Number of shots taken of the same subject

[Jmarmck]

I was reading an article on Stieglitz the other day. I had heard of him before but was not aware of what his history really was. It appears that he was most notable for his efforts to promote photography as art. He was responsible for the creation and demise of many different clubs, publications, and galleries. After reading all this I was left with the impression that Stieglitz was more of a promoter than a photographer. I do not mean this in any derogatory sense but rather the opposite.

What did strike me is how the article was pretty much devoid of his photography short of his efforts to create galleries to publicize the works.
There was almost nothing on his photographic ideal and methods. I found this odd given the popularity of his more famous works.
What I did gather was that at any given shoot he would take many shots, many being what I would consider duplicates. From this lot he would pick and choose the best. This somewhat surprised me as I was under the assumption that many icons in photography were "one shot" kind of people.

On a recent trip I started out bracketing my shots but the found that it was pretty much not necessary. A few days into the trip I was taking one shot. I have issues with this approach. Keep in mind that I am a beginner with LF and simply have not taken that many shots.

In the digital world I have been known to shotgun. Heck, why not. It costs nothing and is a safe guard against problems. I have since stopped this practice and taken a more problematic approach.

What is your approach? Are you a one shot kind of person or do you replicate a scene? Why?

[Kirk Gittings]

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.

[Preston]

Marty,

I normally take a single exposure when using my 4x5, given that I am using color transparency film, which as we all know isn't inexpensive. So, I try hard to keep from making multiple exposures of the same set up. However, and there is always a 'however, sometimes I will make a second exposure in certain conditions of light and weather, or if I feel I may have goofed the first one.

With my DSLR, I can fire away if I choose, but most of the time I only make two or three exposures. Sure, pixels are cheap, but I really dislike wading through many frames after downloading to my computer.

Basically, I try to obey the prime directive: "Keep It Simple, Stupid!"

--P

[Jody_S]

Landscape, using 8x10 X-ray, 2-4 shots per subject, limited more by the number of holders I can carry. For many reasons: the light changes as I'm photographing, clouds move in, wind picks up or dies down, I might try a couple of different lenses & apertures for tonality & sharpness, etc. Something like kid or pet photography, I routinely take 150-300 with the dSLR.

[Jmarmck]

I remember that shot, Kirk. That is an excellent example of "more is better". I too spend a lot of time around storms and understand the ever changing conditions. I live for those days/nights.
I took two from this vantage point. They were pretty much the same as the lighting conditions were constant (and harsh). Later on in the trip I would have taken a single shot.
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8643/16223864807_be42888dd3_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qHDxM2)Shiprock (https://flic.kr/p/qHDxM2) by jmarmck (https://www.flickr.com/people/127213211@N06/), on Flickr

[Kirk Gittings]

Nice. Yes me too in those conditions.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I was under the assumption that many icons in photography were "one shot" kind of people.

It would be interesting to know which icons were one-shot photographers. I don't know.

I once had a collection of Ansel Adams' Half Dome photos, all different. It was a convenient subject to photograph over and over until he was satisfied enough.

What others?

[richardman]

It depends on the subject and budget :-) For my Cosplay portrait project, I usually take 2 images of in-costume, and 2 images of out-of-costumes, but I do explain to them that unlike other photogs (where they may fire off 50 shots in 2 seconds), I can really only afford 2 sheets per sitting, so we would work a bit beforehand to find good pose etc. first.

When I go hiking and take landscapish stuff, then it depends on a number of factors: cloud patterns, people, whether changing angle of view would make a difference etc.

If I were a commercial photographer though, with someone actually paying for the end results, I would take many more photos.

[Bill_1856]

Stieglitz worked mainly in the early days of "dry plate" photography, (turn of the 20th Century plus or minus). Emulsions varied all over the place from batch to batch. There were no scientific standards of sensitivity, and even if there had been, there were no light meters. It's amazing how well they did.

[Tin Can]

I always shoot both sides of a DDS. Same exact shot, even if I don't bracket. Just because.

I carry Pentax 35mm for city shooting and find 24 shot rolls are way too long. I should start loading my own 12 shot rolls. Not to save film, but just to make it easier to separate ideas and images before developing.

I'm going to shoot a 12 exposure Graflex bag mag today for the first time. I'm going to load only 6...but all 12 septems still need to be inserted.

Before digital, I would shoot slides of my sculpture for submission to galleries. They all wanted a slide, which you may never see again. So I settled on shooting each art work with identical settings and image 37 times on individual rolls of film. Then I stored all this 'documentation' and I am very glad I did.

Even my digitally made NOT ART logo I copied 37 times on slide film. It's nearly 20 years old. It has been stolen and I am working with an IP attorney.

If the camera is on a tripod, I always double tap. That way I know it's dead.

[Ari]

Portraits I will shoot until I get what I was after.
Everything else gets one shot, two if I knowingly flubbed the first.

[Alan Gales]

For what I shoot I'm pretty much a one shot guy except for portraiture. Getting the "right look" from someone is sometimes simple and occasionally an exercise in complete frustration. ;)

I do admit that when I shot fast pitch softball with a D200/D300 I'd use the motor drive to catch the ball leaving the bat.

[Pfiltz]

I'm a hack. I shoot 1 piece of film per image.

[BrianShaw]

Generally 1 but I often wish I shot 2.

[Jmarmck]

Generally 1 but I often wish I shot 2.
Yeah, I'm finding this out. Not because of exposure, composition, or focus, but because of something else in the work flow.
In the field I generally take one or two from the same perspective but will move around to try and change the light (digital).
I find that the first one is normally the one selected.

As for LF, I am still getting use to it. I need to shoot more often.

[Michael E]

I used to shoot two identical exposures and process them separately for safety. Dust, scratches, development mishaps...

I don't do that any more because I never find enough time for darkroom work and duplicates simply double my film processing time. Accidents are far and in between, and since I mostly scan my negatives, I can spot my images in Photoshop.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'm just getting started again but I never did and never will take less than two images of any given subject that isn't transient. Even if I'm absolutely certain of composition and exposure I take that second image as insurance against damage to the first one. The first image is processed and evaluated. If minor processing adjustment is needed then I make those changes on the second film. If no adjustments are needed then I process the second film the same and hold it in reserve. I might also try two different filters or different films. If I use two films and two filters each that's eight total images I might take... four combinations at two images each. This isn't always practicable but then... I'm not always logical.

[Kirk Gittings]

minimum of two always for insurance sake.

[Joe Smigiel]

With wetplate I see almost immediately what I have and will shoot a number of plates until I have it. It's more of a crap shoot than I'd like to admit. People move with longish exposure, the exposure might be better a little lighter or darker, and the processing is always different plate to plate ... I might also shoot one original for the sitter and keep the second. With film, I'll take two for insurance or if one will go for an alternative printing process like Van Dyke Brown. I'll change the development to boost contrast and density on the second sheet in that case.

And finally, with smaller roll film I generally do not bracket, but might take three identical exposures to make sure a good shot doesn't end up in a position at the end of a snip where the enlarger negative carrier might have a struggle holding it flat. One of three will always end up in the middle.

[Andrew O'Neill]

If I feel it's really special, or at a location I most likely not return, then I'll shoot two.

[h2oman]

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

[Jmarmck]

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


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! :D

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.com/2011/07/best-photoshop-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!