How long do you spend getting a shot?

Grumbledook

Grumbledook

Grumbledook

Associate
Joined
11 Nov 2002
Posts
359
For those who take their cameras out and about and spot something that would perhaps make a good photo, how long do you actually tend to spend trying to get the shot right?

Assuming that it is something that can have it's time taken over and isn't a constantly moving/changing scene.

Do you typically just go with the first one you are happy with, or move around to explore the angles etc, wait for lighting to change/clouds to move?
 
I don't shoot landscapes so i don't know but I know people have spent months waiting for the right light for a shot.
 
I spend time and always always try and do different angle, exposure e.t.c. in case I messed up or did the wrong one. At least I try.

My Lego Star Wars Stormtrooper and Converse shoe shot took about 20 shots with different lighting angles e.t.c. That took me over 30mins just for 1 shot.

When it comes to street, spontaneous or sports - obviously it's hit and miss, pictures aplenty.
 
When I'm taking some landscape photos with the night sky, some shots can be hours long. I have to take an initial few long exposures to make sure the framing is right, then I take a few more to see what kind of exposure time works best. I'll then take 1 or 2 if I'm wanting to keep the stars as points of light, or I'll take maybe up to 100 30 second exposures if I want some star trails.
 
Seconds most of the time for me, I'm normally on the way somewhere or in a rush!

I tend to shoot, and then try a few more times. More often than not I'll use the first of the set.
 
Grumbledook said:
what about photos of stuff you do shoot though ;]
Click to expand...

I shoot people, and its totally different. You either get the moment, or you don't. I would observe people, and watch what they are doing, and predict what they would do, see a shot in my head and wait for that moment until they does what I want (without telling them to). In that sense, i would wait at most a minute, but no longer, lingering anymore means i'll miss other shots.

Most shots I would be in the moment and move into position for it.





Some shots I would have to be in place and have camera up and ready (looking through the viewfinder all the time) and shoot at that moment. (these 2 shots are the most difficult, see the people surrounding the couple, they both went round in a circle, meaning there were as many people behind me too so I am more forward than the "line" and concious of some "kicking" in the first shot).

img2514z.jpg


img6989qb5.jpg




Some has an element of luck (focus and expression).

 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
I shoot people, and its totally different. You either get the moment, or you don't. I would observe people, and watch what they are doing, and predict what they would do, see a shot in my head and wait for that moment until they does what I want (without telling them to). In that sense, i would wait at most a minute, but no longer, lingering anymore means i'll miss other shots.
Click to expand...

This with portraits.


Landscapes I mostly go out n don't even get the camera out of the bag if its not half decent. Then when it is I maybe shoot a couple.

Setting up I can take anywhere from 5 minuites to usually 20 minuites settings up. I tend not to enjoy shooting off tripod anymore.
The tripod is a great means to allow yourself to stop and think about your objective/surrounding.

Johnny
 
some great photos there raymond, the couples involved must have been happy with them

I think this photo I took the longest to get, I've walked past this spot so many times and one night while staggering home drunk I noticed what a nice scene it was. Trouble is the river doesn't flow most the year and it hardly ever snows down here either.

I took it shortly after the superbowl finished this year and went out at 4am in the morning with the fresh snow everywhere and set up my tripod on a bridge over the river.

river-lavant-snow-night.jpg
 
I tend to be a very instinctive with my shots. Previsualisation and the planning that goes with it, isn't a skill I've yet aquired. I also don't get to go out on many shoots, so I generally get the best I can get with the available light and conditions.

I am however coming round to the idea of going on a photography trip with the intention of getting ONE great landscape shot, instead of lots of nice, but merely "good" shots.

For me, there is clearly a relationship to the length of time setting up a shot and experiance. I've noticed that with experiance, the time I take over a shot has gotten longer, and the number of shots I take has reduced. And with it, the number of unusable shots I bring home has also reduced.
 
Well I was down at the beach earlier (much) this morning with the 5x4 and I think it took me a total of about 15 minutes for 2 shots. Though i'de already planned where, when, and most of that 15 minutes was setting up.

If it was digital, it still would have taken me 15 minutes. I'de just likely have about 100 shots now rather than 2.
 
The most I've spent on a single shot was 20 minutes. I'm going to do some typical-macro-drop-something-into-water shot soon though
 
I'd agree with Raymond - it depends what you want to take the picture of and how people/enviroment/weather are...

You might have a few seconds to catch a street image, a 100m sprint. You might walk for days and spend hours with the camera sat on a tripod for a landscape.

(Yeah, I took the camera on a little 'trek' went about 14 miles off into the hills, we got there looking for this hut we intended to sleep in - was on our map, but it had been demolished!! Got very wet setting our tents up. Woke-up and it was still raining a Iset the camera up got nothing. We finished our fun weekend out. Luckily, I wasn't there for a picture just for the fun weekend and it was great.)

Blimey that turned out to be long post!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom