That would depend entirely upon the battle conditions and ranges of engagement involved.

If archers were engaging an enemy at standoff distances, they would have no choice - due to the range of the bow - but to arc their fire, shooting the arrow(s) on a ballistic trajectory, where they would aim upwards above the target and let gravity bring the arrow down onto the target. How high above the target they would need to aim to arc their fire would depend on the range to target. In more close quarters conflict, the archer would be able to lessen the degree of arc required to put the arrow on target, and in really close quarters, would be able to aim and fire directly at the approaching enemy.

Ideally, many archers worked as a team from standoff distances (250-300 yards), shooting arcing barrage or "volley" fire at the enemy troops, with all the archers releasing their arrows at around the same time, allowing the multiple arrows to rain down upon an advancing force, where the arrows would all land roughly at the same distance downrange. This would increase the odds of scoring successful hits or to act as suppressing fire to keep an enemy under cover and prevent them from advancing.

Learning the range of the bow/arrows, and how to aim them effectively at long distances, was something that came with training. Archers would learn how to "range" their targets, and that would tell them how high above a target they had to aim in order to be effective. The further away the enemy was, the higher above their heads you would have to aim in order to compensate for gravitational drop of the ballistic projectile (arrow, in this case), just like modern rifle snipers must do today with long-range engagements.

By my understanding, maximum useful (lethal) range of a medieval longbow ("livery bow") was deemed to be about 250-275 yards in arcing fire. They could potentially shoot arrows farther than that in terms of absolute maximum range, but the arrow would lose penetration energy and be less lethal at those extreme ranges, thus resulting in wasted shots even if they struck the intended targets. Ideally, an archer wanted to kill or maim what he was shooting at, including having the arrow penetrating any possible armour worn by the attacking forces. The closer the enemy was, the better the arrow's penetrating energy would be, and the lower the archer would have to aim to strike the target. Within 50-60 yards from the target, a medieval archer with a decent longbow could aim close to or almost directly at the enemy without having to deal with much up-angling compensation for gravitational arrow drop.

EDIT - I just saw OP's other post giving a bit more clarifying info on what they were asking. Typically, volley or barrage fire from longer range was the preferred method of archery engagement of the enemy, with multiple archers firing volley arrows at the enemy from standoff distances. Archers were typically/desirably used as standoff artillery, and though they could engage in more close quarters battle if need be, their primary use by military forces was to serve as artillery barrage. They were typically the first line of defense or offense, as they had the capability of raining death and injury down upon an enemy force from longer ranges than anything else in the arsenal that could be fielded by a single person. Shooting arcing barrage fire, with multiple archers letting loose at the same time, was the preferred and battle-proven tactic.

The traditional answer is that arrows were loosed as soon as the enemy was within the maximum range and continued until the enemy was in close combat. This narrative has existed from quite early in scholarship, and every modern scholar I've read so far has largely accepted the traditional narrative.

Mike Loades, who is a popular historian and archer, has recently suggested that this was not the case, and that all archery took place within 80 or 90 yards, a range at which low angles are used and the arrows experienced minimal drop. He bases this on the lack of medieval artwork depicting bows raised for long range volleys and the dearth of descriptions of long range in period literature. The few mentions he concedes as having been made (such as the opening volleys of Agincourt and Halidon Hill) he ascribes to limited volleys with light arrows designed to provoke the enemy into attacking.

While Loades may be right in suggesting that long range volleys might not have always been used, we do have some evidence of English archers being capable of effectively using volleys of arrows: Clifford Rogers in his paper "The Battle of Agincourt" (The Hundred Years War: Different Vistas (Part II)) points out a reference in Christine de Pizan's The Book of Deeds of Arms and of Chivalry to English archers being able to hit a barge at 213 yards. Although from a later period, Humfrey Barwick gives the effective range of the longbow as 160 yards based on his experience of war. This is a lower range - indicative of his argument that archers lose effectiveness on campaign as a result of the rigors of it warfare, but still very much in volley territory. John Smythe, being a largely theoretical proponent of the longbow at the same time as Barwick, gives the range at which archers could engage their opponents as between 160 and 220 yards. There is also some evidence of late medieval Scandinavians using volley fire with their crossbows.

So, on the balance of it, I would say that volleys of arrows were used, but perhaps not from as great a range as many scholars assume. Once the enemy came within 80 or 90 yards the archers began to aim more directly at their opponents, and at 50 or 60 yards they probably began to pick their targets deliberately.