How many exposures to get the shot?

[Pieter12]

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.

Sorry, but I don't quite understand why it is illogical or unrealistic. I have a camera in my hand (or on a tripod), I shoot what I shoot regardless. Are you saying I am lying?

 

[Pieter12]

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

Contrast that to Gary Winogrand who left 90,000 undeveloped negatives behind at the time of his death.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Contrast that to Gary Winogrand who left 90,000 undeveloped negatives behind at the time of his death.

Here are the numbers, from the Gary Winogrand Archives at the Center for Creative Photography:

"At the time of his death, 2,500 rolls of exposed film remained undeveloped. An additional 6,500 rolls had been developed but not printed. Contact sheets were made from 3,000 additional rolls, but few have any editing marks. He probably made a third of a million photographs that he never looked at."

All in all, there are 141 boxes of negatives in the GWA.

Gary Winogrand Archives

 

[Pieter12]

Here are the numbers, from the Gary Winogrand Archives at the Center for Creative Photography:

"At the time of his death, 2,500 rolls of exposed film remained undeveloped. An additional 6,500 rolls had been developed but not printed. Contact sheets were made from 3,000 additional rolls, but few have any editing marks. He probably made a third of a million photographs that he never looked at."

All in all, there are 141 boxes of negatives in the GWA.

Gary Winogrand Archives

Yes, 2500 x 36 = 90000.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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.

Many switched from one to the other without changing much of neither process nor style.

Salgado is one. His main reason of switching is the degradation from airport X-ray machines. Interesting to hear him talk about how his team managed to re-create his beloved Tri-X grain. He talks about it in this 2015 interview, starting at the 15:22 mark.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Yes, 2500 x 36 = 90000.

D'oh ! I didn't even think of doing the math...

 

[Pieter12]

Many switched from one to the other without changing much of neither process nor style.

Salgado is one. His main reason of switching is the degradation from airport X-ray machines. Interesting to hear him talk about how his team managed to re-create his beloved Tri-X grain. He talks about it in this 2015 interview, starting at the 15:22 mark.

I don’t know for a fact, but I suspect Koudelka hasn’t changed they way he works that much by shooting digital. He did say something about not having the expense of film making his projects more possible.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I don’t know for a fact, but I suspect Koudelka hasn’t changed they way he works that much by shooting digital. He did say something about not having the expense of film making his projects more possible.

Indeed. He switched in 2012. There is a short chapter about this in the recent Aperture biography Koudelka: Next. The switch was motivated by financial reasons, but also a more pragmatic one, being that with age, it became more and more difficult for him to carry so many kilos of film when traveling. Here's what he says about it:

"I don't need to think about finding the money to pay to develop the film and make the contact sheets and other printing.What is fantastic now is that I buy the ticket myself, I pick up this digital camera, and I go... And I go to the same place, as I have always done, over and over again, but everything is on my camera — I don't have to carry the images I've made before to refer to, and I don't have to think about buying film, or running out of film when I'm not somewhere I an easily get more film. With digital, I can continue to shoot and shoot, and then eventually, when I know I have something good, I can eliminate what is not good."

The digital camera in question was a Leica panoramic camera made especially for him. Related to the post that launched this conversation:

"So finally, Leica sends you the new camera, and you take it on the trip, you take your usual camera, and you test everything... And suddenly, the last to trips, you realize you are taking more pictures with this new digital panoramic camera than with your panoramic film camera, and when you see the prints, you see that you can achieve the same high visual quality with the digital as you did with the film."

 

[Hassasin]

Sorry, but I don't quite understand why it is illogical or unrealistic. I have a camera in my hand (or on a tripod), I shoot what I shoot regardless. Are you saying I am lying?

You have a camera that allows you to take essentially limitless frames. Taking one or a couple of same subject instead is not logical, it's a form of masochism. Hopefully this is not offensive.

Lying or doing something that makes no sense ... there is a difference, but I stand by what I said. When some do decide to go strictly 'same as film" use with digital it's their business. Are there some who actually do that? Probably. But hearing i.e. Selgado saying so in an interview does not make it a true statement be default. HCB said a lot of things in his interviews, especially regarding "decisive moment" and he was lying. Evidence of that is out there easily available.

It's one thing to "see" scenes in a similar way in either mode, but completely another to claim that if with film I normally take 2-3 shots, I also take 2-3 with digital. Because of why? It makes me more artistic, smarter, better? Such claims are not defensible. Not from a logical perspective at least. And this is not the same as saying shoot to memory's capacity because that is by far better. It isn't. But anyone who wants to make the best of a moment knows that shifting vantage point by just a few meters, or even less, changes how things line up, and not all of these perspective relations are all that obvious when on scene, some turn out in post.

