Safety in numbers

Shangheye · Jun 4, 2009

I have always (even when I have used digital..but less so) restricted my shots on a particular subject to maybe two and at most three. My theory being that given I am limiting the shots, if I have not chosen the right comp/moment by then, then there probably isn't one that would define the shot as distinctive. Waiting and thinking also seems to allow that "moment" to happen.

Recently I have tried to alter that when with my 35mm, purely as an experiment. Not a scientific one, but see it more as a psychological exercise in just shooting what you feel like and as many times as you like. I think the hit rate has gone down, but I certainly get to see my film sooner (sometimes films can be in my cameras for weeks based on the previous philosophy).

I then noted in the new Robert Frank book that covers his contact sheet prints from his Americans series, that at most he ever took 4 shots of the same subject.....maybe there is a lesson in that?

I am interested in how others make this choice and why. If you think Genre makes a difference etc, then feel free to share that too. I think I am going back to my old ways. Maybe a lot slower, but I think more rewarding.

Rgds, Kal

Christopher Walrath · Jun 4, 2009

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

Honestly, seldom do I make more than a couple of photographs of a particluar subject (read composition, idea, et al.). I don't see the need. Most time I look it over well through the viewfinder and don't even take the shot in the first place. However, and rarely, there are always exceptions. I suppose it is the feel for me and on a case by case basis.

Sirius Glass · Jun 4, 2009

I rarely take more than one photograph because at this point I know I got it when I take it. The excepts are:

I think a may have moved.
I had not reset the light meter when I changed the lens so I might be off an f/stop or two
I see a much better composition and I need to reframe the photograph or move to a better location.

Steve

railwayman3 · Jun 4, 2009

I remember hearing a talk by an old (and very successful Hon. FRPS, etc., etc.) photographer many years ago (he'd only just stopped using plates to try out this new-fangled sheet film ) when he said....the test of a good photographer is someone who can travel 100 miles to take a picture, set up the camera on the tripod, compose and meter, take out the darkslide, and only then decide the scene/lighting/etc., is not good enough for his standards, pack everything up and go home.

I don't think he intended that we take this literally all the time, but I can see that he was making a similar point.

MattKing · Jun 4, 2009

Sometimes I find it useful to take a number of similar shots of the same subject. I think there are two reasons to do so:

1) Some subjects have multiple centres of interest, and the different views tend to emphasize different centres of interest in differing amounts. It is not uncommon for me to have my initial reaction to a subject be replaced over time with a different reaction, so having a number of different views of the same allows me to take my time at deciding; and
2) I find the process of choosing a viewpoint, taking a photograph, and then seeking to modify it slightly in the hopes of improving the result can sometimes aid me in my desire to learn more about the subject itself. It is something about the rhythm involved. I do know that this would not work the same way if I had the instant feedback of digital or Polaroids - the comparisons between similar shots need to be in my head, not side by side, for this to work the way it does.

Matt

Peter Schrager · Jun 4, 2009

if I feel I have something worth it then I have no problem burning film;photography is about the moment and THAT particular moment in time is never going to occur again-ever..
.best, Peter

eddym · Jun 4, 2009

railwayman3 said:
I remember hearing a talk by an old (and very successful Hon. FRPS, etc., etc.) photographer many years ago (he'd only just stopped using plates to try out this new-fangled sheet film ) when he said....the test of a good photographer is someone who can travel 100 miles to take a picture, set up the camera on the tripod, compose and meter, take out the darkslide, and only then decide the scene/lighting/etc., is not good enough for his standards, pack everything up and go home.

I don't think he intended that we take this literally all the time, but I can see that he was making a similar point.

Hope he wasn't on a paid assignment!

eddym · Jun 4, 2009

One of my favorite Fred Picker quotes is, "Always assume you are in the wrong place." Applying that advice to landscape shots, I will often shoot from my initial viewpoint of a scene -the one that caught my attention in the first place- and then check several different viewpoints of the scene, just to be sure I wasn't "in the wrong place" the first time. Quite often, sure enough, I was.

perkeleellinen · Jun 4, 2009

I spoke about this earlier today in a flickr group. Seems to fit in here also.

I have this project: "36 frames". I go to a famous street and walk down it. My challenge is to shoot 36 photos in that walk. One roll of film; one street.

It's quite a challenge to make all 36 count. Part architecture, part 'street', part candid. It's good fun and gets me shooting.

EASmithV · Jun 4, 2009

perkeleellinen said:
I spoke about this earlier today in a flickr group. Seems to fit in here also.

I have this project: "36 frames". I go to a famous street and walk down it. My challenge is to shoot 36 photos in that walk. One roll of film; one street.

It's quite a challenge to make all 36 count. Part architecture, part 'street', part candid. It's good fun and gets me shooting.

Thanks for the idea, I want to try that now!

