Do Pro Photographers just shoot more?

[Ben Rubinstein]

Cartier Bresson said that he would go out and shoot 2 rolls of film before breakfast. I don't know how many he shot during the course of the day but if we work out the ratio of iconic and great images to the amount he shot..

Ansel Adams was happy with 1 great image a month (or was it a year?) but he shot a hell of a lot more..

What is the ratio of worthwhile images from a sports game compared to the amount of frames shot?

News Photographers shoot zillions of images for that one headliner.

Does anyone know just how many frames are shot on a commercial shoot?

Story goes of a photographer new to the National Geographic who came back from an assignment to shoot a mountain. He handed in his 70 rolls of velvia and was asked if that was all, where the rest were!

This was of course pre digital when the only ones who could afford to shoot this much was pros.

So has anything changed, is the myth of the Leica with 50mm and a roll of film magically making a decisive moment with each frame just an excuse to bash digital?

Is the difference between the pro and the advanced amatuer in getting those iconic images boiling down to just that, the amount of frames shot? Are the greats only great due to extensive cherry picking?

*Flame Retardent Suit on!*

To be honest I don't believe the above, not wholly. The pro has the gear at the time, the pro is taking the photos, the pro has an aim, a goal. However to a certain extent the myth of the greats being great in every frame should be laid to rest, should cease to be used to bash digital, beginners, non pros, etc. The greats were there at the time and had a camera in their hand. And they shot the frames! However possibly their images are not connected to them, to their vision, can a single image out of a shoot of 200 be used as a 'window' into the photographers soul as so many would like to think? Not without the context of the contact sheets....

[Nicolas Claris]

I know some shoot like hell some don't.

I am not sure this is really important (it was with lab invoices!).

If you consider I'm a pro (I make my living with photography but I'm not Cartier Bresson!); depending of kind of shooting, I may fire 800 a day ar just a few tens.

A good average of keepers for me is 3 to 5%

[Asher Kelman]

I'm not a Pro, since I don't call myself one, but I aim to meet professional standards. I photograph for my own Artwork and street, interior, architecture for my portfolio as well as large events for charities.

So my success rate is not an example of someone who's livelhood depends on photography but rather whose life does! Also I commit heinous sins, as Nicolas Claris will atterst! Yes, sometimes I "spray and pray" even while walking! When there's a riot, a hip-hop event or seven stunning women crossing the road between traffic in Paris, one has but a crack in space and time between obstructions to one's moving targets. I spray and pray, I walk and shoot without focus at haphzard angles! Other times I stop, think plan, get stuff together, tape down wires, test lights, get the food ordered, put up a rack for clothes and so forth to get the shots I dream of.

I shoot at an event 500 shots in 3 hours approx. My keepers are 75% but winners not many. Some are breathtaking occasionally but not prizewinning.

Travel would be 10,000 pics in 2 weeks. How many really, really great shots? My wild guess would be 1 in a 500 if I'm lucky.

For a model, sometimes I cannot get things right because of a lack of chemistry, wrong lighting or my own lack of skill. Other times I'm amazed at what I see and maybe 1 in 5 are usable and 5 are special out of of 500.

Now I'm moving to 4x5 and 8x10 film and I cannot afford to shoot at a high rate. So by necessity my range of style will shift. I will have to see how I can manage!

I'll have to first shoot with my 5D to get things right and only then take the shot witth the film. I cannot think of winners, just exploring!

So overall I'd say that for an assignment 50-75% of the shots are at least satisfactory but great to fantastic maybe 0-3 per shoot.

I have talked at length to guys who photograph team sports. The work is gruelling and the guys have got positions, plays and timing very well worked out. They often know each team member! These photographers are very well paced to get peak actions. I'd hazard that at least 1 in 5 shots a very good and can be sold. we'll hear no doubt from Nill!

Asher

[John_Nevill]

Fascinating stuff, I'm far from being a pro, but do take my photography seriously enough to run a small business.

I estimate that I shoot ~2000 a month, although its dropping off. Not for the sake of wanting to shoot, but more to do with looking through the lens, examining, predicting and consciously being less trigger happy.

Keepers - it was <5% its now ~15%.
Winners - probably <0.01%

When I shoot wildlife with colleagues, its quite surprising how the volumes differ, I may shoot ~300 in 4 hours, while others may shoot >1500.

When shooting landscapes, an early morning 2 hour session may result in <50 images being taken.

Perhaps I should shoot more?

I asked Giles Angel (Heather's son) last week how many photographs he shoots in a year and he said ~300.

[Nill Toulme]

Heh... actually when I really started shooting soccer seriously my keeper rate was about 1 in 5. But I've since gotten better, and it's down to about 1 out of 10. ;-)

A short excerpt from my "Sports Basics (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5602)" tips post:

"13. Shoot a lot. Then shoot some more.

"14. Only show the good ones.

"15. What you consider a good one will change over time."

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[Ben Rubinstein]

Nill, what you've described could apply to the entire genre of photography!

