How many exposures to get the shot?

[Pieter12]

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).

How could it be worth anyone's while to make a stock shot that returns so little--especially when the stock agency takes a chunk out of that.

 

[CMoore]

Per usual, Michael Kenna got it all wrong.

1. He shot rocks and trees

2. "Getting The Exposure Correct" is the reason to shoot more frames.
A decent Topic/Subject is changing all the time.

 

[BrianShaw]

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.

They did... and they also had a lot of photographers working within their centralized processing scheme. About 1984 or 85 my job include photography of engineering activities in underground mines. We would shoot prolificly (not really machine gunning) because getting access to those environments were quite difficult. On one site visit there was another visitor, from Nat Geo. The interaction was interesting because we were shooting with totally different styles: him doing studio style with multiple lights and us with strobe on camera. He told us about the consolidated processing/editing scheme at Nat Geo and mentioned that he has was essentially an image capture tech and had nothing to do with image processing, selection, editing, etc etc... and that folks like him were legion.

 

[BrianShaw]

How could it be worth anyone's while to make a stock shot that returns so little--especially when the stock agency takes a chunk out of that.

Have you ever met a stock shooter who made enough money to live on? I haven't. The folks I knew shot stock in between paying jobs in the hopes of adding a few pennies to their income.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pieter - that's the whole point. Unless you have a special niche or are working by contract on an assigned project, ordinary stock photography like back in sheet film days has now become a futile career even with digital cameras.
My own brother made up to $4000 per published 4x5 chrome image back in the 60's - that was a lot of money back then, and could support a person. Now you need to be sponsored. I run into those types, doing digital videos for some PBS wildlife documentary etc, which take a decade or two to complete, and might have multi-million dollar budgets. Or someone jumps off a cliff in a bat suit with a designer gear logo prominently on it, and it makes a sports magazine cover as essentially a brand advertisement.

But nowadays, almost anyone can be their own stock agency because digital files are so easily transferred - so many people, in fact, that nearly all of them are going to be ignored except by casual web surfers. And gosh the downhill slide in quality once Natl Geo went over to digital shots - I quit subscribing. No, they've never been an "art magazine" - but now those flat often-manipulated images on non-glossy paper ?? End of an era.

 

[Pieter12]

Per usual, Michael Kenna got it all wrong.

1. He shot rocks and trees

2. "Getting The Exposure Correct" is the reason to shoot more frames.
A decent Topic/Subject is changing all the time.

What a bunch of off-the-wall and out-of-context statements.

Per usual? Cite examples, please.

1. So what? You have a problem with rocks and trees?

2. And how about experimenting with exposures (not bracketing) and angles as a reason to shoot more frames?

Again, why should a decent topic or subject change all the time? That is going off on a tangent, maybe even avoiding addressing the subject.

 

[bags27]

What a bunch of off-the-wall and out-of-context statements.

Per usual? Cite examples, please.

1. So what? You have a problem with rocks and trees?

2. And how about experimenting with exposures (not bracketing) and angles as a reason to shoot more frames?

Again, why should a decent topic or subject change all the time? That is going off on a tangent, maybe even avoiding addressing the subject.

Thank you.

 

[Steve Anchell]

While this should not affect anyone's personal approach to photography, digital or film, it may be of historical interest to know that Ruth Bernhard, a student of Edward Weston, a friend of Ansel Adams, Imogene Cunningham, and Wynn Bullock, and a great photographer in her own right, would take as much time as needed to compose her image and make exactly one exposure.

 

[Pieter12]

While this should not affect anyone's personal approach to photography, digital or film, it may be of historical interest to know that Ruth Bernhard, a student of Edward Weston, a friend of Ansel Adams, Imogene Cunningham, and Wynn Bullock, and a great photographer in her own right, would take as much time as needed to compose her image and make exactly one exposure.

From what I know, Ruth Bernhard was mostly a studio photographer. That could have influenced her practice of just making a single exposure.

 

[awty]

These people spent decades of working daily in their field to become good at what they do/did. Took many thousands of pictures. There is no escaping that you need to take lots of photos and spend even more time printing, then showing those pictures to make them stand out past the ordinary.
If you want to be an ordinary photographer then be frugal, if you want to be a better photographer then you need to spend time and money getting there.

