Success through multiple shots

Bill Burk · May 19, 2012

I didn't like reading David Hurn, because he was telling me if I keep doing it my way I will never amount to anything. I swear I will not ever tell anyone their approach is a waste of time.

But there are some specific clear instructions that I can take, even if I don't take the entire philosophy.

blansky · May 19, 2012

The Canadian photographer Sherman Hines who did a few books back in the 80s of scenic parts of Canada once discussed his philosophy. He said he could never work like Ansel Adams, parked for hours/days waiting for the perfect shot.

He said he could take ten rolls of film of different subject matter while Adams was still sitting waiting for a shot that may or may not appear.

Some may say, well I've never heard or Sherman Hines so why would I care what he thought. Well, his work was pretty great, but the difference was he shot color.

Surrealism like black and white will usually win out over color.

The moral to the story though is, do what you feel.

Also Hines shot with a Pentax 6x7 and Adams with a 4x5/8x10 (5x7???).

Different strokes.

Old-N-Feeble · May 19, 2012

* r-a-s-p-b-e-r-r-y *

We only learn to see by doing. Some learn more quickly than others. I claim no "vision".

cliveh · May 19, 2012

blansky said:
And this has nothing to do with analog or digital.

Correct, except that digital permits far more shots. If taking lots more shots produces better images, as some seem to think, would that not also imply that anyone working on large format cant compete with a small format user (except on factors relating to a larger format).

Bill Burk · May 19, 2012

blansky said:
The Canadian photographer Sherman Hines who did a few books back in the 80s of scenic parts of Canada once discussed his philosophy. He said he could never work like Ansel Adams, parked for hours/days waiting for the perfect shot.

I can't either. There are constraints on my time in the mountains that force me to take what I can get when I am lucky enough to be there and at the time of day that I happen upon a scene.

In the mountains I am constrained by the weight, so with a hundred sheets to last me a week, I have to pace myself. I am willing to take the lesser quality in return for being able to take anything at all.

cliveh · May 19, 2012

Greg Davis said:
I used to be a pianist. It would be utterly ridiculous to claim that true artists in music never have to practice, and that practice time is only for hacks that will never get anywhere. It is quite the opposite. The same is true for photography. Practice makes you better. I understand what you are trying to argue in regards to digital and endless clicking away but not getting anywhere, but the same can be said for film. However, the is a difference between mindless picture taking, and practicing an art/craft for refinement.

I am not saying that you don't have to practice, but after much practice multiple shots may be limited to just a few and a scatter gun technique is not required.

zsas · May 19, 2012

cliveh said:
...if this is true [taking lots of photos, eg shoot, edit, shoot], then surely digital photography would have thrown up a plethora of brilliant photographers, which to-date it has not.

Teaching people how to see can be done through multiple techniques, I am sure (could be wrong) the same professor would also advocate to bulk load 10 frames and choose them well. I think your premise is so mutually exclusive thinking; your premise with easy access to shooting and reviewing, photographers should be better, and since we have no more brilliant photographers today than before, taking too many photos is in fact a detriment. Sorry Clive I dont agree, here is why, I bet when latex paints came on the market, it probably provided greater access to fine art painting, but were there more great painters after latex proportional to the growth of population and those studying fine art? I bet not. Sure it was prob easier to paint without cleaning the brushes in turpentine and all the slow aspects of oil painting that prior artists had to endure. See what I mean? Your A+B should equal C approach is too presumptive. There might have been more fine art painters using latex but that doest mean that there was a statistically significant number of great fine art painters than before as compared to other arts (music, dance, photography, etc). I think what we see is with access comes a lot of mediocrity, but that doesn't mean there are less great ones.

Personally I do bulk load 10 or so frames but I wouldn't judge my friend if he/she fired off 36 frames in 10 seconds. In my book, the more photography folks do the better, they are seeing, reguardless method of capture and intent. I say use it as an opportunity to motivate yourself, not to be saddened that there is such bad form out there...

blansky · May 19, 2012

cliveh said:
Correct, except that digital permits far more shots. If taking lots more shots produces better images, as some seem to think, would that not also imply that anyone working on large format can’t compete with a small format user (except on factors relating to a larger format).

