How many exposures to get the shot?

[Pieter12]

These discussions have spent a lot of time on what happens before and during the creation of a photograph. But this isn’t the entire ‘process’ …

Ask: how much time and effort do you spend after the creation of an image (critically) evaluating it? For instance: What is this image about? What does it represent? Who is the “audience” for this image? Does this image “ask” or “answer” any question(s)? If so, what are they? What avenues or facets of the theme does this image leave undone? Does this image suggest additional topics? Etc.

The more time I spend asking these kinds of questions, the more productive (and by this I mean leaner and meaningful) contact sheets.

A few items I would point out. First, the title and subject of the thread is how many exposures to get the shot, not how you might evaluate the shot once it has been made. Also, I think you may be overthinking your photos. I, for one would not evaluate any of my images in the same manner. Since I am not a commercial photographer, the audience is me. Period. If I like it that is enough. I don't analyze my photos. Lastly, I don't quite understand how asking such questions after the creation could lead to leaner and more meaningful contact sheets. Maybe before or while creating? All the intellectualizing would drain much of the joy I experience creating. Just saying.

 

[BrianShaw]

2 - 6, generally 6. And that is agnostic of format or equipment type.

 

[ace_666]

There's no process to be ruined because there is no single process. There are as many processes as there are photographers, and some photographers have more than one process.

Process is depend on format, but also on the photographer, and on what is being shot, and why. You might not shoot the same on digital or on film, but you certainly don't shoot the same if you're shooting landscape in a single location and have all day to do it or if you're doing a photo documentary in, and about, a specific community and have a month to do it.

I shoot landscapes exactly as I do documentary work. I wait for the perfect time, whether that's awaiting the cloud coverage to hit the frame in the way I deem aesthetically right or waiting for my subject to leap from the group in that sweet spot. What I'm suggesting is I have a philosophy around my shooting. I have a rubric that I love to operate within. It doesn't vary from subject to subject or format to format. I carry with me a philosophy of mathematician Carl Gauss: Few, but ripe. Why shoot twice when I can shoot once?

Gary Winogrand left 6,500 rolls of undeveloped film when he died. After W. Eugene Smith spent three years in Pittsburgh for his Pittsburgh project, he ended with 11 000 negatives. Vivian Maier left 100 000 negatives. They are fare from being the only examples. Rather the norm. Photographers shoot a lot of photos. It has always been the case, nothing to do with film or digital.

Sure, W. Eugene Smith shot copiously, just as he did with printing. I liken him to Kubrick, who shot 1,000,000 feet of film on The Shining. I'd consider these restraints imposed by photochemical processes. If Kubrick or Smith had used digital, they might've shot so much that it paralyzed their craft. Vivian Maier, the same. The average person with an smartphone has 3,000 exposures. The advent of digital photography makes Winogrand look like a conservative shooter. The technological revolution has devalued the average exposure. I would cite Walter Benjamin and The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, but it may be too pretentious.

Welcome to Photrio! While I still shoot more film than digital, I still shot one shot per photograph in either medium, unless I know that I did not get the first one correctly. And that is still quiet rare that I shoot more than on, but it will happen when someone walks into the frame or sum such event.

Thank you! Yes, I appreciate this very considerate approach. It appears to me an indicator of patience and calculation from the artist behind the camera.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ordinarily, one. Anything more than that is film waste. But if the light changes, or the clouds arrange themselves differently, taking another shot would not classify as a second shot of the same thing, but of a new composition.

Yes, shooting something like 8x10 trains that kind of carefulness. But not necessarily. I've heard of 8x10 shooters burning up 60 sheets in a single day if they had assistants - God bless em for keeping the film industry alive with their financial generosity! And conversely, when I was a kid with a 35mm Pentax camera dangling around my neck with Kodachrome in it, I never duplicated shots, either because I couldn't afford the expense, or wasn't interested in reloading while hanging onto a crumbling cliff with my fingertips!

 

[Pieter12]

The technological revolution has devalued the average exposure.

The average exposure was devalued long before digital. Probably sometime around the introduction of the Brownie camera.

 

[BrianShaw]

Ahhhh… using your algorithm, Drew, my response would be different!

 

[DREW WILEY]

What is a-log-rhythm? Slipping off a log while tap dancing? I only shoot mechanical cameras and don't dance at all. I have fallen off logs into the water.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I usually just take one when using large format but if the location is far away, or the subject is deemed unique or special in some way, I shoot a back up.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I shoot landscapes exactly as I do documentary work. I wait for the perfect time, whether that's awaiting the cloud coverage to hit the frame in the way I deem aesthetically right or waiting for my subject to leap from the group in that sweet spot. What I'm suggesting is I have a philosophy around my shooting. I have a rubric that I love to operate within. It doesn't vary from subject to subject or format to format. I carry with me a philosophy of mathematician Carl Gauss: Few, but ripe. Why shoot twice when I can shoot once?

