First shot, bang on!?

Curious as to how many of you usually get what your looking for
on the first shot?

Why I ask is, I have read several photography books and only a
couple have mentioned having to take several shots to get what
they are looking for. And the rest make it sound as if they get
it on the first shot.

Michael

Depends on the subject for me. People pictures (snapshots) are usually right the first time. When I was doing my first moon shots I took about 30 pics since I couldn't really judge the exposure very well on the LCD. I think the authors of some books can't get over their egos enough to admit they don't get it right the first time all the time. Seems foolish not to take multiple shots with a digital, since they are essentially free and you might be more pleased with a variation you hadn't considered originally.

I've read that the average rate of "keeper" photos is less than 30%. That means for every 100 shots, most photogs keep less than 30 of them. At least in my case, I find that to be an accurate assessment. Yes, sometimes we get lucky and get it right the first time. Sometimes that's just because there's no second chance. But I think we're better off recomposing and having another crack at it if we can.

I usually take multiple shots of a scene, variations of exposure and depth of field, especially if I'm shooting for a HDR, which is often. I seldom look at the LCD screen. When I do it's to check the white balance I'm looking for. Once in a while I will check the histogram RGB channel to see what changes occurred with a shot variation. Of course the book writer wants you to think he always gets it right the first time. Ego or not, he won't sell many books if he comes off looking like a dummy, "O gee I had to shoot that one five times to get it right." I probably should check the LCD screen more often. That fault comes from my original photo training with film cameras over about thirty years, no LCD screen to look at, and having to wind the film forward for the next shot. With the cost of film, processing and printing you had to get it at least by the second shot or go broke before you figured out what you did wrong. I don't look at taking multiple shots of a scene as not getting it right the first time but being able to look at several shots to see which one is more right than the others.

You're so right, Joseph. I got my experience from shooting film, too, over some 30 years. Aren't we all glad that digital cameras came along! I would have went broke just on the fil costs if I didn't at least get the shot on the second try. Had to wait a week to see the results, too! Ahh, those were the days,. eh!

If you take a look at some of the videos of the location shoots by Joe McNally, Scott Kelby, et al, you can see that these pros are snapping "tons of shots" before they get what they want, and they readily admit to tossing a bunch of initial shots. And I consider these guys to be pretty darn good!
So I think Anthony's 30% assessment is right on.

And yes, thank God for digital . . . I'd be broke, too!

Expanding on what Mr. Bautsch already said...in one of my photography classes, we are learning about bracketing exposures. Not for the sake of HDR, but as an accurate way to dial in a scene for proper exposure. Even when using a light meter to measure ambient lighting, your shots can still be off by a stop or two, especially if there is a lot of variation in the lighting.

Agreed Anthony. Bracketing a shot where possible will produce more keepers. Human eyesight is good but not nearly as good as the digital sensor. It will record things you don't see, even the more subtle changes that affect the shot. Your eyes and even the light meter will say one exposure but the sensor may not see it that way. I worked with a noted professional scenic photographer in the White Mountains, NH for a four day workshop. He also takes multiple shots with variations. He told me that his keeper ratio was about 20% but his standards for a keeper was a lot higher than mine. Mine is about like everyone else's around 30%.