60+ lenses and the time to shoot, I'm going to make it work for me, not the other way around. I felt the same way when I shot film. Why invest in that then new F3 and motor drive, or what ever camera I slung at the time if it was not going to work for me.

eydryan · Nov 1, 2005

wow...1 1/2 terra. just pure porn :lol:

jstuedle · Nov 1, 2005

wow...1 1/2 terra. just pure porn

Only a lot more interesting.

eydryan · Nov 1, 2005

heheh

Jeff Canes · Nov 6, 2005

I was a high volume shooter with film and still am with digital. Been taking weeklong photo vacation one a year for few years now. 3 to 4 rolls of 36 explores a day is very typical for me when on vacation. With a high percentage good shots and few very good ones per roll. Going digital has also cut my cost down big time, IMO my 10D paid for itself with in a year and haft.

Jeff Canes · Nov 6, 2005

jadin said:
I'm not so sure. I read (probably here) about a guy who got tired of taking so many photos all the time, and chose to take a photo a day for a year. The catch was he could only take that one single photo for the entire day. I can't remember if all the photos were in his book or just the best ones, but it wouldn't surprise me if all of them were. So I think it is possible.

i have that book, somewhere:meh:, and yes it has a photo for each day of year, but some are two per page

panzershreck · Nov 7, 2005

jstuedle said:
No, you are not crazy. You just have a different way of looking at things than I do. In my opinion I would rather shoot 100 frames and keep 5 than shoot 2 and wish I had shot 3 more. Electrons are cheaper than air fare or fuel and my time is worth more than another hard drive for storage. If I am going to invest in 3 digital bodies, 60+ lenses and the time to shoot, I'm going to make it work for me, not the other way around. I felt the same way when I shot film. Why invest in that then new F3 and motor drive, or what ever camera I slung at the time if it was not going to work for me.

i'm not a professional and don't have a lot of time or money, so i guess i reacted differently to the problem than you, trying to get the most quality vs. the most quantity, because i had no real option for getting a lot quantity

in that sense, the medium (film) is the least of my worries, i paid $50 for my camera and 3 lenses, and another $100 on another lens, film, developer and so on, i've got an infinite amount of time to develop it and tinker with it... so there's not a cloud hanging over my head

in your shoes i'm sure i'd go digital, but i do not have the needs