Not taking a photo

[W.Y.Photo]

It's been a while everyone!! I hope TPF hasn't missed me too much!!

A thought came over me tonight so I wanted to stop in and hear people's thoughts..

Are we facing a dilemma of photo taking addiction in the photography community? Has the digital era ruined out ability to slow down and focus on the really important things in front of us?

The point I'm trying to get at is that a common photographer before digital imaging would shoot a roll a day.. That's 24 to 36 images people!! Think about how careful and selective you would be if you could only shoot 20-30 images per day!! I'm beginning to think that knowing when not to take a picture may be an important skill that our generation of photographers is slowly losing.

Thoughts?

 

[Forkie]

I actually love the digital age approach to photography. I love that everyone takes photos of everything.

In future generations, there will be such a comprehensive record of history and photos will have been shared so much and by so many, that I think it will make for a much more understanding, tolerant and enlightened society.

Whereas, in days gone by news took hours or days to reach the rest of the world, it now takes mere minutes. People can respond to world events immediately. Take the Nepal Earthquakes as an example. The sheer amount of money raised for aid on the very day of the quake was unbelievable. Money that will go to help the rescue effort and to rebuild those people's lives.

Artistic photography is the same as it's ever been, I think. It's just that it's much easier to distribute now and I think that's a good thing. There can never be too much art in the world. The more, the better. Society will be more educated, more expressive and more open minded. Society will see more beauty than it ever has before and I think that will help develop a much more social world where ideas can be shared and discussed more openly.

The old saying that "A picture speaks a thousand words" is more true today than it has ever been. We live in a visual world and I think it will be a better future world for it.

 

[snowbear]

There are many things that have grown, become more accessible, or become easier seemingly overnight due to some technological "break through": automobile travel (Interstate highways), writing and publishing, accounting, (personal computers and appropriate software), even gourmet cooking (various kitchen gadgets and cooking related CATV networks).

Yes, we are being "flooded" with millions of images each day. Many of them are just snapshots without much value beyond the pleasure and memories they give to the takers and their friends, but I'm willing to bet that many people have developed a higher interest in photography or are working to improve their photo taking, as a direct result of digital.

 

[Designer]

Or when to not keep one. Or twenty.

 

[Fred Berg]

Digital is as digital does.

 

[limr]

There are many reasons why I still shoot film, and actually one of those reasons is because it forces limits in a way digital does not. I like shooting only 24-36 pictures at a time. When I use my digital camera, even though I probably still shoot fewer pictures than many others, I still end up with a lot. The sheer volume of pictures is overwhelming, just as the sheer volume of information that is now available to us at our fingertips can also be overwhelming. Will people appreciate photographs even more because there's so much out there and it's easy to access or even create? Or will they become desensitized and bored and no longer value a really great image because these days, a great image is a dime a dozen? For every person who may discover photography in a way they never would have before, is there another person who is fed up with the barrage of Instagram images and its filters and decides that it's so common as to be meaningless?

I'm not knocking the information technology that we all live with now and the great things it has done, but it's no utopia and there are costs. The constant competition for our attention can actually be harmful for us (for one example: Why the modern world is bad for your brain Science The Guardian I think it's more harmful for some who can't manage it, who get totally caught up and lost in it all. Others manage to set self-imposed limits to mitigate any harmful effects.

So yes, I do think it's valuable for people to slow down and really concentrate on something. For photographers, perhaps that's taking fewer pictures sometimes. Purposely take only one SD card, for example, and be sure to shoot RAW so you fill up the card quickly. For chefs, maybe it's grinding your own spices by hand once in a while. Or for anyone, maybe hand-write a letter once in a while instead of an email.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Naw....

Yes.

I still shoot film (and Polaroids, etc.) but do have a digital camera. I tend to shoot more with that but not nearly the numbers many people describe. I've done sports and events and could go thru a few rolls in a day/evening and other times I'll just take a few pictures and the film may be in the camera for some time. I don't think people are necessarily developing proper skills in using cameras because the thinking seems to be they can fix it later,

I don't think many of the photos that we find 'everywhere' will even exist someday. I doubt a lot of people will ever even get them off the phones, or won't continue to maintain their pages on various websites, and will realize they don't have pictures of a lot of the important events in their lives. Eventually people may realize the value of actually taking a picture but I guess time will tell.