I have to admit to being disappointed not to be flamed yet, I thought that such an assertion would be very provocative to the amatuer snobs who claim to get it right in camera with every frame and that the need to 'work' a subject shows a lack of professionalism as pros get it right first time! Maybe we don't have enough Leica shooters here.... :)

[Angela Weil]

Ben, interesting question.
I remember the first time I heard the line 'Pros shoot 1 to 10', must have been 20 years ago. That was in film days and seemed very expensive to me. At least they get paid for all those discarded frames, was my next thought. Finally, the idea seemed very relaxing. I started shooting 'rolls' instead of single images and found that to be a liberating experience.
Meanwhile, digital now, I have not been able to change the habit of thinking in 'rolls' (36 frames of 35 mm). A two gig card with 96 raw files are sort of three 'rolls' for me. Seems like a lot and feels even more liberating.
Otherwise, it has been my experience that the turnout of keepers depends on my mood at any given day. If I'm relaxed and happy, concentrated and tuned in on the task, the situation or on a particular idea, the keeper to discard rate is pleasantly high, much better than 1 to 10. When I'm tense, distracted, preoccupied and not tuned in, I might as well not even start. I mean, I do turn out the required pictures (in focus, everybody or everything there, light ok), but the images seem empty to me.
The latter is the reason why I'm not a 'pro' in the sense of bread winning and why I do admire the skills of the professionals to be able to do just that: Get it right in a formal sense, get this extra feeling across and do that each and every time you go to a job no matter what.
Or to look at it from another perspective: Do professional shoot more? Yes, because they have to after making the decision that his would be their profession. How much would you shoot, if it would just be for your own enjoyment?

Cheers
Angela

[Ray West]

Hi Ben,

Is the difference between the pro and the advanced amateur in getting those iconic images boiling down to just that, the amount of frames shot? Are the greats only great due to extensive cherry picking?

It must be, else why would Canon bring out a 10fps pro camera? Chuck's video sound track sounds like a tractor engine, until it starts running out of diesel...

Best wishes,

Ray

[Kevin Bjorke]

No matter how many you shoot, once you're dead the most people will remember will be about five shots.

Think of HCB

Sure, you can think of more after a minute or two, but chances are you think of that kids with the wine bottles or the Mexican prostitutes or the pock-windowed wall in Madrid... just a clutch of pics.

Ansel, Karsh, Helmut, Gene Smith.... same deal

Of your own work, you probably won't even get to choose which five people associate with you. Heck, you might be long gone before anyone knows about your pics anyway (think late Arbus, Belloq, Mike Disfarmer,....)

I say: hedge your bets, make as many good ones as you can.

(and don't fret about the "pro" label unless you're using it on your tax returns)

------

--> addendum from Stephen Shore here (http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=104) <--

[Matt Needham]

To me "professional" just means they are making money doing it, and anyone who thinks it implies anything more than that without checking references is likely to get suckered. I've met plenty of serious amateur photogs who never made a dime with their photos, but can shoot circles around many of the pro hacks I've also met.

With most activities if a person tries harder, works longer, makes more attempts, explores and concentrates on what they are doing, etc... they are more likely to succeed than a person who tries once or twice, and calls it a day. It's not just photography, but almost everything. Talent is nice, but hard work, discipline, and determination will almost always trump unexercised talent in the long run. Of course combining talent with hard work can achieve wonders. Luck comes into play there somewhere too.

Sure there are some photos that only need to be taken once, but if I'm really excited about the subject it's definately worth exploring further, and taking a few more or even a lot of photos. I'll take many photos, and then if possible, return to the same subject again and again, taking even more photos. Even if I get a personal masterpiece, it doesn't mean I'm done discovering the subject.

As far as the gear goes, it drives me nuts when people say digital turns them into mad snappers while film causes them to slow down and contemplate what they are doing. Don't blame the gear; these decisions about how to function are made in the brain of the photog. If a photographer lets the gear determine how they work that's putting the cart before the horse. The photographer should run the camera, not the other way around.

[Alain Briot]

It also depends greatly on which camera format one uses. As a general rule, the larger the format, the less exposures are made. With large format scanning backs, this is further limited by the time it takes to create an image.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Alain, in a write up on LL you told the story of shooting at white sands with MR. If I'm not mistaken you stated that you exposed some 40 sheets of LF trannies. The shots of course were magnificent but even with large format, working the scene as the light changed is shooting more than perhaps the amatuer would have done, the pro knows that they need to get the shot and will shoot as much as they need to achieve it.

[Michael Fontana]

In Nicola's terms, I' m a pro; specialised on architecture and similar stuff.

My keeper rate is in the average 70 - 80%, in the oly 4/5'-days, it had to be in the 90%s!!
But - and now it comes, for almost every shot, I know where to place the tripod, it's a matter of experience and interest.

When beginning with digital, I had a period with lots of shots; sort of enjoing the new freedom and playing arround. But as digital data has to be archived, catalogisde, etc as well, thus lots of work implemented, I enhanced my keeper rate.