 

[snusmumriken]

What a bunch of off-the-wall and out-of-context statements.

Per usual? Cite examples, please.

1. So what? You have a problem with rocks and trees?

2. And how about experimenting with exposures (not bracketing) and angles as a reason to shoot more frames?

Again, why should a decent topic or subject change all the time? That is going off on a tangent, maybe even avoiding addressing the subject.

@Pieter12, obviously it's for @CMoore to defend his post, but I suspect you may have mis-understood it. Could be wrong, but I read it as very heavy sarcasm.

 

[TJones]

Have you ever met a stock shooter who made enough money to live on? I haven't. The folks I knew shot stock in between paying jobs in the hopes of adding a few pennies to their income.

I haven’t met one, but they’re slightly more common than unicorns. Some have earned hundreds of thousands of dollars from a single image:

Bliss (photograph) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

BTW, he made four exposures of the scene, if anyone cares.

 

[VinceInMT]

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.

I believe that the correct pronoun reference is "his/her/they" these days.

 

[Pieter12]

These people spent decades of working daily in their field to become good at what they do/did. Took many thousands of pictures. There is no escaping that you need to take lots of photos and spend even more time printing, then showing those pictures to make them stand out past the ordinary.
If you want to be an ordinary photographer then be frugal, if you want to be a better photographer then you need to spend time and money getting there.

Quite true. But the intent of the original post was not about learning nor the expense of materials and more about the fact that Mr. McKenna observed that he actually made fewer exposures with digital than with film to achieve his desired result. Given he does a lot of work that entails long exposures at night and he can judge whether the image is successful right away with digital, it is not applicable to everyone's work. But, not surprisingly it brought out the folks who proudly wear the badge of "I make only one exposure per image," kind of like those who wear the "I never crop" sash.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Vince - where in Montana do you converse with the Bigfoot species to know their actual preferences. Down here in the Sierra Nevada it's easy to meet one - he, it, her hangs out during the daytime in the June Lake ski resort bar. That has been known ever since the History Channel on cable TV discovered bigfoot tracks all around the June Lake boat launch ramp. Then there is actual film footage of bigfoot appearing from behind a well-known tufa formation adjacent to the Mono Lake parking lot. It's great to have all that scientific evidence. Reminds me of our own teenage bigfoot hoax, a much more sophisticated prank where we were able to borrow of an actual Hollywood quality King Kong suit.

Anyway, pardon the drift from the rightful thread. I have no idea of Bigfoot's own film usage habits.

 

[BrianShaw]

Quite true. But the intent of the original post was not about learning nor the expense of materials and more about the fact that Mr. McKenna observed that he actually made fewer exposures with digital than with film to achieve his desired result. Given he does a lot of work that entails long exposures at night and he can judge whether the image is successful right away with digital, it is not applicable to everyone's work. But, not surprisingly it brought out the folks who proudly wear the badge of "I make only one exposure per image," kind of like those who wear the "I never crop" sash.

When counting "number of shots", are deleted shots counted or not? I seem to shoot the same number of shots in digital as I do in 35mm film but delete the unwanted digital images quickly and retain a lot less digital images than I do film because of that. To me, deleted digital images are "untaken" digital images.

 

[Pieter12]

When counting "number of shots", are deleted shots counted or not? I seem to shoot the same number of shots in digital as I do in 35mm film but delete the unwanted digital images quickly and retain a lot less digital images than I do film because of that. To me, deleted digital images are "untaken" digital images.

That is sort of how I deal with digital a lot of the time, treating shots like polaroids that are test shots and subsequently trashed.

 

[snusmumriken]

Thinking about the question a little further... (Still) photography is a process of rendering a period of time into a single image. Does it really matter whether the elimination of unwanted moments takes place in your head, or in the camera or in the darkroom? Is it less artistic to capture a lot of options and sift through them?

 

[Vaughn]

I believe that the correct pronoun reference is "his/her/they" these days.

But is it Bigfoots or Bigfeet?

