How many exposures to get the shot?

[Vaughn]

I made a solo 5-month 2000-mile photo tour through New Zealand by bicycle almost 4 decades ago. I had a 4x5, five film holders, a changing bag, and BW film (Royal Pan and SuperXX). I went to see/explore the light, record that light, and make a portfolio of my experience with that light -- and the landscape that reflected it. .

I ended up exposing 72 sheets of film in 6 month and printing a 20 print portfolio (16x20 silver gelatin) -- which, thru the years with experience and critical thought, could easily be whittled down to a 12 print solid portfolio. Perhaps even some re-printing and exploration of unprinted negatives would be beneficial -- but I have not silver printed since '92 and feel no need to. I'll let them be.

But I consider the trip very productive, volume-wise. Using film and my time on 'maybes' would mean missing out on some of the "probables". It is a decision one makes when one only has one or two unexposed holders of film left for the next few days. Many times I tore the camera down without exposing because what I saw on the GG was a maybe.

I run into the same situation now -- backpacking for 4 or 5 days with a 4x5 or 5x7 means a limitation of holders and film. Up to 9 loaded 4x5 holders, or 5 to 6 5x7 holders with no reloading. Encourages pre-editing! But that is how I approach, for better or worse. Perhaps it is due to my introduction to photography with a Rolleiflex -- those 12 shots go fast!

Whatever makes one productive.

 

[Pieter12]

No room for error or misfortune that way. Edward Weston had to deal with leaky bellows, warped holders and bad film. And trucks driving by during hour-long exposures. Imagine what was lost.

 

[eli griggs]

Have you considered renting a well trained pack Alpaca, Lama, a small Horse or Donkey?

Several days walks with pack animals is been done so long, it should be something to think about making part of our tool kit, as there are a number of renters in the States and, I suspect, New Zealand, use to those mountain terrains.

My son lives in N.Z. I'll send him a post and ask if he or his bride know of any companies.

Which island will you be photographing on?

Cheers

 

[Vaughn]

No room for error or misfortune that way. Edward Weston had to deal with leaky bellows, warped holders and bad film. And trucks driving by during hour-long exposures. Imagine what was lost.

eli -- no intention to going to NZ anytime in the future -- although one of my sons is considering uni in Australia (Doctorate) so might be heading there. Oh...and I packed mules for a decade for the US Forest Service (way back in the 1980s).

EW also had to deal (lost most images) with sinking tripod legs during long exposures in the soft organic ground in the coastal redwoods (in my neck of the woods). Losses just makes one stronger and more hungry.

Another example -- five years before the NZ bike trip, I spent 3 months hiking and hitchhiking around NZ with a Indian knock-off of a Deardorff Special w/ 4x5 back -- and a major light leak I discovered after developing the negatives back at home. It prepared me and made me hungry for another try. Just took me a few years to save up the money to do it right.

However...

On the NZ bike adventure, I stored exposed film in the envelope and box it came in. Humid conditions (rain) with gravel and otherwise bumpy roads caused the film to get rattled in the boxes. This resulted in high humidity static discharges between the sheets (that sounds sexier than it was). Instead of streaks, this causes spots. The longer on the bike, the more static discharges. Lost some negatives (now could be fixed in Photoshop, I suppose) and needed to spend a few hours spotting like on this one:

 

[eli griggs]

Would lining the film boxes with rubberized spray on coatings or actual, relatively thick rubber, from plumbers two packs of about five inches square?

What about foil linings, in those conditions?

I've not had the rough road/trail do that to my film before, but my LF negatives are not as numourious as your obvious have been.

 

[Vaughn]

The exposed film were put in the original Kodak paper/foil packets. A little padding (paper or whatever) to keep them from rattling around would have prevented the problem. And we are talking about 2000 miles, with a lot more metal (gravel) roads than now!

I was spoiled by the lack of tourists in the 70s and 80s -- The Lord of the Rings did that in! Don't know if I would enjoy it as much now!

 

[snusmumriken]

Have you given any thought to the possibility that if you made more shots, you might have more"keepers"?

I am limited by opportunities, but I assume you mean more shots at each opportunity? I would need to see some data to convince me of that. That was the point of my post.

