Not taking a photo

[sashbar]

Last weekend I spent 2,5 hours on the street with my digital camera. You know how many photos I have taken?
Zero. Zero shots. I even felt a bit proud of it. I am glad I am getting more selective.

 

[bribrius]

Last weekend I spent 2,5 hours on the street with my digital camera. You know how many photos I have taken?
Zero. Zero shots. I even felt a bit proud of it. I am glad I am getting more selective.

2,5? well which one? And why?

 

[Fred Berg]

Part of the trouble connected to digital photography is that people increasingly live in societies which crave instant gratification, which, of course, digital is able to supply. It can very quickly become addictive, and, as with any other addiction, the more it gets a hook in its victims, the more the victims need to satisfy their habit. Saying that it is possible to be selective about what one takes photos of and to use the same type of restraint as was the norm in the days of film photography is all very well, and perhaps many people can do this, but there are obviously many many more who cannot.

What I personally enjoy about digital is not having to wait until the roll of 36 is full, which could be frustrating and even led to my wasting the last few frames at times. Nowadays, I can go out and typically shoot 15 to 20 frames and transfer them to my computer when I get in. Ah, instant gratification.

Instant gratification was around before digital photography. What about the Polaroid camera? Take a picture then magically there it is, in your hand. You could even instantly hang it on the wall when you get home. No editing or printing involved at all. Now that's instant gratification.

Polaroids were too expensive to be mainstream and too small to hang on a wall but, yes, they gave instant gratification to some. As I said, though, this trend is increasing in societies all over the world and back then a Polaroid photo couldn't be shared with more than a handful of people (family & friends, etc.) whereas a digital one can be uploaded to the Internet and seen by millions. Getting likes and nice comments is what stokes the fire of instant gratification.

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

Yeah I get what you mean. It's the social media syndrome. People now think someone actually cares what they are doing every second of the day. Selfies are a great example of how narcissistic we have become as a society. The need for validation from strangers on the internet.

 

[KenC]

I take only a few more photos per outing than I used to with film. I guess I previsualize and look around before taking anything, as I used to with film. I agree with those who've said that whatever works for you is good, but I'm not sure that just making hundreds of photos because you can will automatically result in better quality. It's the mental process that is important, and if you're thinking about what you're doing and why, then your images will get better, otherwise the numbers don't mean anything.

 

[Gary A.]

I am shooting way too much. I am shooting way too undisciplined. I am spending too much time processing. While I am getting what I call The Exceptional Image on most of my photo ops, (at least they're exceptional for me) ... my keeper-to-shots ratio is way too high. The challenge for me, the challenge that this thread has pointed out, is to maintain the total number of keepers with a lower shot count. I am not expecting to go from 100 shots to ten ... but I'm gonna try to go from 100 to 80 ... then with more discipline from 80 to 60. I will never shoot like I did with film ... there isn't a good reason for me to place an arbitrary restriction on total number of shots (I'm running with 32gb cards, lol). But there are many reasons to give the shot more thought ... to shoot more anticipatorially than reactionarily. To have the confidence to release the shutter only once instead of thrice. When I had disciplined myself to cropping only in the camera ... my images were much better than now. Part/much of that discipline included highly refined previsualization. I would think the better one's previsualization the less one has to shoot in order to capture the exceptional image.

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

I find myself looking through the viewfinder and really questioning if I should push the shutter button or not for this particular shot. I find the more I do this the more selective I have become. I think you can start to determine if the shot is going to come out the way you envisioned. It's also much less annoying when you go home and don't have hundreds of pictures to go through. I also believe the EVF in the Fuji has helped me because you get more of an idea what the image will look like before even pressing the shutter.

 

[Derrel]

A few modern-era thoughts about the old-time craft of photography, a little Devil's Advocate here:

There are no more "exceptional images". Every shot is just a minor variation of a photo that has been done before, at some time since the 1840's. That's a fairly new way of thinking about photography...that whatever you shoot, it's ALREADY been done, and no image is "exceptional" any more since it's basically one of about 20,000 visual tropes, just re-hashed by yet another shooter.

And the previsualization load of horsehockey that Ansel Adams used to boost his media image, back in the day...the idea that he previsualized how his scenes would look as finished photos is utterly disingenuous, as a look through his work will show, as images change, often markedly, over the decades....even Moonrise has been reinterpreted in multiple ways by the man himself...one of his most iconic, most important images, seen multiple different ways. WTF?