As a photographic toolkit, multiple shots makes sense with digital capture...leading to the practice by some of composing through trial and error. It still takes as strong of an eye to know and choose the best possible composition/s as it does studying the scene before setting the camera and tripod up for the 'one LF negative' approach. The strongest motivating criticism I can give myself while looking at my new negatives/prints is "I could have seen this better."

I like the suggestion above that deleting a photo file in the digital camera that file becomes an 'untaken' digital image. Taking that idea and running with it, when I set up my 8x10, move the camera a little on the pod, change from vertical to horizontal, shift the focus, use some movements, and sometimes even say "F#@k this" under my breath and turn the camera 180 degrees and start over again...every time I study the image on the GG and decide to make a change, I have made an untaken image. Sometimes scores of them...I just happen to have exposed film with only one of them.

After a few decades of staring at the GG of my camera, my brain translates the image as if it was B&W and right-side up. While I am fooled sometimes, if I don't see what I want on the GG, there is not much sense in exposing an expensive sheet of film to prove it later on the light table. Sometimes I see possibilities or I experiment, and that is always worth the cost of the film and the time and effort involved.

 

[Pieter12]

Thinking about the question a little further... (Still) photography is a process of rendering a period of time into a single image. Does it really matter whether the elimination of unwanted moments takes place in your head, or in the camera or in the darkroom? Is it less artistic to capture a lot of options and sift through them?

I would compare it to an artist making sketches before deciding on a composition.

 

[awty]

Quite true. But the intent of the original post was not about learning nor the expense of materials and more about the fact that Mr. McKenna observed that he actually made fewer exposures with digital than with film to achieve his desired result. Given he does a lot of work that entails long exposures at night and he can judge whether the image is successful right away with digital, it is not applicable to everyone's work. But, not surprisingly it brought out the folks who proudly wear the badge of "I make only one exposure per image," kind of like those who wear the "I never crop" sash.

I only use digital for referencing, I need to use a lot of hand work digital doesn't provide. For the stuff I do I make huge amount of exposures on the road to getting somewhere, lots of failures along the journey, provided I can still move forwards, then its worth it.

 

[ace_666]

While this should not affect anyone's personal approach to photography, digital or film, it may be of historical interest to know that Ruth Bernhard, a student of Edward Weston, a friend of Ansel Adams, Imogene Cunningham, and Wynn Bullock, and a great photographer in her own right, would take as much time as needed to compose her image and make exactly one exposure.

This is intriguing. I'm sure, as a teacher, you could see the value of instructing young photographers to try to expose once. It would implement a more conscious and sturdy approach. This is all I mean to get at when I say I prefer one exposure. It just trains the muscle in a whole new way.

 

[snusmumriken]

I would compare it to an artist making sketches before deciding on a composition.

That seems fair. But the artist too then has the options to destroy, paint over or refuse to sell.

 

[Steve Anchell]

Thank you, Ace_666. My comment was meant to add another dimension to the conversation, not to convince anyone to change their method. Another example of this would be Minor White, one of Ansel Adam's most famous pupils. Minor was a Zen practitioner. He would have his students meditate for an hour and then take one sheet of large-format film and come back with a photo.

A side story, Imogene Cunningham, a friend and co-founder of the f/64 group along with Ansel and Edward Weston, once quipped, "Zen! Who ever heard of putting Zen together with photography! What a bunch of gobbly goop!" She was, of course, referring to Minor.

This is intriguing. I'm sure, as a teacher, you could see the value of instructing young photographers to try to expose once. It would implement a more conscious and sturdy approach. This is all I mean to get at when I say I prefer one exposure. It just trains the muscle in a whole new way.

 

[Steve Anchell]

From what I know, Ruth Bernhard was mostly a studio photographer. That could have influenced her practice of just making a single exposure.

Pieter12, you are absolutely correct; Ruth's iconic work was mostly done in a studio or an environment where she could control lighting. However, this does not change the point I am making. Studio or standing on top of a station wagon with a tripod and 8x10" view camera, as Ansel often did, there are many approaches to the creative process, and we must all choose the one that works best for us.

Read my response to Ace_666, above.