Seems like with a lot of the technology there are good and bad aspects of it (smart phones and texting and driving, etc.). It's nice to be able to share photos but there's such an excess right now with the ease of posting photos online. There are websites that seem to be taking advantage of people who aren't photographers to have the knowledge or expertise to realize that the company may be using photos with little compensation for unlimited lifetime usage.

I think some of it will run its course and the still to some extent novelty of it will wear off eventually.

 

[Gary A.]

Unlike most film photogs on this forum ... I had free film. All I could eat. I was tempered only by the thought of development and tried to cap my exposures to four rolls of film per assignment. Not every assignment was a four roll assignment, some were more most were less, but four rolls was a benchmark.

With digital, I not only shoot as I was trained ... but even more so. I do not shoot many subjects which are static. So I shoot a lot because with non-stationary subjects, you never know what will happen next. But as Designer pointed out ... it is all about the editing ... what to process and what not to process.

I am processing way too much and it is taking me forever. Until yesterday, I would look at my stuff in Aperture and identify the images for RAW conversion and final processing. When I convert to JPEG I'd delete a few and in my final PhotoShop processing I'd delete a few more. But now, I have decided to cull at the beginning and instead of moving into RAW conversion I'm going back for a second culling and maybe even a thrice. No more Mister Nice-Guy.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

I am processing way too much and it is taking me forever. Until yesterday, I would look at my stuff in Aperture and identify the images for RAW conversion and final processing. When I convert to JPEG I'd delete a few and in my final PhotoShop processing I'd delete a few more. But now, I have decided to cull at the beginning and instead of moving into RAW conversion I'm going back for a second culling and maybe even a thrice. No more Mister Nice-Guy.

This is my problem, and kind of what set me on the path to thinking about this. I'm spending way to much time In post because of how many images I've been taking and I've also been noticing a lack of quality in my images when I sit there and take 20 pictures of something rather than spending that time to take 1 or 2.

 

[Gary A.]

It's been a while everyone!! I hope TPF hasn't missed me too much!!

A thought came over me tonight so I wanted to stop in and hear people's thoughts..

Are we facing a dilemma of photo taking addiction in the photography community? Has the digital era ruined out ability to slow down and focus on the really important things in front of us?

The point I'm trying to get at is that a common photographer before digital imaging would shoot a roll a day.. That's 24 to 36 images people!! Think about how careful and selective you would be if you could only shoot 20-30 images per day!! I'm beginning to think that knowing when not to take a picture may be an important skill that our generation of photographers is slowly losing.

Thoughts?

Knowing when Not to take a picture = Previsualization ... (maybe).

Another of my monologues on previsualization. Seeing the final image in your mind's eye prior to releasing the shutter will go a long way as a primary step towards not capturing crap.

Quality over quantity is good. Another example: I was shooting President Ford. We were all in the roped off photographer section of a hotel in Newport Beach. We all had motordrives and we knew how to use 'em. Next to me was a guy from Time-Life. I remember him as if it was yesterday. A tall guy in a grayish suit. He had a tripod. He was the only one shooting stills with a tripod. He was the only one shooting stills sans motordrive. Every single time Ford flinched or sneezed we'd ripped off a dozen frames, all of us except this guy in the gray suit. He waited ... he waited until he saw something unique ... until he saw something he liked ... then click. We were Rambo compared to this guy who was an assassin ... a sniper ... a single shot ... a single click and he got his photo.

I would love to have the confidence to shoot that way. That guy had huevos, big brass ones.

I used to crop in the camera. Even if the horizon was a bit off kilter, I'd toss the picture and look for another to print as opposed to fixing it in the darkroom. All my pictures had those silly and arrogant Henri black borders around the picture. I need to get back to that level of photography.

Yes, shoot less but shoot better. Shoot like the guy in the gray suit.

 

[unpopular]

Unlike SOME people I never had much money for photography. Shooting 4x5 I'd spend up to an hour setting up the shot. It was a careful, expensive process - that always brought a sense of pleasant anxiety when I exposed the film. Over the 30s waiting for the exposure, I'd go over in my head that everything was checked, that my development times were the right choice, that I did all my compensations correctly.