People claim to use one lens over another because it has a ... "character". Their photography stinks, but at least they make claims that sound same as those who do make great photographs with whatever lens, including the ones with a "character".

People should also differentiate between some photographers who had access to limitless rolls of film, and many had assistants to load cameras, hand them over and on an doff again, shot thousands of frames as result, and those who buy film in small quantities and as result shoot with film economy in mind very single frame.

The latter not comparable to the former in any way, shape, or form. But the latter can take advantage of digital capacity just the same as anyone who still has assistants, many claim to have never owned a camera and shooting with nothing but rentals on every project, and get picked up at airport by a limo with a swimming pool inside, and some other happy ending perks.

 

[Pieter12]

Jeez

 

[snusmumriken]

Surely the answer has a lot to do with format and camera? With hand-held 35mm, moving a millimetre or two will change the framing and/or introduce camera shake. It makes sense to take several shots for insurance, if the subject allows it. (Personally, I get bored after about 3. The first is often the best but technically flawed, so all told I typically have nothing.)

But if you have a big ground glass screen and your camera mounted on a tripod, and your subject doesn’t run away, you are much more likely to get it right on the first exposure.

 

[Don_ih]

The practically limitless free shots available with digital tend to encourage more shots of different things than limited and expensive film does. Less discrimination of subject matter. But there is a good reason to take multiple virtually identical exposures digitally, depending on the subject matter: you can combine the best parts of each exposure in your final image (assuming you're using a tripod).

Taking one or a couple of same subject instead is not logical, it's a form of masochism.

So, let's try to distinguish between some things. If you change perspective, you are changing the composition and taking a different photo. So, with digital, because you can take so many exposures, you are more free to experiment with different compositions. That will lead to more photos of the same subject matter - not more nearly identical exposures to "get things right" (such as bracketing, or a minor adjustment to the camera's aperture, or a slight adjustment to make sure you didn't cut off the top of a tree).

I assumed, in the original question (and @Pieter12 would be able to say) that what was being asked was how many exposures do you take per composition (subject matter + your framing of it). Using digital, I'd view taking more than a few exposures of the same composition as masochistic. But changing your position or angle is a change in composition.

 

[snusmumriken]

I think the proposition was that digital allows you to ‘work the scene’ until you are sure it is ‘in the bag’ - whether the process involves duplicates of the same scene, or different angles.

I find one generally knows without checking a display whether a shot is what you wanted, leaving the unknowns to be technical issues and fleeting changes in the subject. It’s funny how many wonderful candid shots and portraits were made in the ‘20s to 60s when cameras didn’t handle exposure and focus automatically, and confirmation of success was typically the day after or later.

 

[BrianShaw]

Surely the answer has a lot to do with format and camera? With hand-held 35mm, moving a millimetre or two will change the framing and/or introduce camera shake. It makes sense to take several shots for insurance, if the subject allows it. (Personally, I get bored after about 3. The first is often the best but technically flawed, so all told I typically have nothing.)

But if you have a big ground glass screen and your camera mounted on a tripod, and your subject doesn’t run away, you are much more likely to get it right on the first exposure.

Yep! And when I look at my results and see technical flaws or less than perfect composition/lighting I always remind myself that I consciously chose to release the shutter and give that image a chance. If I had hesitation about the images potential I probably shouldn’t have, but often do it anyway. It’s more common for ne to get the best image on the 3rd “shot”… and I tend to know when I finally got it right.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

But if you have a big ground glass screen and your camera mounted on a tripod, and your subject doesn’t run away, you are much more likely to get it right on the first exposure.

Yes and no. One rarely comes in to a scene knowing exactly where one will place the camera, what the framing will be, which lens will be used, etc. Whether you're shooting 35mm, 120, 4x5, 8x10 or any other format, the "looking photographically" — not shooting — process is the same. It consists of a series of hypothesis, of "what if"s, so to speak: What if I stood here? What if I moved there? What if I make this aspect of the scene its main subject instead of that? What if I used a x mm lens instead of a y mm lens? What if I wait for that cloud to move in (or move out) the frame? What if I use a smaller aperture? What if I go against my usual instincts and try something a bit off-kilter? What if I move out to add a bit of context?

The main difference between shooting large format vs smaller format is that in the latter you can afford — figuratively and literally — to "test" your different what if as you go along. That's when you might encounter the unexpected, the serendipitous, as per Kenna's reflection quoted in the OP. But the "looking photographically" process is the same, and takes the same amount of time.

