I'd say the second one. I like the idea of the photographer evaluating what he's done and thinking of a way to improve on what he's already captured as opposed to randomly shooting and hoping to find a decent one.
I have however been guilty of doing the first type of photography, particularly when there's a fleeting moment for a great shot passing that doesn't allow for adjustments to camera settings, lighting or composition. :)
The second for sure. Having said that, sometimes photo ops present themselves with very little time for planning a shot and in that case, a good photographer can get a great image in 1 or 2 captures.
@triptych_angel, I guess in this digital era, it seems that it doesnt matter anymore. But before during the film era, where developing and sharing a photo was difficult, not to mention expensive, each shot was taken into great consideration.
Well, I was really curious if we are taking digital photography for granted. :)
@kaost, very well said. I also find myself in the reply you mentioned. I do admire photographers who can evaluate his shot and his composition but there are times (say for an example, celebrities passing by) where we treat our cameras like machine guns, just shooting and shooting. haha. :) Good thing, we can delete our unwanted shots. :)
@sarmientoj Interesting discussion, I think there are other types where the camera is so familiar it is an extension of seeing, and the images are collected without the need to review. Not me I hasten to add! I take heaps AND review to adjust the settings. So I sometimes miss a shot.
thank you @ukcam. In my opinion, the best photographer can be the one who can use the advantages of digital photography but also has the discipline of the traditional one. :) Perhaps, like any other field, it's all about balance. :)
I do a little of both. if it's something with a lot of action [my two year old, for example] I'll just take a bunch and pick out what looks good, but if it's something stationery or slow [like a candle or a flower] I'll adjust my position a little, fix the lighting a pinch, look at everything, THEN take the picture, look at what I have, then see what needs adjusting. It just depends on the situation to me. I don't think either is a "better" photographer. There's a method to everyone's madness, so to each his own!
the more photos you take the better you will get, because its practice no matter which way you look at it. But if you dont stop and evaluate what you are doing you wont learn much. Thats how i would look at it.
i think its better to evaluate rather than take lots of shots because without evaluating, taking heaps of shots wont let you progress.
The second one doesn't apply to action shots, does it? Otherwise, the action is done and the photographer hasn't even triggered the button yet. :-)
I'm more of the second, mainly because most of the photos I took are still life shots. If it's on street photography and action, I would definitely be the first one.
An interesting question, and there should be no difference because the creative mind is still the major factor, but experience often reveals the first as the more honest of the two ... and less likey to claim that he/she gets it right first time, every time!
this is interesting. i have been thinking it is better to slow down a bit and think about what i am photographing but has been said, i have missed some good shots that way. both methods are too worthy to be ignored and i would think should be utilized. as an old-time B&W 35mm snapper, this digital work seems like having so much freedom to take pictures at random with no worries about film waste. it is a new mind set. but WHAT a mind set now i am wrapping my mind around it. click, click, click.
It doesn't matter now... and it didn't matter in the film-only era, either (it was just more expensive to be the first type of photographer back then). It's the finished product that matters, so the "better" photographer is the one who produces the "better" image, regardless of how he or she went about it.
(Oh, and I'm a mix of the two... depends on the subject matter, mostly: if I can control the environment, I take 1 or 2 shots; otherwise, it's fire away! Not that I achieve good results either way... but I do have fun.)
The second one.. You are able to analyze what you're doing.. It could give you learnings on how to position your camera with regards to the lighting, etc.. but what matters most is that you are able to capture the moment or image that you've wanted.. as long as it makes you feel better and you're happy with it..:)
I think the person who takes a few seconds to think about their photo and look at all the angles prior to actually shooting, that way if they take one or 100, it still had some thought instead of just luck. I am more of a spontaneous person myself.
I do both, I consider the shot, but also still take several shots of the same picture at different exposures. Sometimes I get things right pretty quickly, other times it takes 100 experimental shots to find a gem.
I do a bit of both. If I am trying to catch a fast moving subject, such as a bird at a bird feeder, I often do not have the time to evaluate my shots. On other times, even with slower birds, I am evaluating after every shot and trying all kinds of things (different angles, different camera settings, different perspectives, etc.).
I think it's the one who tries to go with #2, but knows when #1 just has to happen. Sometimes you've gotta do what you've gotta do for a quick shot to catch something amazing.
depends on the shot and the situation, for formal staged or timed shots number 2 for fast action off the cuff spontaneous shots number 1 I think a good photographer is one that can switch between the 2 at a moments notice, however I think a great photographer is one that knows what image they are going to take and how to take it before they even lift the camera :)
With kids, I'm number 1. You have to shoot fast and furious and pray that something turns out, which is always does. With still life, I'm more like #2. I actually get bored quickly with things that don't move, so I get a shot and move on.
The better photographer is the one that gets the job done. During the days of shooting on film, it might have been important to shoot conservative. But now, the developing costs of Compact Flash Cards is so cheap I don't see any reason why we can't shoot what we want.
Thanks for sharing your ideas guys! I guess, it's really about the combination, balance and timing. A good photographer is the combination of both, well, in the proper scenario and the proper time. :)
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I have however been guilty of doing the first type of photography, particularly when there's a fleeting moment for a great shot passing that doesn't allow for adjustments to camera settings, lighting or composition. :)
Well, I was really curious if we are taking digital photography for granted. :)
i think its better to evaluate rather than take lots of shots because without evaluating, taking heaps of shots wont let you progress.
my thoughts anyway :)
I'm more of the second, mainly because most of the photos I took are still life shots. If it's on street photography and action, I would definitely be the first one.
(Oh, and I'm a mix of the two... depends on the subject matter, mostly: if I can control the environment, I take 1 or 2 shots; otherwise, it's fire away! Not that I achieve good results either way... but I do have fun.)
I do both, I consider the shot, but also still take several shots of the same picture at different exposures. Sometimes I get things right pretty quickly, other times it takes 100 experimental shots to find a gem.
Thanks for sharing your ideas guys! I guess, it's really about the combination, balance and timing. A good photographer is the combination of both, well, in the proper scenario and the proper time. :)