"only" 500...

[Lachlan 717]

From Ken Rockwell's website:

"I only made 500 shots on digital all week long... I paid more attention to what I was shooting instead of just firing away blindly and pretending pictures will turn out all by themselves".

Don't get me wrong; I like Ken. I don't think much of his photos, but I like that he tries to keep things in perspective. I like that he doesn't really dance to the usual Digital Fanboy drum. This isn't a Rockwell-bashing thread.

But this one made me not only laugh, but do the maths on this number.

Some very conservative assumptions:

*1 week = 168 hours;

*He's getting 8 hours sleep for the 6 nights he's out shooting (leaves 120 hours);

*He's got to eat. let's say 1.5 hours per day, or 10 hours for the week (leaves 110 hours).

*Travel to/from accommodation? Maybe half an hour per day? Let's say 5 hours for the week (leaves 105 hours).

*Travel to/from photographic location(s) and setup/breakdown times? Again, let's use 5 hours for the week (down to the ton now).

So, very conservatively, he's shooting 5 shots per hour for each waken hour of his week, regardless of location, light and subject. And he claims that he wasn't shooting blindly!

I doubt that I tripped the shutter 500 times in total last year.

What strikingly different worlds we inhabit...

[D. Bryant]

From Ken Rockwell's website:

"I only made 500 shots on digital all week long... I paid more attention to what I was shooting instead of just firing away blindly and pretending pictures will turn out all by themselves".

Don't get me wrong; I like Ken. I don't think much of his photos, but I like that he tries to keep things in perspective. I like that he doesn't really dance to the usual Digital Fanboy drum. This isn't a Rockwell-bashing thread.

But this one made me not only laugh, but do the maths on this number.

Some very conservative assumptions:

*1 week = 168 hours;

*He's getting 8 hours sleep for the 6 nights he's out shooting (leaves 120 hours);

*He's got to eat. let's say 1.5 hours per day, or 10 hours for the week (leaves 110 hours).

*Travel to/from accommodation? Maybe half an hour per day? Let's say 5 hours for the week (leaves 105 hours).

*Travel to/from photographic location(s) and setup/breakdown times? Again, let's use 5 hours for the week (down to the ton now).

So, very conservatively, he's shooting 5 shots per hour for each waken hour of his week, regardless of location, light and subject. And he claims that he wasn't shooting blindly!

I doubt that I tripped the shutter 500 times in total last year.

What strikingly different worlds we inhabit...

Well FWIW, I made over 1000 digital exposures last week photographing ballet dress rehearsals - though many of those will get cut. If I have 50 keepers I'll be happy.

But then I had no control over lighting, the dancers and very limited control of camera position. At almost 8 frames per second large numbers of exposures are easy to accumulate.

Don Bryant

[Lachlan 717]

Well FWIW, I made over 1000 digital exposures last week photographing ballet dress rehearsals - though many of those will get cut. If I have 50 keepers I'll be happy.

But then I had no control over lighting, the dancers and very limited control of camera position. At almost 8 frames per second large numbers of exposures are easy to accumulate.

Don Bryant

Point well taken, Don.

(I doubt that Ken was shooting dancers whilst in Yosemite, though...)

[Bruce Watson]

The joy of large format for me is that 500 is a two year supply. If I'm lucky and get that much time to work. This, to me, is a good thing. A very good thing. Less truly is more.

[Brian Ellis]

From Ken Rockwell's website:

"I only made 500 shots on digital all week long... I paid more attention to what I was shooting instead of just firing away blindly and pretending pictures will turn out all by themselves".

Don't get me wrong; I like Ken. I don't think much of his photos, but I like that he tries to keep things in perspective. I like that he doesn't really dance to the usual Digital Fanboy drum. This isn't a Rockwell-bashing thread.

But this one made me not only laugh, but do the maths on this number.

Some very conservative assumptions:

*1 week = 168 hours;

*He's getting 8 hours sleep for the 6 nights he's out shooting (leaves 120 hours);

*He's got to eat. let's say 1.5 hours per day, or 10 hours for the week (leaves 110 hours).

