Makes sense to me. If I go to a big, all day event, I'll normally shoot over a thousand images and if I'm lucky end up with a couple dozen keepers and one or two killer shots. Out af about 1100 pics I shot at the WWII reenactment last year, I Posted 63 photos. Some of these were just good snapshots, but we were doing this for the reenactors. If they were just for myself, perhaps 10-20 shots would have been posted.
The article doesn't specify whether the bulk of shots were low quality wasted shots or were just not selected for publishing. The unstated insinuation is that the NG photogs are "spraying and praying" but I doubt that is the case. I am sure there were plenty of high quality shots taken, just not published for their assignment.
I know I have easily taken over 1000 shots in a day, only to come out with a handful of worthy photos (but the term "worthy" is subjective). Actually, when I first began shooting I would try and capture an image in only take a few takes, but sadly, I was disappointed that I didn't capture anything worthwhile.
After a while of this, I began shooting more and more, and learned that I was able to capture something telling, something invigorating, when I would shoot more.
But then again, I have had many beautiful shots, where I could only select one (for instance, when creating a collage of my children on the wall).
@EL-ROI: I would say that they weren't low quality photos, but rather, not chosen due do the fact that they had to pick the "cream of the crop". But then again, I could be wrong.
When I worked as a Camp Photographer this summer, I averaged 800 pictures per day, with some days over 1000 and "bad" days having 400-600 pictures.
It does not surprise me in the least that a national geographic photographer would take more
Out all day and night on assignment in an exotic locale with responsibility for capturing enough NG-quality pictures to fill out an article (and satisfy a photo editor) -- 1000/day is not surprising at all. I think the average NG assignment has included about 30,000 frames for many years (decades) -- and they were shooting film until quite recently.
Yeah, I hear those machine guns going off around me. Some might be increasing their odds of getting the perfect shot. More true in sports than in nature photography. Sometimes, it just might be better to wait for the decisive moment, rather than spray through the sequence.
I don't doubt 1000 image captures per day for some situations.
I think that once I have seen a video of Salgado discussing with his editor which of 25 pictures of the same scene, a 1 minute time span, should appear in one of his books.
Most were significantly different as for framing and composition. I realized that had I taken any of them it would have been a once in a lifetime picture.
But then, Salgado does documentary and environmental portraits. Perhaps in other genres is different.
My toughest days of shooting happened when I was shooting an Indy race for one of the teams. It involved about 30 miles of walking and about 2,000 clicks per day, and about 4 hours sleep each night.
I did get a few keepers though, and learned that the best action shots are when you can slow shutter at about 1/10 sec or so and get a good pan with a decent background smear.
There was one big pileup of about 15 cars, and the security had moved me back from the pits about 30 seconds before it happened, so I just got a couple of glimpses of that. : (
Going through that many shots was a pain. I don't want to do that again.
It's all relative. For situations involving high-speed, nature, and/or any other unpredictability, 1000 shots is probably average per session. In a studio, unless it's water splashes or ultra-high-speed, or you're shooting 10 different outfits, it seems excessive.
It's all relative. For situations involving high-speed, nature, and/or any other unpredictability, 1000 shots is probably average per session. In a studio, unless it's water splashes or ultra-high-speed, or you're shooting 10 different outfits, it seems excessive.
I'd easily shoot 1000+ in the studio in a day.
But I am normally working with a nude model - it would be rude to just stand there without taking pictures!
It's all relative. For situations involving high-speed, nature, and/or any other unpredictability, 1000 shots is probably average per session. In a studio, unless it's water splashes or ultra-high-speed, or you're shooting 10 different outfits, it seems excessive.
I'd easily shoot 1000+ in the studio in a day.
But I am normally working with a nude model - it would be rude to just stand there without taking pictures!