 

[Vaughn]

I am limited by opportunities, but I assume you mean more shots at each opportunity? I would need to see some data to convince me of that. That was the point of my post.

Different strokes for different folks. But what is important is: "Did you get the shot?"

Improving one's visualization over time can reduce the amount film needed to get "the shot". Learning to see how one's camera sees, and how one's photographic processes will translate what the camera sees into a print (or other forms of presentation) is key. Large format encourages this.

"Keepers" are my goal -- not the number of 'keepers".

 

[eli griggs]

"Keepers" are my goal -- not the number of 'keepers".

That's it in a nutshell, but folks should beware the inclination of not taking a shot because you don't feel it's a "keeper", as the final print just might be a stupendous success, IMO

 

[snusmumriken]

"Keepers" are my goal -- not the number of 'keepers".

Sure, but the debate has been about how you get there: whether it is or isn't beneficial to take dozens of shots (if they are cheap enough to take, as is the case with digital - see OP).

 

[Pieter12]

Sure, but the debate has been about how you get there: whether it is or isn't beneficial to take dozens of shots (if they are cheap enough to take, as is the case with digital - see OP).

Well, the inital post was about Michael Kenna's remark that he would shoot more film to be sure he got the "keeper" while with digital he could see if the result was what he intended and would stop there, shooting fewer frames than film in many cases. Contrary to the cpnventional thinking that since digital captures are free and practically limitless, one would shoot more. If I remember correctly Mr. Kenna made the comment in reference to his long exposure night shots--that should be taken into account.

 

[snusmumriken]

Well, the inital post was about Michael Kenna's remark that he would shoot more film to be sure he got the "keeper" while with digital he could see if the result was what he intended and would stop there, shooting fewer frames than film in many cases. Contrary to the cpnventional thinking that since digital captures are free and practically limitless, one would shoot more. If I remember correctly Mr. Kenna made the comment in reference to his long exposure night shots--that should be taken into account.

Quite right, thanks for the correction.

 

[Vaughn]

Sure, but the debate has been about how you get there: whether it is or isn't beneficial to take dozens of shots (if they are cheap enough to take, as is the case with digital - see OP).

This should not be a debate -- it is a discussion. There is not right or wrong here to debate.

 

[CMoore]

@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.

With all the face emojis, i thought the Humor/Sarcasm was obvious. Guess i was wrong.

I find this topic similar to the "Never Crop" scenario.
Who cares what any other photographer might say about XYZ or 456.
There is no right or wrong answer for this stuff..
This happens in all endeavors....... cars, guitars, gardening, wine making, etc etc etc. All hobbies get tied down by some, popular, arbitrary rule.
People take this stuff WAY too seriously.

Remember that movie Smoke.?
Harvey K shows William H his photo album of pics he took at the same street corner at the same time for many months.
W H starts to look through it, one photo at a time, but then just burns through it all in a flash and says..... "They are all the same"

H K says to him..... you are going too fast, slow down.
W H starts over again at a much slower pace and begins to see how "the same shot" can be very different indeed.
As he looks more carefully and slower, he sees ONE Frame where his wife walks in front of the camera....... his dead wife.

When you get a chance to see the Negs/Proofs of a well known photo by a well known photographer, it can be staggering, the number of frames they might have shot. HCB comes to mind.

 

[alanrockwood]

I recently got back from a trip to Monterey, California. My wife and I took a whale watching cruise. I took a lot of shots with my digital camera (actually, her digital camera).

I should have taken more. Why? Because in almost all cases I missed the shot of a whale. If any of you have gone on a whale watching cruise you probably know what I mean. It's impossible to plan your shots, and it is more luck than good management if you get a good shot.

I also took a lot of shots of sea otters. They were a little far away, so I used the 1200mm equivalent setting of my zoom lens. Moving closer wasn't an option. The boat was moving. All of these factors and more made it extremely difficult to get a good shot, and I didn't get any "good" shots of sea otters. Most were very bad. A very small number might be good enough for remembering the trip, but would not win any prizes in a photo contest. If I had taken only a few shots of the sea otters it is highly unlikely that I would have made even one photo that was good enough for remembering the trip.