You need to define "taking more shots".

Are you referring to machine gunning or are you referring to getting yourself in position to take more pictures.

Machine gunning is a sports, fashion, photojournalist staple as I mentioned before. Often necessary to nail that thousands of a second magic that you couldn't get with one shot. And since you can, you do. You'd be an idiot to only take a few when you might miss something by a millisecond.

Machine gunning as a portrait or scenic photographer, is a lacking in knowledge and technique.

Same motion, different motivation.

Still has nothing to do with digital vs analog, because as I said motor drives have been around since the 70s.

The only difference now is that there are more people machine gunning because more cameras have motordrives and those people happen to be shooting digital. BUT there are still great photographers now, a lot more and a lot better than what you're nostalgic for.

When I photograph children. I overshoot. Did with film and I do with digital. Why, because I'm looking for the magic. Not the great, but the magic. The magic is a tricky thing and sometimes it takes time and a connection that can't be rushed. Sometimes it won't come. Sometimes it comes very late. Sometimes it comes when they get tired. The magic has it's own schedule. It doesn't come just with competence, but also with perseverance.

Is someone a better movie director because he can shoot a scene with 2 takes instead of 10. If you think that they you are dismissing a lot of incredible directors.

cliveh · May 19, 2012

blansky said:
Machine gunning as a portrait or scenic photographer, is a lacking in knowledge and technique.

As in any type of photography.

blansky · May 19, 2012

cliveh said:
As in any type of photography.

That sounds like an academic speaking and not a working photographer.

cliveh · May 19, 2012

zsas said:
Teaching people how to see can be done through multiple techniques, I am sure (could be wrong) the same professor would also advocate to bulk load 10 frames and choose them well. I think your premise is so mutually exclusive thinking; your premise with easy access to shooting and reviewing, photographers should be better, and since we have no more brilliant photographers today than before, taking too many photos is in fact a detriment. Sorry Clive I dont agree, here is why, I bet when latex paints came on the market, it probably provided greater access to fine art painting, but were there more great painters after latex proportional to the growth of population and those studying fine art? I bet not. Sure it was prob easier to paint without cleaning the brushes in turpentine and all the slow aspects of oil painting that prior artists had to endure. See what I mean? Your A+B should equal C approach is too presumptive. There might have been more fine art painters using latex but that doest mean that there was a statistically significant number of great fine art painters than before as compared to other arts (music, dance, photography, etc). I think what we see is with access comes a lot of mediocrity, but that doesn't mean there are less great ones.

Personally I do bulk load 10 or so frames but I wouldn't judge my friend if he/she fired off 36 frames in 10 seconds. In my book, the more photography folks do the better, they are seeing, reguardless method of capture and intent. I say use it as an opportunity to motivate yourself, not to be saddened that there is such bad form out there...

Zsas, I don't quite understand what you are saying, as you seem to be in agreement with what I am trying to say.

Chuck_P · May 19, 2012

If I could make 100 4x5 negatives in a day's outing, I certainly would------then I would hope for a handful to be proud of, what's wrong with that?

zsas · May 19, 2012

If someone gets to the same N by taking tons of photos or choosing deliberately, who is to judge

2nd your theory that the easy access to photographing more (latex paint allegory) should create more great photographers (fine art painters allegory) is flawed because I think the respective artform is becoming more passé (photography/painting) to begin with

Shoot how you wish, we are all winners when we photograph....

David A. Goldfarb · May 19, 2012

I suspect that most of the great photographers have discarded many more shots than they have kept.

In genres with highly unpredictable subjects, Blansky is absolutely right. You not only need to be really good at it, but you need to shoot a lot more than you think you do to get a great image.

If I'm photographing birds, for instance, I know that for every 5 or 6 shots where I feel that I got it on film, there may only be one or two where I really did get the shot I thought I had, because birds move faster than we can see, and we really don't know what happened when the mirror was up. And then I probably shot a whole roll to get those five that I thought were good. I use a fast motor drive, but in single shot mode, unless I want a sequence, because that's the way the camera reacts fastest. Standing next to other photographers at popular birding spots, I find I shoot half as much as the more serious ones. 6-7 rolls in a morning or evening is a typical bird photo outing for me.

