Hit for Average
Overnight, after posting the POTW's, I had a fellow PJ make a (physically misplaced, I think) comment that I assume was meant to go under the POTW post just below this one. He felt that it would be better to stick with the good stuff and lose the group shot.
Granted, the post would look better (no offense, Chris.) But I would point out that for many people shooting for a living, this is more real-world than the other two photos. In fact, at my last workshop, "how would you do a group shot" was a question in which there was wide interest.
Here's how I feel about that.
First, group shots are a fairly common assignment for many of the people who read the site.
And second - and I strongly believe this one - the biggest gains in photography come from learning to hit for average.
To some of the foreign readers who may not appreciate a baseball reference, "hitting for average" means making it a priority to do well on the less glamorous jobs. I think you can effect the biggest change the fastest by bringing up your minimum quality level on every single job you shoot - even group shots.
Look, we all want to hit home runs. And by that I mean shooting the occasional amazing photo or winning the big, important contests, or whatever. But far more important (to me) is what you do every time you go out. What do you do with the little stuff?
Heck, you send me to Darfur and I will come back with interesting photos. A trained monkey could, as one of my colleagues is wont to say. But how many times am I gonna go to Darfur?
(The answer, so far: Not once.)
But I do mundane assignments all of the time. So that's the first place I am gonna look to improve when I want to raise my overall quality level.
And that'll give me a better chance of getting more of the really interesting assignments.
Granted, the post would look better (no offense, Chris.) But I would point out that for many people shooting for a living, this is more real-world than the other two photos. In fact, at my last workshop, "how would you do a group shot" was a question in which there was wide interest.
Here's how I feel about that.
First, group shots are a fairly common assignment for many of the people who read the site.
And second - and I strongly believe this one - the biggest gains in photography come from learning to hit for average.
To some of the foreign readers who may not appreciate a baseball reference, "hitting for average" means making it a priority to do well on the less glamorous jobs. I think you can effect the biggest change the fastest by bringing up your minimum quality level on every single job you shoot - even group shots.
Look, we all want to hit home runs. And by that I mean shooting the occasional amazing photo or winning the big, important contests, or whatever. But far more important (to me) is what you do every time you go out. What do you do with the little stuff?
Heck, you send me to Darfur and I will come back with interesting photos. A trained monkey could, as one of my colleagues is wont to say. But how many times am I gonna go to Darfur?
(The answer, so far: Not once.)
But I do mundane assignments all of the time. So that's the first place I am gonna look to improve when I want to raise my overall quality level.
And that'll give me a better chance of getting more of the really interesting assignments.
Follow me on Twitter: @Strobist
Now Shipping from USA and UK: Strobist Lighting Seminar DVDs
Feed your brain: My Favorite Lighting/Photo Books



11 Comments:
Hi, I am much appreciative when you draw attention to all sorts of shots, not just the really splashy ones. I am not sure I would have thought to light a group shot that big just with strobes, so I immediately began thinking about it and wondering how to try it. For me, that is what Strobist is all about. Pushing me to learn new things, think about things in new ways and to grow as a photographer. Thank you for this site and thanks to all who participate!
A feature on making 101 cheque presentations a week less mind numbingly dull would be popular!!!!!
Thanks for posting the group shot. I had somebody ask in one of my flickr groups about taking a large group portrait (though they were asking about what lens specifically, but had a 580EX as a backup) and I posted this photo as an example of lighting a group shot just with flashes. I myself was looking for samples of things like this before doing a smaller family group shot before Christmas and wasn't finding much.
-/\/
I'm just a n00b - not a professional photographer. Is my wife interested in the pictures when I come home from a local 'photo expedition'? Not really, she'll pretend she is, but that's about it.
How about the snapshots that I take at my son's birthday party, or during thanksgiving diner? As soon as we come home, she wants to see those.
Improving the mundane snapshots has far more priority for me than improving my 'pretty pictures' shots - the latter category is nice for me, but the first category is much more looked at.
So I would say, yes, those unpretending shots are important as well!
@ Photoimagery- Sorry, but I have to draw the line somewhere. :) Besides, I have something coming on just that subject, but i am sure it is not what you would think. Stay tuned.
I enjoy seeing all the different ways shots are made. No telling what they may "trigger". hehe
Daviid,
It's great to see it all. We have to make our bread and butter by doing whatever we can, so it's good to have validation once in awhile that what we're doing is a good thing, even if it's not breath taking.
GW
If there are photographers reading this blog who don't have to deal with mundane shoots (insert-subject-here style shots) then I can't help but wonder why they're reading instead of running their own site to teach us all how to only get dynamic, interesting shoots sufficient enough to pay the bills.
EVERY shoot I've ever done involves some level of monotony. I had a fantastic family shoot recently in a gorgeous home (I love it when clients understand that a seamless backdrop is not the only option). But after the big group shot which went very well they asked me to do some shots of individual couples. It felt like I was shooting for a high school yearbook. "Next!"
I think a split right down the middle would be great. Half amazing, inspirational stuff and half how-to-make-the-boring-less-so.
Thanks as always!
- Jon
It's good to see the group shot to know that kind of thing is possible, and as has been said it's a much more real world example. Teh shot of the woman's head is beautifully lit, but how often does anyone get to do that sort of thing?
No offense taken David, it's certainly not the flashiest (no pun intended) photo I've ever taken. I put it up for the group for just the reason you stated, hitting for the average. If I would have taken this photo before reading this website, I would have just put my flash ON my camera and nuked them as best I could. But with the knowledge I've gained, I was able to create a better photo than I would have been able to without it (the knowledge that is). The photo is not great, at all, I know, but it is better than it would have been without the off-camera flash. And since I am a full-time newspaper photojournalist, I have to come back with a well-lit photo, EVERY time. While I did not shoot this for my newspaper (a relative asked me to shoot her companies' annual meeting), I took advantage of the situation to try some of the techniques I have learned here. Plus, $80 an hour ain't bad pay either!
Thank you for including the group shot- and the commentary about mundane assignments! You are right on- after all isn't it really about making the mundane assignments exciting??
Sarah Anderson
Post a Comment
<< Home