Snap happy chappy takes too many photos

GMan_nz · Jan 31, 2007

I find that I take too many photos. I presume this is a more significant issue for a lot of amatuers now with the proliferation of digital equipment and so I'd be surprised if this question hasn't been asked before . . . but still . . .

How do people generally handle the volume of images that can so easily be taken? I tend to take multiple shots of the same thing hoping that one of them turns out better than the others. Do I need an attitude adjustment to be less snappy and more thoughtful? Do most people take loads and then cull out the ones that are less-than-inspiring? How do you decide which ones to delete at the end of the day . . . maybe I'm a just a terrible hoarder but my hardrive is thick with photos that seem like repeat shots but 'might come in handy one day' - or the composure is slightly different from one to the next.

Help save my hardrive - it's groaning under the weight!

Cseh.Photo · Jan 31, 2007

Usually, if I have 2 or 3 of the same exact shot, I usually eliminate the extras and keep the one I think is the best. If I'm unsure, I'll have a second opinion. As for your hard drive, just pick up a 500gb OEM Maxtor for like $150! Try to fill that up. I've got 4900 pictures that take up about 20gb!

Big Mike · Jan 31, 2007

Hard drives are getting bigger and cheaper everyday...just get more storage.

JIP · Jan 31, 2007

I think it depends on what you are shooting I used to shoot alot more than I used to (when I was using more film) I do all my editing in-camera now so I do not get stuck with alot of pictures I do not want.

fightheheathens · Jan 31, 2007

dont throw them away. Honestly i've found and heard and read that most people take hundreds if not thousands of throwaways for every show stopper they get.
I shoot film and even though i have only shot film for a year and a half it would take several strong men to move all the negatives and prints i have.

I just wish negatives didnt take up so much dang space...you would think so until you have several thousand of them floating around your room

fmw · Feb 1, 2007

I don't shoot any more than I did when I shot film. If there isn't a reason to make the exposure and I haven't thought it through. I don't shoot it. A typical day's shoot might net 12-20 exposures - most of which were a waste of time.

Shutter life was never an issue with film cameras. It seems to be THE worry with digital shooters. Not me.

markc · Feb 1, 2007

Too bad we can't ask Garry Winogrand.

droyz2000 · Feb 1, 2007

I think tha you can extend this topic a bit as well. There is a debate that digital photography is not as artistic as film. Instead of taking the time to get the right shot with film, many people just shoot anything because they may get a good photo. I know I take a lot more pictures now that I use digital. Some shots I used to debate about whether or not they were worth taking. Now with digital, I just take them because it does not cost me anything. People think that because there is so little thought in a lot of today's photography that, that is why it is not an art form. To a certain degree I might agree

fmw · Feb 2, 2007

droyz2000 said:
I think tha you can extend this topic a bit as well. There is a debate that digital photography is not as artistic as film. Instead of taking the time to get the right shot with film, many people just shoot anything because they may get a good photo. I know I take a lot more pictures now that I use digital. Some shots I used to debate about whether or not they were worth taking. Now with digital, I just take them because it does not cost me anything. People think that because there is so little thought in a lot of today's photography that, that is why it is not an art form. To a certain degree I might agree

I disagree. The medium doesn't matter. The photographer does. You could have been a snap happy chappy with film as well if you had wanted to. My own opinion is that good images are thought through and made for a reason. How you record the image is immaterial.

ksmattfish · Feb 2, 2007

droyz2000 said:
There is a debate that digital photography is not as artistic as film. Instead of taking the time to get the right shot with film, many people just shoot anything because they may get a good photo.

This is the same thing people said when they introduced cameras that could be loaded with film outside a darkroom. And before that when they introduced roll film. And before that when they introduced sheet film. And before that when they introduced dry plates. If art has something to do with lack of convenience, then photography as art died when photographers stopped pouring and processing their own wet plates in the field, and it was film, not digital, that did it in.

As long as people take a few seconds to make sure their brain is turned on, and aren't just reflexively pressing the shutter button, the ability to take as many exposures as necessary to explore a subject, the lighting, etc... is a very powerful tool. Professional photographers have been taking advantage of it since the invention of Polaroid.

table1349 · Feb 2, 2007

fmw said:
I disagree. The medium doesn't matter. The photographer does. You could have been a snap happy chappy with film as well if you had wanted to. My own opinion is that good images are thought through and made for a reason. How you record the image is immaterial.

Thank You. It is good to see there are still other "Old School" photographers left.