*Travel to/from accommodation? Maybe half an hour per day? Let's say 5 hours for the week (leaves 105 hours).

*Travel to/from photographic location(s) and setup/breakdown times? Again, let's use 5 hours for the week (down to the ton now).

So, very conservatively, he's shooting 5 shots per hour for each waken hour of his week, regardless of location, light and subject. And he claims that he wasn't shooting blindly!

I doubt that I tripped the shutter 500 times in total last year.

What strikingly different worlds we inhabit...

I don't see anything new or unusual about making 500 photographs in a week. Plenty of 35mm photographers made 500 and more photographs in a week. I've forgotten how many rolls of 35mm I read that National Geographic photographers used for a typical assignment back in the old days but it was an astounding number, something in the thousands of rolls I think.

[civich]

I think you're making some assumptions which don't take into account the type of person Ken appears to be:
1. Hyper-active: Think Ansel Adams in his 30's only with an engineering bent instead of an artistic one.
2. 8 hours of sleep? (Re: item 1) What adult in this society does that? (yeah, I know some - but they ain't hyperactive and they are retired)
3. 500 photos: it is after all what he does for a living - mostly so he can talk about it on his web site (Re: item 2) - and digital is the dog-patch ham of photography.
4. 1.5 hours for meals? (Re: item 1)
5. Equipment set-up and break-down? I don't think he uses a tripod much.
6. Motor drive.

- But I get you're point and I also like Ken and he's always an interesting read.
-Chris

[Roger Cole]

The joy of large format for me is that 500 is a two year supply. If I'm lucky and get that much time to work. This, to me, is a good thing. A very good thing. Less truly is more.

Word.

I don't see anything new or unusual about making 500 photographs in a week. Plenty of 35mm photographers made 500 and more photographs in a week. I've forgotten how many rolls of 35mm I read that National Geographic photographers used for a typical assignment back in the old days but it was an astounding number, something in the thousands of rolls I think.

And drove editors crazy trying to choose from among dozens and dozens of nearly identical photos, I'd bet.

To some degree, pros shooting film in the old days didn't take lots of photos in the hope of getting a few good ones so much as taking lots of photos in hopes of getting lots of good ones, but at some point it did become "spray and pray." The saying was that film was the cheapest thing in photography but that was utterly false. The cheapest thing in photography was then and remains now a look through the viewfinder, or at the screen as the case may be.

[dsphotog]

On a typical wedding job I shoot 1200-1500 digital exposures in 6-8 hrs. Then edit out the blinks, pick the best facial expressions etc. to provide about 800 proofs.
Thats what brides expect these days..... Capture every detail!

Compare that to my parents wedding (1938), after the ceremony, they went to the photo studio, and the finished product was 8 magnificent B&W 8x10 contact prints.

Wish I could start a trend back to something like that.

[Daniel Stone]

david,


there's always time while there's film available

-Dan

[Emil Schildt]

On a typical wedding job I shoot 1200-1500 digital exposures in 6-8 hrs. Then edit out the blinks, pick the best facial expressions etc. to provide about 800 proofs.
Thats what brides expect these days..... Capture every detail!

Compare that to my parents wedding (1938), after the ceremony, they went to the photo studio, and the finished product was 8 magnificent B&W 8x10 contact prints.

Wish I could start a trend back to something like that.

I had the chance to photograph two of the most fantastic tango dancers a couple of years ago....

I asked if I could paint with light, which didn't make much sense to them, as they then had to pose very still for about 1min for every exposure..

I made 10 exposures (a pack of pol 665) and they chose each 8 out of them in large size...

The male dancer was astounded: he had been photographed so many times, and always, the photographer took hundreds of exposures, hoping a couple would be great...

I think it is all about trying to find the right way of photographing - choosing a tool so to speak.

When I in the old days did weddings, I always made one film with my Diana camera(!!) (that was fun!!), and then maybe one, painting with light, if time permitted.

"Thats what brides expect these days..... "

not with me.. I tell them what to expect, and they can buy into it or not.. (they usually do, as there in these days will be loads of digital cameras present at a wedding - but not many Dianas or LF cameras..)