Previsualization, as well as the holy grail of perfect Leica-proportioned 3:2 aspect ratrio images, printed with the knock-out borders from a filed-out negative carrier...I was fed that BS as a young man in the 1970's and 1980's...those ideas, previsualization and the knockout border print, were boasts that have now been unmasked as boasts, and little more. The shot-on-film era was about demonstrating technical mastery over exposure, developing, and darkroom printing; things that today are trivial to achieve because we can literally SEE the results of our exposure, and we can make "master negatives" in full daylight on a computer, and do the most complicated dodging and burning and local contrast control with astounding precision and ease with software. Worrying about conforming to the photographic methods of the 1940's in the 2010's doesn't make much sense. It's like thinking that raising your own sheep to shear and card wool and spin your own yarn will make your clothes "more fashionable" or "more stylish"....uhhhh...not so much.

The idea of shoehorning the real world into a 3:2 aspect ratio for every friggin' scene....that's ridiculous to idealize that...it was arrived at almost by accident by a camera tinkerer. Same with the idea that 4x5 sheet film printed with developing clip marks and film stock identification and brand, or sprocket holes on 70mm or 35mm film make an image "better"...uh, no, all those ideas do is reinforce the idea that "this was shot on film, and here is a peek behind the scenes, this is my fil-um....worship my fil-um mastery."

Just trying to call attention to old, outdated dogma here. Does it really matter if you made the paper that the book was written on? Does that make the writing better? Does one need to grow the wheat to make the flour to bake the world's best pastry? Does one need to coat his own wet plates to be a "real photographer"? Does NOT ever cropping really make "better" photos? And if so, how? Photography has a lot of accumulated junk in the garage that needs to be winnowed down by a disinterested third party who can spot the junk, box it, and then take it to the dump.

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

I still see new exceptional images all the time. The same argument could be made for music but I still enjoy new music. Of course any image can be processed to look many different ways. That doesn't say you can't have an idea of what you are going for at the time of taking the picture. Who really cares what process any photographer uses it is the final product that pleases the person taking the picture and some other people may appreciate as well. Sorry for the poor grammar and run on sentences.

 

[Overread]

If every photo has already been taken in 100 years or so then I shudder to think how the world of sculpting, metalwork, sketching, painting etc.. and nearly al other forms of traditional* art * manage in today's world where everything must have been done 10001 times already.



As for pre visualisation I see it as a real term and a real thing. The key is that its not really visualising PERFECTLY. It's about know that if you take a photo of a plane with propellers that if you use 1/2000sec its going to be static motion on the blades; its knowing that if the horse is going to come from the left to go over the jump on the right that if you angle at the right spot you should have a chance at getting the angle you want on the rider and horse;

It's really all about having an experience and understanding that lets you have some idea of what the shot will look like; sure its not perfect, but it gives you a guide. Indeed I'd say its essential to learn (though you might not learn it as previsualisation) if one wants to get off auto and also be creative; rather than just shoot every scene within a genre the same (landscape so only wide angle - spots so only fast shutterspeeds unless panning etc...).



(really do we have to keep saying that every other art other than photography is traditional - surely now non-traditional is the realm of digital drawing not a century year old form like photography)

 

[Fred Berg]

If every photo has already been taken in 100 years or so then I shudder to think how the world of sculpting, metalwork, sketching, painting etc.. and nearly al other forms of traditional* art * manage in today's world where everything must have been done 10001 times already.

Perhaps because nearly all other forms of traditional art espouse originality. As I see it, photography is by its very nature ill-equipped
to do this. I do not wish to suggest that there is no novelty in the activity, only that it is very seldom witnessed. This is why, although I have a long-standing interest in photography, I personally rarely think of it as art. I'm not knocking it and don't think of it as inferior in any way - just different.

 

[Overread]

Perhaps because nearly all other forms of traditional art espouse originality

Except they don't
Go into any artistic medium and focus on a subject or disipline within it and I can bet you that you'll find the same as you do in photography. You'll find "lots of the same" which is to mean that there will be a selection of methods, styles, approaches which are "popular" and which are "so over done" and which "everyone is doing" and which "are uninspired boring dull etc..."

It is in no way unique to photography; however because you're keen on photography and because you're directly exposing yourself to more and more and also being selective and more focused in how you engage with it you notice the patterns more readily.


Photography is no more nor less special nor all that different.

 

[Fred Berg]

Perhaps because nearly all other forms of traditional art espouse originality

Except they don't
Go into any artistic medium and focus on a subject or disipline within it and I can bet you that you'll find the same as you do in photography. You'll find "lots of the same" which is to mean that there will be a selection of methods, styles, approaches which are "popular" and which are "so over done" and which "everyone is doing" and which "are uninspired boring dull etc..."

