Photos per day?

On average how many photos do you shoot at Disney?

  • 1 - 25

  • 26 - 50

  • 51 - 75

  • 75 - 100

  • more than 100


Results are only viewable after voting.
It is kind of interesting how the advent of digital allows everyone to take so many more pictures.

With film, if I shot a lot, it would be a couple of rolls a day. Now I don't even blink an eye at taking 100+ of a single football game or other event.
 
Master Mason said:
It is kind of interesting how the advent of digital allows everyone to take so many more pictures.

With film, if I shot a lot, it would be a couple of rolls a day. Now I don't even blink an eye at taking 100+ of a single football game or other event.
An interesting question would be - are you getting more "quality" or "presentable" pictures than before?

I don't mind shooting a lot of pics that I am not sure are going to be worthwhile, or bracketing (I almost never did with film, though I knew the concept) in iffy lighting, or whatever. Certainly, the throw-away percentage is much higher with digital, hopefully I am getting more keepers overall though. (I think I am!)
 
Groucho said:
An interesting question would be - are you getting more "quality" or "presentable" pictures than before?

I think I am- one thing that helps me is the immediate feedback from digital too. Even though you can't see everything on those small screens, if something is obviously not working, I can change it.

(I took about 1200 for ou recent 5 day trip, threw out around 200 that were just bad, and need to go through again to pick out the much smaller number that I'll actually print.
 

Groucho said:
An interesting question would be - are you getting more "quality" or "presentable" pictures than before?

I don't mind shooting a lot of pics that I am not sure are going to be worthwhile, or bracketing (I almost never did with film, though I knew the concept) in iffy lighting, or whatever. Certainly, the throw-away percentage is much higher with digital, hopefully I am getting more keepers overall though. (I think I am!)

I'm getting more good pics, but that's only because I'm taking so many more - the good pics are a smaller percentage of my overall total than they were in my film days.

I have unfortunately adopted some bad habits since I went digital, number one of which is that I tend to snap quickly without taking the time and effort to compose a shot like I used to do with film.

But I am aware of these habits and I'm making an effort to shake them.
 
90 a day in 2005 and 96 a day in 2006.


As for if the pictures are better quality, good question. My previous work was mostly periscope photos using super-slow speed B&W film. They were good but I can't show them to you. I'd have to kill ya. So, I guess these digital photos are better.
 
I just checked...
my Photo Storage. It looks like I've got 54,763 files/images. There accumulated from about 9 months BEFORE Julianna was born through October of 2007. Roughly a 6.5 year span. Over the 81 month period I might have had 3 months of total inactivity in photo taking. This amounts to an avergage monthly production rate of 702 images over 78 months. That translates into 23 frames a day on average over 6.25 years of photo taking!
My most active period of photo taking was probably the recent 11 nite Disney Southern Carribean sailing we took this past September. Over the 14 days of travel I took 6,737 images which translates into an average of shooting rate of 481 frames per day. That breaks out into roughly 40 frames an hour for 12 hours of each day... over the 14 day period.
Averaging 481 frames a day on this Disney cruise is signifivantly more then the 23 frames a day averaged over the past 78 months. In fact... if we just modify the numbers to exclude the single big Disney Southern cruise photos then.... I've really taken approximately 48,026 images. So - the calculation over 78 months is that I've averaged 615 frames a month... or about 20.5 frames a day over 78 months.

Crazy, eh? So... you wonder why my next DSLR must have a 100,000 actuation life shutter design... unlike the estimated 50,000 actuation design life of my current DSLR. In this forum discussion Bob Atkins thinks the 10D has a 50,000 MTBF design life on the shutter. Then it'll be $180 for a replacement shutter assembly! http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BWHV&tag=

Oh well... that's not too bad as it compares favorably to shooting 50,000 frames on film. Which would have translated into 1,389 rolls of 36 exposures. And at an estimated $18 per roll to buy/develope and double prints translates into an estimated total film cost of $25,002!!! ... so $180 for a shutter or $5000 for a new equipment is pretty cheap to produce $25,002 in images!!! In fact... the shutter replacement alone means the average cost to take a pictures with the 10D is 0.36 CENTs per image (about 1/3rd of 1 cent/image). OR... Thats' about 1.08 cents per 3 images. (shutter replacement alone).

Or... if you factor in that I've spent slightly in excess of $5,000 for all of my digital equipment (obsolete digicams, flash gun, lenses, filters, bags, tripods, hoods, batteries, memory, paper packs, photo grade printers, etc.) against the 54,763 images I've shot - this averages out to 9.13 cents per digital image. That's with having counted the few dozen MPEG movies individually. I've excluding computer, color busines laser and multimedia HDTV costs from this figure otherwise my total capital outlay would just about triple!!!

piggybank.gif

Even so, I think my per frame capital outlay is still too high! I need to try and reach 75-100,000 images with only ONE shutter replacement and less then $300 of further expense. That would contain my capital outlay to about $5,500 for the 75 or 100K images. Which would translate into an average per image cost of 7.33 - 5.5 cents each! That is more tolerable then a dime an image!
 
Groucho said:
An interesting question would be - are you getting more "quality" or "presentable" pictures than before?

I don't mind shooting a lot of pics that I am not sure are going to be worthwhile, or bracketing (I almost never did with film, though I knew the concept) in iffy lighting, or whatever. Certainly, the throw-away percentage is much higher with digital, hopefully I am getting more keepers overall though. (I think I am!)

RuleOf3rds_5_300.jpg

I teeter between achieving better images then I ever managed with film... then on the other hand I've never shot so many images before. As a previous poster mentioned... I am well aware of the shooting excess I've embraced and am actively put myself on a shooting diet to slim down the production and concentrate more on better concieved compositons and expiosures.
 





New Posts










Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top