Shangheye · Jun 4, 2009

perkeleellinen said:
I spoke about this earlier today in a flickr group. Seems to fit in here also.

I have this project: "36 frames". I go to a famous street and walk down it. My challenge is to shoot 36 photos in that walk. One roll of film; one street.

It's quite a challenge to make all 36 count. Part architecture, part 'street', part candid. It's good fun and gets me shooting.

That has to be one of the most original ideas I can imagine for a project...Do you have to make each one on of the images on a different subject, or do you allow doubling up?

Kal

perkeleellinen · Jun 5, 2009

Shangheye said:
That has to be one of the most original ideas I can imagine for a project...Do you have to make each one on of the images on a different subject, or do you allow doubling up?

Kal

Sometimes I might do mild doubling up; an interesting building from two angles or maybe two different foregrounds. But no bracketing, no slight compositional re-takes, no 'one extra for safety'.

My goal is 36 photos that tell a story of that walk, but my challenge is to make all of them stand alone.

Shangheye · Jun 5, 2009

perkeleellinen said:
Sometimes I might do mild doubling up; an interesting building from two angles or maybe two different foregrounds. But no bracketing, no slight compositional re-takes, no 'one extra for safety'.

My goal is 36 photos that tell a story of that walk, but my challenge is to make all of them stand alone.

Hmmm...with my eye for photographic opportunities, I would need a looong street

paul_c5x4 · Jun 5, 2009

Shangheye said:
Hmmm...with my eye for photographic opportunities, I would need a looong street

Three candidates if you are using (U)LF:
McKinley Street, Bellefontaine, OH, USA
Elgin Street, Bacup, Lancashire, England
Ebenezer Place, Wick, Caithness, Scotland

For my part, I've been shown some photographic postcards from the 1920's/30's and been given the task of identifying their location. It will be interesting to compare the then & now views and shoot with a vintage camera.

Shangheye · Jun 5, 2009

Thanks Paul. I have family in Scotland....maybe a project with my Toyo the next time I am there. Kal

SuzanneR · Jun 5, 2009

I like the street idea. And don't forget to turn around as you walk down the street. Might be some great pictures to be made that you would otherwise miss!!

As for me, it depends on what I'm photographing. I have a picture in the gallery called Evolution, and I shot probably three rolls of 220 format film; the kids were swimming as they climbed out of the pool, and dove back in. The light was gorgeous, they were oblivious to me. So, I kept shooting until the light was gone.

Then other times... my recent Dandelion picture, for instance, was one frame. We were on a bike ride though, and I made some blurry movement pictures that day. So, shot a few rolls on that ride, but not a lot of similar frames. come to think of it... it was a little like that walking down the street idea!!

I don't believe in a "spray and pray" approach, but I also think that if you are keenly aware, you'll see a lot of pictures. I tend to shoot a lot of film, and once I have a roll in the camera to shoot, I will always finish it up. But I don't make a lot of "copies" of the same frame.

Shangheye · Jun 6, 2009

Hi Suzanne,

I like the anecdote about the Dandelion picture. I think that great photographs are just that. Sometimes greatest, because they are moment and then lost. No end of senseless repetition will replace them in terms of composition etc. It happened to me today walking around with my son who is 8 years old. He has my old canon 135 compact, and he is very in to film. Anyway, we saw a fantastic opportunity of a girl sitting in profile in the library window while we walked past. Her head was in her hands. He took the right position and made the shot, and after that she raised he head and the moment was lost for me to take his place. I stood and waited, but she didn't put her head down again...and so I walked away from what would have been a good picture but not a great picture. I was gutted (but delighted for him...). I can't wait to see what he chose as a composition.

Anyway, I think that the situation determines the approach, but that "spray and pray" as you say does not work. He is learning that now...he took two pictures while we were out. Both will be great if he composed them well...and he has started to show a knack for that.

Thank you for your insight.

Rgds, Kal

Colin Corneau · Jun 6, 2009

How about going even one better than this:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/a-leica-year.html

Now that takes some cahones.

Paul Jenkin · Jun 6, 2009

railwayman3 said:
I remember hearing a talk by an old (and very successful Hon. FRPS, etc., etc.) photographer many years ago (he'd only just stopped using plates to try out this new-fangled sheet film ) when he said....the test of a good photographer is someone who can travel 100 miles to take a picture, set up the camera on the tripod, compose and meter, take out the darkslide, and only then decide the scene/lighting/etc., is not good enough for his standards, pack everything up and go home.

I don't think he intended that we take this literally all the time, but I can see that he was making a similar point.

I disagree; I think he probably meant every word.

This is a subject currently dear to my heart. I try to travel as extensively and regularly as my full-time job allows. The objective is to capture something of the place on film / digital. However, the frustration of only being able to travel at weekends and on holiday means that I take shots when I know the light is poor and/or the photo is compromised in some way.