Not saying one should shoot at every what if if one is using 35mm or medium format. You can do the whole process the same way as for large format, i.e., take the photograph only when you have found what you want, what is interesting to you. Others may work on the assumption that next to what is interesting to them lies what might be more interesting, or interesting in a different, unexpected way.

To me, that element of doubt — what if I'm sure this is the shot but it turns out that the other one is the more interesting one — is what makes photography a perpetual learning experience.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

always one shot,one exposure; bracketing is for the inexperienced and the timid.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

bracketing is for the inexperienced and the timid

Why so dogmatic and dismissive? It's not necessarily so. Bracketing can be part of being experienced. I carry both spot and incident meter, do meter carefully, yet there are times I bracket because I know from experience that for certain scenes I may prefer one option or the other, and that I won't be sure until I see both.

I'm neither inexperienced — which makes it sound as if one stops learning once one is experienced — nor am I timid. But, as I mentioned above, I do cultivate doubt, which to me is a most healthy stance whether in life or in photography.

 

[bags27]

Just developed and scanned 120 Ektachrome from a trip that will eventually be published. One shot: why didn't I move a foot to the right? Or why didn't I take another shot? Because I had only 10 rolls @ 12 shots/roll, and because it's now so bloody expensive.

I need to use a digital camera like they used to use polaroids: to previsualize the scene.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Just developed and scanned 120 Ektachrome from a trip that will eventually be published. One shot: why didn't I move a foot to the right? Or why didn't I take another shot? Because I had only 10 rolls @ 12 shots/roll, and because it's now so bloody expensive.

Because I do shoot a lot of film, cost is the main reason I don't shoot color anymore.

 

[BrianShaw]

No matter how many or how few exposures I make, I can't help but wonder ifthe next one would have been better. Once I commit to making a serious image, I try with all of my intestinal fortitude to ignore the cost factor.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Try 8X10 color film plus its processing at today's prices. At around $45 per SHOT, that should cure you. There are still a few people for whom that extra expense is negligible. But more shots doesn't equate to better compositions. More the other way around. It's the sniper and not the machine-gunner who hits the bullseye most often.

 

[BrianShaw]

Try 8X10 color film plus its processing at today's prices. At around $45 per SHOT, that should cure you. There are still a few people for whom that extra expense is negligible. But more shots doesn't equate to better compositions. More the other way around. It's the sniper and not the machine-gunner who hits the bullseye most often.

There's always an extreme counter-argument and you bleat this one repeatedly. Yes, LF color is expensive yet making multiple exposures has nothing to do with "machine gunning". Nobody has even implied indiscriminate multiple exposures in LF, or any other format it seems. Now if Mr or Mrs Sasquatch happpen to be posing...

Context, my friend, context.

The reason why I never considered 8x10 (or even 10x8) LF is the cost and constraints on exploring the range of options in capturing an image. Similar with 4x5 color, although for some image opportunities it's worthwhile to discriminately invest in capturing a couple of options. Out in nature, scenes evolve and sometimes what looks like "the best image" is overshadowed a bit later by an even better image. Or the contrary but if that first potentially good image was never taken then one could go home with nothing (or a suboptimal image) . Even snipers sometimes have to take multiple shots. Cest la vie.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh Brian, you'd be amazed at how much 4x5 chrome film certain well-known calendar and stock photographers of former decades could burn on a single day. So yes, there were large format machine-gunners, and still are a few of them. But that was mostly back when a stock agency shot could fetch hundreds or even thousands of dollars for one-time publishing rights on a particular magazine cover etc. Now you'd be lucky to get 50 cents for a published digital stock shot (versus a budgeted ad).

 

[BrianShaw]

Oh Brian, you'd be amazed at how much 4x5 chrome film certain well-known calendar and stock photographers of former decades could burn on a single day. So yes, there were large format machine-gunners, and still are a few of them. But that was mostly back when a stock agency shot could fetch hundreds or even thousands of dollars for one-time publishing rights on a particular magazine cover etc. Now you'd be lucky to get 50 cents for a published digital stock shot (versus a budgeted ad).

I'm well aware of those facts and realities. They have not much to do with this discussion, though.

 

[MattKing]

Back in the day, National Geographic magazine's Washington DC Kodachrome developing line - yes, they had their very own processing machine - processed the highest volume of 35mm slide film of all the Kodachrome lines.
Most of the other Kodachrome lines developed a lot of movie film.