Number of shots taken of the same subject

[h2oman]

I generally just make one exposure of a scene, but I have found in many cases I should have made zero!

[Jmarmck]

I generally just make one exposure of a scene, but I have found in many cases I should have made zero!

I am guilty your honor!

[Kirk Gittings]

I generally just make one exposure of a scene, but I have found in many cases I should have made zero!

I have filing cabinets full of stuff from my early days that didn't have enough juice to get me off my duff to print it. These days unless I think it is special I don't bother pulling the dark slide.

[Paul Cunningham]

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.

[Robert Hall]

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)

[jnantz]

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 ...

[Jmarmck]

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.

[Robert Hall]

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.

[koh303]

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.

[Greg Miller]

I am not an icon by any stretch, but I shoot a lot of film taking very few separate images sometimes. Why? Cloud patterns, cloud shadows on the landscape and unique changing light is important in my work. I see something of interest and get that shot and then see if something in the weather will change and improve the image. As I like to shoot on the edge of storms it is like watching a dance of light that you have not choreographed and you can't predict. I'm always seeing if something better will happen with the light and often times it does. Its not unusual for me to shoot 6-8 even 12 sheets on a scene in rapidly changing light/clouds. On this setup I think I shot 8 sheets as these thunderheads blew through the scene. This was the 8th and I believed it was the culmination of what I was waiting for and quit after this neg. Film is cheap, cost of getting there and the time investment is huge. I never bracket exposures on B&W-I'm always bang on. With transparencies for reproduction yes-but I only shoot color now for commercial work and that is all digital now. The others sheets on this scene were good but not great. Waiting (for maybe an hour and a half?) made all the difference. I just knew in my gut something special was coming. On detail shots in constant light-just two negatives usually-one for insurance.

+1.

That rain squall was certainly worth the wait!