When I started with the 4x5 (40 years ago) I'd take only one negative, but I'd spend quite a bit of time moving towards, away, and around a subject trying to find the one single strongest composition.
With the digital camera (usually on a tripod or monopod) I sometimes take up to 5 images of a subject because it feels looser, more fluid, easier to riff on a theme.
I only have 6 film holders and would go on full day or weekend hikes. If I took duplicates, that would probably mean having to stuff my arms into a changing bag partway through the day without the biting insect protection of a tent...not something you want to do around here!Funny. I learned to take 2 exposures of each shot, only process one, hold the second as insurance. Not what I do now. But now I rarely shoot LF any more.
Digital photography has ruined the nature of the process. With the advent of cropping and shooting ad nauseam, rarely will you see a digital photographer take a considerable amount of time to shoot just 'once.' When I went back to 35mm, I became more discriminating with what I was to expose. People complain about the cost of 35mm film these days, but I actually think the embedded price of shooting film forces the photographer to stop and really consider what they're shooting. So that being said, I am of the William Eggleston and Akira Kurosawa school of shooting: take your time, consider then expose only once.
Digital photography has ruined the nature of the process. With the advent of cropping and shooting ad nauseam, rarely will you see a digital photographer take a considerable amount of time to shoot just 'once.' When I went back to 35mm, I became more discriminating with what I was to expose. People complain about the cost of 35mm film these days, but I actually think the embedded price of shooting film forces the photographer to stop and really consider what they're shooting. So that being said, I am of the William Eggleston and Akira Kurosawa school of shooting: take your time, consider then expose only once.
Digital photography has ruined the nature of the process. With the advent of cropping and shooting ad nauseam, rarely will you see a digital photographer take a considerable amount of time to shoot just 'once.' When I went back to 35mm, I became more discriminating with what I was to expose. People complain about the cost of 35mm film these days, but I actually think the embedded price of shooting film forces the photographer to stop and really consider what they're shooting. So that being said, I am of the William Eggleston and Akira Kurosawa school of shooting: take your time, consider then expose only once.
Digital photography has ruined the nature of the process.
With the advent of... shooting ad nauseam
You can shoot digital just as you would film. It is in one's nature rather than the technology involved. Having said that, I will shoot as many frames--digital or analog--as it takes to get the shot, whether that means waiting for the subject to be where I want it or making several exposures with the subject in different positions, or an element of the composition that may move and be more satisifying than the original situation. Just making a single exposure is a limitation, not an advantage or some sort of superior talent.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?