I've always been a cautious. For me photography is a spiritual experience. I "feel" a location, I don't "make" photos, I see them. I'm not always in that headspace (I haven't been for a while now). I'm not when I'm on family outings - I don't have the meditative concentration when I'm focusing on my wife and the kids. Naturally, this isn't the only philosophy to have, a studio, portrait or still life or product photographer will naturally have a different approach - for them, they make images.

But I think that having some discipline is a good thing. Sure, we all edit though our photos, weeding out what images are "print worthy". None of us are perfect. But choosing a great image amongst hundreds of "OK" ones is far less likely than choosing a great image amongst hundreds of good ones.

Maybe a bit more controversially, is it really photography if you're just pressing the button and hoping that something comes about worth keeping? Certainly there is a difference between taking successive action shots or obtaining the essence of a model's performance. This isn't quite what I am referring to. Rather, is it really photography if you cover every angle of a subjects indiscriminately and pick the best one? I think that's more of a process of editing.

 

[Overread]

Thoughts:

1) If you're limited to 36 or 10 or 20 or however many shots in a period of time then yes you will become more selective in what and how you shoot; that is both a good and bad thing'
a) Good thing - it means that you'll pick situations where you are most confident in your skill; and also situations where the event is so unique or important that even if you've not the experience in that situation you will still use all you know to take a shot. Chances are you'll slow down a bit since you'll only get one try so you'll try to make sure you meter correctly.

b) Bad thing - it means that you'll pick situations where you are most confident in your skill. Yep that's a bad thing too because it means that you're playing it safe more of the time than not. You don't try for quick shots; or experiments as much and you might well pass by some great shots because you don't think they'll be as good as they could be and because you're waiting for something good to appear to use that shot for.

2) Nothing forces you to shoot digital nor film differently from each other (save that gunning it in film will cost you a fortune). You can shoot digital slow, as slow as you honestly want. Heck if you really must you can stick a low capacity memory card into it to reduce the number of potential shots you can take. The limitation of film that "forces you" is totally your own mental construct thus you can shoot digital just like it if you so choose.

3) That guy standing next to you who takes 1 shot all day and walks away - yeah maybe he's a pro and that one shot wins every single prize ever. Maybe its rubbish. If you never see the results you'll never know.
Though I'm willing to bet if the guy has spent the last 30 odd years doing photography that its going to be a pretty good shot - film/digital doesn't matter really - its choice and decades of experience.

Personally I prefer the freedom digital gives you; yes it means that many of us learn to expose correctly by taking a shot and checking the histogram (film users did this too; that's why they had polariods); yes it means that sometimes we'll take shots, maybe a lot, outside of our comfort zones - but that's a good thing. It's learning and trying new things.

In general I think that key isn't that film makes you think more - its that you're just lazy when shooting digital. You can think more for 100 or 300 shots a day. Nothing stops you save yourself and your own choice

 

[bribrius]

It's been a while everyone!! I hope TPF hasn't missed me too much!!

A thought came over me tonight so I wanted to stop in and hear people's thoughts..

Are we facing a dilemma of photo taking addiction in the photography community? Has the digital era ruined out ability to slow down and focus on the really important things in front of us?

The point I'm trying to get at is that a common photographer before digital imaging would shoot a roll a day.. That's 24 to 36 images people!! Think about how careful and selective you would be if you could only shoot 20-30 images per day!! I'm beginning to think that knowing when not to take a picture may be an important skill that our generation of photographers is slowly losing.

Thoughts?

Knowing when Not to take a picture = Previsualization ... (maybe).

Another of my monologues on previsualization. Seeing the final image in your mind's eye prior to releasing the shutter will go a long way as a primary step towards not capturing crap.

Quality over quantity is good. Another example: I was shooting President Ford. We were all in the roped off photographer section of a hotel in Newport Beach. We all had motordrives and we knew how to use 'em. Next to me was a guy from Time-Life. I remember him as if it was yesterday. A tall guy in a grayish suit. He had a tripod. He was the only one shooting stills with a tripod. He was the only one shooting stills sans motordrive. Every single time Ford flinched or sneezed we'd ripped off a dozen frames, all of us except this gut in the gray suit. He waited ... he waited until he saw something unique ... until he saw something he liked ... then click. We were Rambo compared to this guy who was an assassin ... a sniper ... a single shot ... a single click and he got his photo.

