I generally just make one exposure of a scene, but I have found in many cases I should have made zero!
I generally just make one exposure of a scene, but I have found in many cases I should have made zero!
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
I know that feeling. If it's not going to be a winner (by my standards
), why bother? It seems easy enough to tell the difference.
Im pretty much with Kirk. On top of shooting something at least twice, returning to the scene of the crime on many occasions, sometimes over the course of years, produces the best image.
This took 9 trips (for what it's worth)
i take as many as i need to take ..
sometimes that is 1, 2 or a slew them (with film) ...
my paper +glass negatives are self coated
so even if the view is the same,
chances are the negative are completely different.
so i take more than one ...
That is very good Robert. I have the same shot but have yet to work on it. I was stunned by how little contrast there is when shooting into that canyon. I hit Cedar Mesa with the same results. Very flat in the canyon. Given the winter sunlight I would have figured a bit more contrast.
Regards
Marty
Thank you. Which, i think helps demonstrate the usefulness of returning to a place.
I remember seeing an article on Ansel Adams where he took--on one occasion--15 8x10s of the dunes at Death Valley, albeit on one occasion, but also photographed there many times.
I never shoot more then once. If it did not work on that first try, i guess it was not meant to be, at least thats following eggelstons train of thought. Then again, i also never re visit any place any longer except for in very specific cases like here :http://transporterpsychosis.blogspot...-work-yet.html
RE Stieglitz - his photos are mostly un interesting, and have a minor place in the canonical "history of photography" aside from what you mentioned was his importance in trying to claim that photography was art, which led to others saying similar things, a fine arts museum showing photography shows etc., and Gombrich not changing his assertion that photography is after all not art, despite what W. Benjamin erroneously wrote about in his book art in the age mechanical reproduction.
Bookmarks