It is in no way unique to photography; however because you're keen on photography and because you're directly exposing yourself to more and more and also being selective and more focused in how you engage with it you notice the patterns more readily.


Photography is no more nor less special nor all that different.

The world is full of kitsch, so true!

 

[Derrel]

Horseshoe Bend photos - Google Search

Soooooooo muuuuuuch oriiiiigin-aaaaaaaality. LOL

 

[Buckster]

Thanks so much for that incredible lesson in armchair psychology as it relates to the social network, Overreach!! Now that you've explained where you and others are coming from, let me try to address the OP more directly and see if that helps you understand where I'm coming from...

Are we facing a dilemma of photo taking addiction in the photography community?

"We" is pretty all-inclusive, and I can only speak for myself. For me, the answer is "no". For everyone else in this "we community" - I don't know, I don't care, I don't see why I should - to each his/her own. Nobody is forced to take more or fewer photos than anyone else, and I just can't think of any legitimate reason why anyone should care how many photos anyone else is shooting.

As for it being a "dilemma", the dictionary defines that as, "a situation in which you have to make a difficult decision." That being the case, no, I don't have to make a "difficult decision", and I highly doubt it's very "difficult" a decision for others to make either. Either they prefer to shoot lots of photos and do so, or they don't. Either decision is just fine with me, and I should think, just fine with them as well, or they'd change.

It's the old,
Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
Doctor: "Then don't do that. Here's your bill."

Has the digital era ruined out ability to slow down and focus on the really important things in front of us?

Again, "us"/"our"/"we". I can't and wouldn't presume to be able to speak for everyone who picks up a camera. For me alone, the answer is "no". For everyone else in this "we/us/our community" - I still don't know, I still don't care, I still don't see why I should.

I mean, think about this question. It's asking if the digital era has MADE US incapable of making a decision, of regulating ourselves, of being selective, of choosing what to shoot and how often to press the shutter button. We CANNOT do any of that anymore. WE are OUT of OUR OWN decision-making loop now, no control at all, thanks to "the digital era".

Really? Are you drones now? Machines? You can't make a decision for yourselves?

No. I can and do still make my own decisions all the time, thank you very much. If you can't, I suggest you seek professional help in a certified psychologist, not the armchair variety found all over internet forums.

The point I'm trying to get at is that a common photographer before digital imaging would shoot a roll a day.

Well, that's not true, so your "point" / premise goes right out the window. But hey, let's not let that stop us...

That's 24 to 36 images people!!

OMG!!! Gasping for breath here! Need to sit down!!!

Think about how careful and selective you would be if you could only shoot 20-30 images per day!!

Think about how careful and selective you would be if you could only take 20 to 30 breaths of air per day!! Of course, that's never been the case, but still - get excited about it!! Gasp!!! Yell out, "OMGGGG!!!" for greater effect, if possible. Use multiple exclamation points to really hammer it home!!!!

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?

Why is that such an important "skill"? Why should we care if most modern photographers don't use that "skill" anymore?

If some photographers choose to take a thousand shots of a nit without changing a thing from the light to the position to NOTHING, while other photographers choose to only crank out a single shot, why should we care? If someone chooses to take a thousand shots of a thousand things or a thousand scenes or one thing or one scene, why should we care? If they process them all or process none, why should we care?

To me, this is like making a big deal of the fact that the current generation is losing the "skills" of using white-out and changing out ink ribbons when typing out their term papers because they're using computers with word processors instead of 1st generation typewriters. They're not thinking about every word before they type it because it's SO EASY to just correct it later. Four questions: Yeah? And? So? What?

What is so difficult about adapting to modern technology and allowing it to remove barriers? Why should we care at all if some folks want to use that new freedom to run wild, while others prefer to put barriers back in place themselves?

Why does ANY of it matter to any of YOU personally? If a whole generation loses the "skill" of taking fewer shots, does that mean YOU are no longer ALLOWED to take fewer shots, if that's what YOU want to do? If you were a wealthy baron who lived in the pre-digital days and had the money to shoot a hundred rolls per day and DID, or if you were a pro photographer who shot in any of the genres of the day that required many rolls of film shot per day, would the fact that most photographers DIDN'T have the means to do that prevent you from doing it anyway if that's what YOU wanted or were required to do?

Sorry... still not caring here. It seems a total non-issue, mountain-out-of-a-molehill discussion to ME. But I do SO MUCH appreciate that it means SO much more to others!