I would love to have the confidence to shoot that way. That guy had huevos, big brass ones.

I used to crop in the camera. Even if the horizon was a bit off kilter, I'd toss the picture and look for another to print as opposed to fixing it in the darkroom. All my pictures had those silly and arrogant Henri black borders around the picture. I need to get back to that level of photography.

Yes, shoot less but shoot better. Shoot like the guy in the gray suit.

i like the idea of this. Unfortunatley i took some years off from photography. so i have a lot of catching up to do. So i shoot ALOT. with different cameras. I don't do it looking for the perfect shot. I do it because i want to get to the point i have shot so many damn photos it has become second nature. without thought. just do it. Physical memory. something.

So i take a LOT of photos. I want to get to the point that whatever camera i pick up i can go take a photo without even thinking about it and have the majority keepers. The ones that have shot consistently for forty years already have this down. since my photography track record has been inconsistent, i think i need another couple hundred thousand photos under my belt. So far, it seems to be working. The real test is when i slow down to concentrate on a shot. And how easily it comes. It isn't in in the thousand i just took. But in the one that matters grabbing the camera and having it just work. More you do anything, you would think the better you get at it. This is kind of where i am at. Not sure i care too much about what others do. I do self restrict with film. with digital , pretty much go to town. Camera wears out i will get another one it is pretty much disposable. It might be the wrong approach though. Maybe i should just concentrate on one camera, one or two lenses and try to perfect each shot shot. I seem to be on the other path though, shot with whatever, and shoot a lot.

What killed me in photography is i didn't consistently stick with it. Not that i haven't been doing it for years. Just not consistent. I also didnt keep up with the changes, so a wealth of information i missed out on. Plus after photography class originally, i never reached out for more education. so i lack in both experience equivalent to my years from not sticking with it consistently, not improving education wise, and not keeping up to date with the changing times. so i feel i have a couple or few hundred thousand frames to catch up on. If i had found a occupation in it, or made myself stick with it over these last thirty years consistent. i would be much further along. In the meantime, i crank out lots of photos, and most i really don't give a chit it is more of going through the practice than anything. Gaining experience. so when i see something i won't even question it if i can shoot it. Just on experience and sheer amount my answer to the question will be "yes". Some care about individual single photos, i am not so much like that. i care about how easily i just shot a thousand of them and how many are keepers.

 

[bribrius]

I am processing way too much and it is taking me forever. Until yesterday, I would look at my stuff in Aperture and identify the images for RAW conversion and final processing. When I convert to JPEG I'd delete a few and in my final PhotoShop processing I'd delete a few more. But now, I have decided to cull at the beginning and instead of moving into RAW conversion I'm going back for a second culling and maybe even a thrice. No more Mister Nice-Guy.

This is my problem, and kind of what set me on the path to thinking about this. I'm spending way to much time In post because of how many images I've been taking and I've also been noticing a lack of quality in my images when I sit there and take 20 pictures of something rather than spending that time to take 1 or 2.

here is the thing. Ask yourself what you gained taking those twenty photos. And if you shoot film too, that will self limit you on occasion when you do that.

Mostly, if you buckle down and just shoot ONE photo of something. You might find all those times you racked up shutter counts weren't wasted. The experience gained when you are racking up shutter counts might pay of in spades.

 

[snowbear]

I am processing way too much and it is taking me forever. Until yesterday, I would look at my stuff in Aperture and identify the images for RAW conversion and final processing. When I convert to JPEG I'd delete a few and in my final PhotoShop processing I'd delete a few more. But now, I have decided to cull at the beginning and instead of moving into RAW conversion I'm going back for a second culling and maybe even a thrice. No more Mister Nice-Guy.

This is my problem, and kind of what set me on the path to thinking about this. I'm spending way to much time In post because of how many images I've been taking and I've also been noticing a lack of quality in my images when I sit there and take 20 pictures of something rather than spending that time to take 1 or 2.

I don't take that many shots at a time but I do take a lot of junk shots. The easy answer is (as a couple have pointed out) learning to edit. I will quickly run through a set of shots and select what I think are the keepers, concentrating on composition, overall exposure and focus. Those that pass that test get a closer look and I decide whats going to post. Everything else is archived.