How many exposures to get the shot?

[Pieter12]

I was reading an interesting interview with Michael Kenna and he brought up something I hadn't given much thought to. That is, if you are used to working conventionally with film there can be a tendency to make multiple exposures of tricky or unfamiliar situations because you don't know if what you have with any given shot is what you may be trying for, hoping for, or intending. On the other hand, he posits that the instant feedback from digital can lead you to stop shooting once you have seen what you want on the camera's screen. Basically, film becomes a medium with more opportunities for surprise, serendipitous shots than digital. All this contrary to the notion that digital naturally leads one to shoot more because you can and it costs nothing to do so.

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.

I'm not sure what conclusion to come to, if any. I know that when I shoot digital, I rarely look at the images on the camera screen until later when I take a break or get back home/to the hotel/to the car. So if I don't like what I see, it could mean a reshoot just like film.

 

[Steven Lee]

You and I saw the same interview! Maybe posting a link for others could be a good idea, although I can't find it right now. What he says is definitely true, but it is by no means a secret. There was a survey with a couple thousand participants circulating on social media a while ago, originating from Reddit IIRC, where kids were voting on Why you shoot film? question. The surprise factor Kenna was talking about was in the top 3, along with the delayed gratification and the joy of operating fine mechanical equipment. So it appears the modern world is well aware of this benefit.

What I am wondering about is this: how to deal with this in the context of honing your skills? For example, you may invest into becoming better at predicting what's going to be captured on a negative. By doing so you will eliminate the element of the surprise and kill the joy of examining your rolls on a light table. It is quite a dilemma for me: on one hand I can regret deeply not getting the shot I wanted, but if I get better at pre-visualizing I am afraid of killing all the fun. That is why I sometimes spice it up by developing in new chemistry or refusing to use a light meter in tricky situations. Essentially I've long admitted that photography is more about the process for me than the end result.

 

[Pieter12]

Landscape photographer Michael Kenna on viewing old work with fresh eyes, and the joys of the analog process

We chatted with monochromatic landscape legend, Michael Kenna, about his most recent photobook, 'Northern England 1983-1986.'

www.popphoto.com

 

[Sirius Glass]

I will shoot multiple exposures of a subject but from different locations with different compositions. I very rarely will shoot multiple shoot of the same subject, same position and same composition unless I know that I may have blurred the photograph or something came into the field of view while I was taking the photograph.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

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 occasionally take up to 5 images of a subject because it feels looser, more fluid, easier to riff on a theme.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

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.

 

[Don_ih]

I pretty much always shoot one exposure. The only times I shoot a second one - when I think I've shot my exposure on the exposed leader. 4x5, I only ever shoot one. I'm not afraid to live with disappointment. And I don't shoot digital at all.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

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.

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!

 

[mshchem]

Depends on the lighting. Doesn't take me more than a couple exposures if the light is even and I use an incident meter.

 

[Kilgallb]

I always take two (4x5), then realize I messed up and take two more.

 

[awty]

As many as it takes.

 

[guangong]

Format and subject matter make a difference. LF implies more careful concentrated selection of subject and attention to composition. 35mm and smaller formats tend more to capturing the moment, hence more backup grab shots, although more tranquil scenes are often captured. MF lies somewhere in between…careful composition to capturing the moment (Victor invented his Hasselblad to photograph birds, which seldom sit still).
As for digital capture, the cost of cameras that I would be interested compared to cost of film for my remaining years…optimistically striving for 100 with all my marbles correctly aligned…would be much more. My friend photographs birds and digital makes sense. The cost of color film would be prohibitive.

 

[Paul Howell]

Action, wildlife one shot is all I get, with 35mm landscapes I shoot using zone principles, shadows zone III then develop for zone VII, if the lighting is tricky such as rapidly changing, fast moving clouds, backlit, or sidelight I will bracket +- 2. I shoot MF roll film the same, LF spot meter and zone. On rare occasion I might bracket or use an incident meter.

 

[Jim Jones]

Even with large format, a second shot, perhaps with slightly different exposure, provides a back-up negative (or transparency) when returning for a reshoot is impractical.

 

[Pieter12]

Lewis Balz is a good example of being able to slow down and shoot with a 35mm rangefinder. WeeGee shot 4x5 handheld in the street. The equipment doesn't necessarily dictate how you operate.

 

[TomR55]

For me, this depends almost entirely upon context: is this (1) an image “of something” or “about something; (2) is this image for exhibition, a stand-alone; or (3), will it be incorporated into a narrative (sequence)?

In case (1), images “of things” are often one-off. Images “about things” (think either abstract or lyrical content here) might be one or several images, often returning after processing and evaluating the results. Images that will appear in sequences “evolve” as the sequence dictates, and so several different images are taken and one is used depending upon how the sequence is progressing.

 

[ace_666]

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.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

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.

 

[TJones]

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.

Nothing about D*** prevents someone from stopping and really considering what they’re shooting. And limiting one’s self to a single exposure of a subject takes away one of its strengths, experimentation with immediate feedback.

My photo group’s meeting last week included a discussion of work done by a photographer who shoots 8x10. To better understand how she works, we’re each going to pick a location and limit ourselves to four photos; no retries for poor composition, inaccurate exposure, etc. I expect that we’ll improve our “seeing”, but I also think we’ll be disappointed by missed opportunities.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

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.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Digital photography has ruined the nature of the process.

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.

With the advent of... shooting ad nauseam

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.

 

[awty]

The process doesn't make it a good picture, but can justify a good picture.

 

[Vaughn]

Sometimes two...

 

[TomR55]

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.

 

[pbromaghin]

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.

On the rare occasion when I do shoot digital, I still use pretty much the same approach as with film. It's probably more from habit formed over long years than anything else.