Sometimes taking a lot of photos can make all the difference between a dismal failure or a good outcome, or at least a less-bad outcome.

 

[alanrockwood]

I wonder if Peter Gowland was a machine gunner with his custom made 4x5 TLR cameras. The photos of some of his models look like they were action photos, and it is difficult to imagine that he got perfection on those photos with just a single shot.

 

[alanrockwood]

It would be entertaining to know the proportion of keepers (by ones own standards) among photographers...

When I shoot film I probably average only a few (easily countable on one hand) keepers per roll of film, and my standards are not very high regarding what I consider a keeper.

Shooting digital my ratio of keepers is somewhat lower, probably at a rate of about 1/4 in terms of keepers per shot attempted compared to when I shoot film.

 

[eli griggs]

Anticipating of action's peek moment is more about developing your observation and speculation skills than the motor drive or no motor at all.

Especially within the natural confines of the subject of the photograph itself.

Examples I've experienced include racing people and autos, dancers, both modern and ballet; modern is harder.

Military maneuvers of individuals and artillery, especially catching Canon fire and the exit of the round from the mouth of the Canon or while it's still on the rise and still clearly visible.

From the air (helicopter) and on the ground of with birds, deer, etc.

Rifle range fire shooters, some sports, etc, etc, etc.

All of these happen within a set of conditions and human nature, knowing what is a viable shot and when all the many moments that are not significant.

When there is no bracketing, every frame is a one off, each frame becomes the event itself, for the photographer whom has developed the needed skills, native or learned, to be decisive before hand of the coming 'action'.

This is of course my opinion and experience, but if you are shooting frequently enough, especially b&w films, to mentally to actually see the photograph at the moment of exposure.l, something I'm sure others here have experienced.

Yes, we all have different opinions and methods to our photography, but so many things are universal and commonly shared, so learn all you can, about your topic, kit, people and keep learning until your end, as it is all valuable to so many things in life.

Cheers

 

[TomR55]

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.

Some points well taken here. Of course, you should continue to do things that work for you.

But I will respond to some of your points (because they are good): I do analyze things. I have done so as a child. I did so professionally, and I continue to do so in “retirement.” My life is a living curriculum, and this brings me happiness.

Upon retirement, I decided to devote my remaining time exploring questions about the nature of the photograph and its cultural and aesthetic implications.

To your point about analyzing/intellectualizing: Analyzing is not necessarily “intellectualizing.” I do not engage in deep questions while making a photograph—that has always led to bad photograph; nor do I intellectualize about the work of other photographers. I am not a critic, but I do read books written by and about critics to understand what these people do and why. And yes, I read philosophical and cultural texts on various topics in art, photography and culture.

I try to plan each working day—making allowances for happy accidents because this is how life works. And yes, I take at least one day every week to just shoot a roll of film with no particular plan in mind; this often yields new directions … and gives me a reason to use that developer before it gets too old.

 

[snusmumriken]

Some points well taken here. Of course, you should continue to do things that work for you.

But I will respond to some of your points (because they are good): I do analyze things. I have done so as a child. I did so professionally, and I continue to do so in “retirement.” My life is a living curriculum, and this brings me happiness.

Upon retirement, I decided to devote my remaining time exploring questions about the nature of the photograph and its cultural and aesthetic implications.

To your point about analyzing/intellectualizing: Analyzing is not necessarily “intellectualizing.” I do not engage in deep questions while making a photograph—that has always led to bad photograph; nor do I intellectualize about the work of other photographers. I am not a critic, but I do read books written by and about critics to understand what these people do and why. And yes, I read philosophical and cultural texts on various topics in art, photography and culture.

I try to plan each working day—making allowances for happy accidents because this is how life works. And yes, I take at least one day every week to just shoot a roll of film with no particular plan in mind; this often yields new directions … and gives me a reason to use that developer before it gets too old.

I can relate to this. A process of retrospective consideration helps to answer the question of whether you have - after all - got the shot, or indeed anything worthwhile. Photography is a process of selection from start to finish, whether you use digital or film.