That's great. It works for you. Probably work for others too. Doesn't work for me. Probably doesn't work for others too. Comes back exactly to what I said: there are as many processes as there are photographers. There's no good or bad process. There's just the one that works for you.

If Kubrick or Smith had used digital, they might've shot so much that it paralyzed their craft. Vivian Maier, the same.

You can't use that as an argument to prove your point. You just don't know what would have happened, how they would have functioned. The only thing we do know is they shot a lot of film. Really a lot. That's the only thing we have to go by, the only thing we can discuss.

I would cite Walter Benjamin and The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, but it may be too pretentious.

You're allowed to quote Walter Benjamin. I like him. He's my Walter-ego .

 

[Alex Benjamin]

On the other hand an important difference is approach. A neophyte might just make one or two exposures of a scene on film (aware of the number of frames and the expense of film), while shooting hundreds of nearly identical shots digitally. A more seasoned photographer might take advantage of the nearly unlimited number of exposures available digitally, trying to make every one count, having leeway for a lot of experimentation with a given scene.

This is so interesting, it had me imagine Atget living till the mid- or late-30s and having him wander the streets of Paris with a Barnack Leica, a Zeiss Contax or a Kodak Retina...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thank goodness, Atget stuck to his old box camera and contact printing the whole distance. It gave continuity to his work; and the shots he did in his old age were his best. Yep- he took many many less notable pictures because he made his living as basically a "stock photographer" of endless quaint Paris scenes, and did so with already antiquated methodology, and wasn't obsessed with gear. But his idiosyncrasies defined him.

 

[ace_666]

The average exposure was devalued long before digital. Probably sometime around the introduction of the Brownie camera.

If exposures were money, the Brownie was the equivalent of the U.S. dollar in 1935 as inflation ramped up after the New Deal. However digital photography is the equivalent of the U.S. Dollar's inflation from 1946-1987. Yes, it was that universally proliferated as far as reproduction. We're talking about an increase of around 300%. Thus, with regards to cost, access and ability to expose in low-light for people around the world, the average exposure of a digital photograph is increasingly DEVOID of value.

As of 2017, there had been an estimated 1.3 Trillion (with at T) digital photos taken. Given exponential growth, that figure has probably doubled from 2017-2024. To put it bluntly: there is no comparison of inflation of production than the digital revolution. Forget about simply access for people to a camera. It's incomparable.

This all brings me to...

That's great. It works for you. Probably work for others too. Doesn't work for me. Probably doesn't work for others too. Comes back exactly to what I said: there are as many processes as there are photographers. There's no good or bad process. There's just the one that works for you.

Yes, that is my point. The vast majority of people take your philosophy: multitudes of exposures. Nothing wrong with that. But this has become a practice synonymous with the digital revolution, if not the bog standard approach. And as such, we have a trillions worth of exposures on millions of SD and CF cards around the world. My philosophy is more in line with conservation. In a highly inflated market of exposures, I see no value in adding more. And though Kubrick exposed millions of feet, he would burn his negatives. Perhaps people who take 15+ exposures for a single shot should adopt the same approach

You're allowed to quote Walter Benjamin. I like him. He's my Walter-ego .

Excellent. Good to hear!

 

[awty]

Thank goodness, Atget stuck to his old box camera and contact printing the whole distance. It gave continuity to his work; and the shots he did in his old age were his best. Yep- he took many many less notable pictures because he made his living as basically a "stock photographer" of endless quaint Paris scenes, and did so with already antiquated methodology, and wasn't obsessed with gear. But his idiosyncrasies defined him.

If you can't take a good picture with a box camera, then you can't take a good picture.

 

[Vaughn]

...

As of 2017, there had been an estimated 1.3 Trillion (with at T) digital photos taken. Given exponential growth, that figure has probably doubled from 2017-2024. ...

And still no clear photos of Bigfoot...

 

[foc]

If you can't take a good picture with a box camera, then you can't take a good picture.

+1

Personally, I take only one shot. If I need to take a second then I change position and composition. Before I press the shutter, I know I have the correct light reading and the composition I saw in my mind before I put my eye to the viewfinder.

But then different strokes for different folks.

 

[C Jensen]

1 , 1 ping only.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I just saw a picture of Bigfoot right beside your post, Vaughn !

 

[BrianShaw]

I just saw a picture of Bigfoot right beside your post, Vaughn !

I read on the internet...

"Bigfoot" is now considered a slur term (or, in the least, an impolite informal name) and his/her full and proper name should be used instead. I'd provide a valid citation for this fact but they all seem to be erroneous as they include terms like "mythical" or "legend", which we know they are not.

 

[Pioneer]

...The technological revolution has devalued the average exposure. I would cite Walter Benjamin and The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, but it may be too pretentious...

You are welcome to quote poor old Walter if you would like but that particular essay has absolutely nothing to do with art itself, nor the question of shooting more than one exposure, which is the point of this thread. Rather it is an essay entirely about the political use of art. If you read more of his work you will realize that he is actually a political philosopher and social commentator rather than any type of an art critic or teacher of photographic techniques or methods.

As for the question of whether or not I shoot a given exposure more than once, it really depends entirely on the circumstances. In my job of accident investigation I would often shoot hundreds of exposures of a given scene from various perspectives. For my personal work if I am doing portraits I will take several shots, but they are not all the same. At other times if something outside of my subject accidentally enters the frame at the time of the shot I will repeat the same shot to eliminate the accidental intrusion. If the scene is changing, such as clouds moving across a landscape that become part of the shot, then I will frequently repeat the shot to get those additional perspectives.

My decision to take additional exposures usually has little to do with the film format I am using or whether I am shooting digital or film. Obviously it is easier to quickly repeat a shot taken with 35mm or digital then one taken on 8x10 film, but not impossible.

Finally, though the question is not really about process, for myself the process certainly changes based on a number of factors, not just format or digital. I will say that, over the years, my use of digital has become pretty much the same as my use of 35mm. I think this is mostly because of the similarity of the cameras. Even my use of 6x4.5 can be quite similar to 35mm if the camera I am using is similar to 35mm, such as a Pentax 645.

 

[Pieter12]

Interesting how this conversation has made some twists and turns. I never thought of the value of an exposure in terms of expense, except maybe the cost of 8x10 color reversal film or travel or the need for sets, props, models and assistants. I tend to think of value as aesthetic value. If photographer A exposes a single sheet of 8x10 film and gets a mediocre, boring or lousy shot, is that somehow more valuable than photographer B making 100 exposures and getting a single outstanding image? Never mind that just shooting a single exposure, whatever the format, seems a bit presumptuous to me.

 

[DREW WILEY]

So, Brian ... Is it Mr. Bigfoot, Mrs. Bigfoot, or Miz Bigfoot, if being polite? I do know the personal name for at least one member of the Bigfeet species because I was directly involved in that particular teenage hoax, which was in fact more sophisticated than most of them.

Anyway, back to reality ... when I stated that a second exposure for me generally implies a somewhat different composition at least, it's for sake of potentially printing both, because each might be the "best" for different reasons. But years or decades might intervene between printing one versus the other, depending of my time and budget.
But I rarely bracket an exposure or make an unnecessary duplicate exposure. Extreme wind conditions might be a reason for doing so, since there's a much higher risk of camera shake.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Never mind that just shooting a single exposure, whatever the format, seems a bit presumptuous to me.

I think that as one travels through their photographic life, as in real life; things change as our experiences add up and our expectations are different.

The last time I used any film camera other than one of my 4x5" film cameras, was on a trip to Iceland in 2017. Since then I have almost exclusively been using 4x5" film format and as the journey with my photography has progressed; I now find I only take one exposure, unless I make an error of technique; like I did last week.

If I arrive upon a scene, be that in nature, a cityscape, interior architectural or portrait, or even more importantly, a group family portrait when we have a family gathering that happens just once a year; I invariably only expose one sheet of film. It isn't something that I decided to do one day, it was a slow progression of understanding what appealed to me, what viewpoint, what lens to use, then taking an exposure and either moving on, or staying and enjoying the scene.

I slowly realised that I was usually only exposing one sheet of film whenever I brought the camera out to play, noting that how I photograph these days is very different to the decades of photography I had been doing in the past.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Given the fact that multiple sheet film holders get progressively heavier over time, one eventually learns to carry less of them. Einstein got it all wrong. The only reason the universe is warped is the fact my belly has gotten bigger, and that has slowed everything down. Chugging up a steep hill with the 8x10 in my pack these days amounts to only one black and white holder, and one color film holder per day - and that's more than I'll shoot on a day anyway. It it ain't worth printing, it jes ain't worth tripping the shutter.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Interesting how this conversation has made some twists and turns.

Back to Michael Kenna. As of 2023, he had shot 175 000 negatives in his 50-year career.

Looking at his best photographs, many were shot in extremely "tricky or unfamiliar situations". Not surprising he felt the need to take multiple exposures.

‘I try to photograph the unseen’: Michael Kenna on 50 years of shooting breathtaking landscapes

A new book celebrates half a century of work by the landmark English photographer, who has captured everything from factories to shrines in stunning black-and-white images

www.theguardian.com

 

[Hassasin]

Shooting digital as if it were film is simply illogical and I don’t believe anyone who says otherwise, Kenna or a nurse next door. Is it possible ? Anything is, just beyond unrealistic.