Mainecoonmaniac · May 19, 2012

Photography is a numbers game. You increase you chances of success by taking multiple shots. I do have to say that the larger the format, the less you take multiple shots. Also some photographers "warm up" their subjects by taking multiple exposures.

cliveh · May 19, 2012

zsas said:
If someone gets to the same N by taking tons of photos or choosing deliberately, who is to judge

2nd your theory that the easy access to photographing more (latex paint allegory) should create more great photographers (fine art painters allegory) is flawed because I think the respective artform is becoming more passé (photography/painting) to begin with

Shoot how you wish, we are all winners when we photograph....

zsas, you misunderstand my OP, I am saying just the opposite.

zsas · May 19, 2012

What if in say 10 years there is this outstanding photographer that we all love and praise, when interviewed s/he talks about how s/he takes hundreds/thousands of photos. Should/would that matter if we liked his/her work? That is my problem.

Clive I love your work, if you told me that you used a motor drive and run through 1000s of rolls of film or maybe you shoot say 5 rolls of film a year, it would not matter to me one whit, what matters to me is that I like the result....process is immaterial

Format, subject matter and where we are in the life cycle of artistic journey is what matters, how many rolls/sheets of film it take to be happy is personal and I think off limits to judge

Bill Burk · May 19, 2012

I would not begrudge anyone the few shots leading up to a climactic moment that may or may not happen (so the shots leading up may be the best of the sequence). This isn't "machine-gunning" that we often deride.

I also hold the belief that very, very small differences exist between Good and Fine Photography. These differences can occur and be caught during "machine-gunning." I aim for somewhere between Good and Fine. I believe this can be caught in smaller sets.

kevs · May 20, 2012

cliveh said:
I have sometimes heard it said that some famous film photographers only achieve their status by taking many shots and then selecting the best. I don’t believe this, as If this is true, then surely digital photography would have thrown up a plethora of brilliant photographers, which to-date it has not.

First of all, how do you define 'brilliant'? Did you mean mean 'rich', 'highly acclaimed', 's/he has lots of exposure' or 'I don't see any photography that I like done on digital'?

Secondly, photographers work in the moment. They watch events unfold before the lens; people do things, clouds cover and uncover the sun, rain falls, the model smiles, snow melts, goals are scored, athletes cross finish lines, the moon crosses the sky. If photographers don't capture what's before the lens, it's gone and they've missed it. You can't photograph something that happened ten minutes ago (although the mad boffins at Kodak are currently working on this!*).

Your statement would make a great subject for a dissertation - I think you should go and study 'brilliant' photographers, compare the contact sheets of film users and 'virtual contact sheets' of digital users and see if you can ascertain a difference in 'brilliance' that can't be explained by genre, subject, the user's experience and a whole host of other factors. I'll look forward to your results - then you won't have to listen to what someone without a clue said. Finally, I find your argument about as convincing as saying that gardeners who dig lots of holes with a new, blue spade aren't half as good as those who dig fewer holes with an old, red spade. YMMV.

Cheers,
kevs

*Shhhhhh - it's tippy-top secret!

Slixtiesix · Jun 5, 2012

Ken Rockwell once recommended that when doing night shots, instead of using a tripod, one should take a few dozen captures and only keep the sharp ones. Fascinating approach ...

Vaughn · Jun 5, 2012

If I finish off a roll of 120 in the Rolleiflex and I really like the last image, I'll take it again on the new roll. Insurance in case something happens to one of the rolls.

blansky · Jun 5, 2012

Slixtiesix said:
Ken Rockwell once recommended that when doing night shots, instead of using a tripod, one should take a few dozen captures and only keep the sharp ones. Fascinating approach ...

He's a moron.

E. von Hoegh · Jun 5, 2012

blansky said:
He's a moron.

^

Success through multiple shots

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency