Returning to the Scene of a Crime

[Ron Bose]

I was at the Art Gallery of Ontario on Saturday to visit the Turner, Monet and Whistler exhibit.

A couple of points hit me that are closely related to my style of photography, and in particular, large format photography.

I noticed that Turner and Monet in particular would paint the same scene many times. Each would be produced from the same perspective, but would reflect a different atmosphere. The impressionistic style would convey the differing senses of emotion as well as the dramatic colour schemes which were created by London's polluted atmosphere of the time.

I often find myself returning to a favorite haunt to make a photograph of a favorite subject. Sometimes I feel guilty about it, but now that I see that some of the 'great' painters do the same thing ....

[David A. Goldfarb]

I do it all the time.

[Paul Butzi]

I've written some ruminations on the tendency to go back to the same spot. 



Some photographers (I call them 'farmers') do this.  Weston must have
visited Pt. Lobos hundreds of times.  Other photographers seem to hit the
opposite extreme - I call them 'hunter-gatherers' - always on the move, always
looking for the next big shot.



The difference seems to be more one of approach than a matter of right or
wrong.



More thoughts on this at

http://www.butzi.net/articles/two types.htm (http://www.butzi.net/articles/two%20types.htm)

[austin granger]

There's this old beached fishing boat out at Point Reyes that I've probably photographed a hundred times in the last ten years. I'm recording it as it slowly disintergrates. Someday, I'll show the best prints from this series together. I imagine the last picture will be of a pile of wood, or maybe of the spot completely empty.

I find it tremendously rewarding to revist the same place/thing over and over again, both to record the changes (or lack of changes) and also to challenge myself as a photographer; to try and find new ways of looking at the same thing. And of course, over time, we change as well, no?

Have you seen Richard Misrach's book "Golden Gate"? It is basically many, many large-format color photos of the Golden Gate bridge that he took from exactly the same vantage point (his porch, I believe) over the course of a few years. I like it very much. After looking at many of these images in one sitting, all completely different, I'm left wondering; just what is the real nature of this "thing" anyway? Of anything for that matter? Is there an objective reality?

Well, I suppose that's a discussion for another time. ;-)

[Ralph Barker]

Excellent topic, Ron.

I rather like the idea of revisiting a favorite haunt from time to time, getting to know it, along with its moods at different times of day, or different seasons. In contrast, Paul's "hunter-gatherers" never get past the "first date" with a location. They may get striking images on that first date, but don't avail themselves of getting to know the location better. To each his/her own, of course.

[dan nguyen]

There's nothing wrong to eat your favorite food and drink your favorite brew as many time as you like. Returning to the same spot and take the same scene at different lighting, I did that all the time, if time permit that is.

" Art is perfectioning what you try to achieve...."

[Francis Abad]

My best pics are made in areas I visit over and over again. Everything changes! There are millions of variations!

Francesco (www.cicoli.com)

[Bill_1856]

It took Weston at least 30 Peppers to get it right. (Anybody know how many different ones he actually finished?)

[Philip_4175]

I can argue for both approaches. When I was growing up, and attending college I lived in the SW U.S. I frequently visited the same places over and over again. Indeed, as my mind would wander (often in class) I would envision how to improve images that I had taken. As Paul's article points out, this is how to be in the right place for the ideal conditions. In my case this did result in a number of great images. However, sometimes we also dream of exotic places. I have made several trips to Alaska, Central America, and South America. On these trips I shoot a lot more film per day. Paul's hunter gatherer approach. It is doubtful that I will ever return there again so I make sure to stack the odds in my favor. Many times these images lack the emotion that my local images had. Perhaps this is due to my emotional attachement to the western U.S.? I suspect this is the case. However, the hunter-gatherer approach has yielded some images that I am proud of. However, the ratio of keepers to film exposed is significantly lower!

BTW - Paul, I enjoyed your article and your website.

[Walter Foscari]

Following an instinctive approach for taking a picture of a certain subject, I often find that it's very rare that I fully realize what attracts me to taking the shot in the first place. Only afterwards, looking at the print I understand (sometimes) what I really wanted to do. With this clarification in mind I like to revisit the place and retry the shot. Often, but not always, this enhanced understanding before the taking results in a better image.

[Ron Bose]

Hmmm, I've read Paul's articles before and had these in mind when I posted the question.

I find that the guilt I feel about returning to the same spot is more associated with my lack of drive to discover new places to make images.

This concept in itself can be closely associated with 'hunting and gathering'. I seem to go back to the same 'hunting-grounds' to find my prey, but if I were more adventurous I could find better quarry in another area ?

I know an excellent LF photographer here in Toronto who, with some of his shooting buddies, goes on weekly road trips searching for good shooting opportunities. Sometimes I wish I had the desire to do this. But then again, maybe I'm a farmer ...

[Jim Galli]

I've been married to the same great lady for 29 years. Guess that makes me a farmer.

[Chris Gittins]

(I need to log on more frequently. More often than not I seem to be a day late to these discussions.)

Ron,

I'm a 'farmer.' I've had bouts of "I should go find something new." but have pretty much gotten over it. I've been working on the same project now for about 18 months. I've shot in a few other locations but probably spend 80% of my time out within the same one acre area. That said, I've never shot the same thing twice.

You spend time in a place and you see more. For me, it's also as much about one's psychological relationship with a place as much as it is about a purely visual or aethetic interaction. I want those things to be integrated in my prints. I simply can't get that from one two hour visit. Some people can - perhaps Weston? don't know how long he lingered in a new area while on the road - but it's a rare gift. It's taken this long for me to establish the coherence I was seeking in the body of work and I think the project still still has a long way to go. Several months ago I thought the series had reached a logical conclusion, but I had an afternoon out in the field which opened up a whole new way of seeing the space. My guess is it will take another 12-18 months to bring things to completion.

The question of when a project is done is a tough one. If you're a 'hunter-gatherer' it seems to me that would be less of a concern than it is if you're a 'farmer'. Before I had my epiphany a few months back, I was very concerned about what was going to come next. I didn't - and don't - have anything else in the pipeline. I'm sure "What's next?" will become an issue again, but not for awhile. Stephen Shore touches on he's dealt with it in his View Camera interview this month - good comments, worth a read if you have a chance.

Chris