It's almost like taking photos as a type of 'Pavlov's Dog' reaction; I've arrived, ergo I must start shooting photos. The end result is uaully mediocre images and frustration. I really must try to get into the habit of returning home empty-handed if there's nothing worth shooting.

jp80874 · Jun 7, 2009

I think it depends on your level and your confidence (if earned) in what you are doing. In my retirement I am taking college courses in photography. After a student has learned the basics in Photo 1 and 2 they take advanced courses in color, B&W, portrait, professional lighting and fine art. They must take at least four advanced courses to graduate. In a fine art course they will build a related series of twenty, matted and over matted, 11x14s or larger for the term. For students taking advanced courses the first or second time the professors require four rolls of 36 shot 35mm a week, developed and printed on contact sheets for review. This gets the student to find a series subject, study a subject from many angles, learn composition, determine if they are getting consistent exposure, weed out the students that are not willing to work.

Once they have jumped those hurdles many move up in format size to school provided 120 or 4x5 cameras, going to a lower number of shots with a higher performance ratio. About the third or fourth class the technical aspect comes naturally and the creative work really begins to show unencumbered by the mistakes we all made as novices.

John Powers

removed-user-1 · Jun 7, 2009

perkeleellinen said:
I have this project: "36 frames". I go to a famous street and walk down it. My challenge is to shoot 36 photos in that walk. One roll of film; one street.

I remember getting assignments like this in my first photo classes, it was very helpful in teaching the art of seeing. Now that I work with a Mamiya RB67 so much, I have ten frames per roll. I find that often I set up and compose, but don't expose any film, and when I do make a photograph, I take one or maybe two exposures of a given subject before I move on.

Bruce Watson · Jun 7, 2009

Shangheye said:
I have always (even when I have used digital..but less so) restricted my shots on a particular subject to maybe two and at most three. My theory being that given I am limiting the shots, if I have not chosen the right comp/moment by then, then there probably isn't one that would define the shot as distinctive. Waiting and thinking also seems to allow that "moment" to happen.

You are a candidate for large format. What you describe is part of the appeal of LF. It forces you to slow down and think about what you are trying to do. Hand holding LF is difficult, rapid fire shooting is nearly impossible. It's a very contemplative way to photograph.

Photographers like me typically make exactly one photograph of any scene we've set up on. Seldom do I make more than one, and then it's usually because of possible motion blur (slow shutter speeds), or wanting to see the effect of different apertures (it's difficult to judge a stopped down image on the ground glass because it's so dark).

Something to think about maybe.

Shangheye · Jun 7, 2009

Thanks Bruce...I am already an LF'er. I shoot with a Toyo 45CF. In fact I shoot at all formats (depending on my mood and subject). The post was more about an experiment I did at 35mm to "let myself go" a little bit. I found that in reality that didn't increase the hit rate...in fact I normally am frugal with the pictures I take...hence the experiment to test whether (at least for me) taking more pictures increased the number of good images...in fact, I think they decreased. i.e. there is no sanctuary in quantity in photography.

Rgds, Kal

JDP · Jun 7, 2009

Seems most people are quite frugal with film. Me also. For landscape rarely more than one or two exposures of a particular scene. For people/portraints usually 2 occassionally three. Medium format kit.

When out photographing for the day it is unusual for me to shoot a whole film - usually 3-6 shots, most of the time. Normally I have film in several cameras at once: in some it can take a year before its finished!

Paul Jenkin · Jun 10, 2009

One of the (IMO) unfortunate side-effects of the advent of digital photography and large capacity digital storage cards is that many of those who would have grown up as photographic 'snipers' have developed into 'machine-gunners' and, in doing so, have failed to learn what it is they're doing or why the results they get, look the way they do.

By sheer weight of shots taken, sooner or later an image taken in a digital photo spree will turn out okay. Occasionally, there might even get a real corker amongst the dross. The issue is that unless you think about all the variables and use your skill to achieve the end result you want, you'll be at the mercy of the camera manufacturer's default settings.

As with all photographic mediums (film or digital) it's usually fairly easy to distinguish those who control their equipment and those who allow their equipment to control them.

(I exclude sports photographers and photo-journalists from the above comments as they often need to rattle off dozens of shots to get the one they / their editor will use).

Safety in numbers

Shangheye

Christopher Walrath

Sirius Glass

railwayman3

MattKing

Moderator

Peter Schrager

eddym

eddym

perkeleellinen

EASmithV

Shangheye

perkeleellinen

Shangheye

paul_c5x4

Shangheye

SuzanneR

Moderator

Shangheye

Colin Corneau

Paul Jenkin

jp80874

removed-user-1

Bruce Watson

Shangheye

JDP

Paul Jenkin

Safety in numbers

Moderator

Moderator

removed-user-1

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency