Great article. I think we all feel the pull to shoot extra frames at different points in our photographic journey. When I’ve been really busy shooting, I actually tend to make fewer frames. But when I’m out of practice with a particular format or subject, the second-guessing starts to creep in, and my mind wants those extra frames as a form of certainty. Really good food for thought all the way around.
i'm in both boats so to speak. when i'm photographing rugby, i use a digital camera with loads frames/sec, i use burst mode and i think that's normal. i did use a film camera at rugby (just to experiment the sport photography from the '70's) with decent results that can be seen in my archive. but i am also using film cameras and with them i don't have the need of taking more than one shot for a scene/situation.
For the most part, I try to adhere to the one shot approach with my photography. However when I’m hiking with my camera, I do find myself photographing similar subjects as I encounter them along different stretches of the trail. In those cases, I am capturing the earlier image without knowing that a more intriguing version of that type subject would present itself 15 minutes down the trail. Since I’m using digital, the primary cost of this redundancy for me is my time reviewing/editing the resulting images. Perhaps FOMO is my primary motivation in these cases …
This approach seemed to go hand in hand with shooting slide film (as I predominantly did in my younger days). My friend, who encouraged me to take photography more seriously, often tried to get me to shoot more film. Then again, he shot mostly b+w and did all his own developing/darkroom. Maybe I was just tight with film😬. Going digital certainly freed me up. Since coming back to film a few years back I've been a bit less frugal though, even when trying out a new-to-me camera I can't just blast away at any old thing, I still have to try and make a competent attempt at each frame..
I shoot with digital cameras. I am not the type to “overshoot”. I shoot when I see something I want to capture. I might take 2 shots instead of one but I’m not a spray-and-pray type. Never have been no matter the equipment I am using nor situation I’m shooting (at my kid’s basketball game it was a pointed click during a play, for example). That’s just the kind of shooter I am.
The only time I take a few shots is if I am using my phone and want to get a shot of my kids in whatever random situation. Then I take a few shots cause somehow, esp my daughter, has her eyes closed in a majority of the shots. 😉
I think even people who shoot with digital equipment can be thoughtful shooters, even though a digital shooter doesn’t have to worry about film count and cost.
It’s kinda like someone saying you need to be religious to be a moral person (something I was told once by a fellow grad student). I’m not a religious person but I have a strong moral compass. I’m also not a film shooter these days but it doesn’t mean I don’t carefully compose a shot and capture it in one go. 😃
People starting photography could learn a lot by using an all manual meterless camera with a fixed single focal length lens with a range of shutter speeds and F/stops along with using a hand meter for critical exposure.
It helps us to think more carefully about composition, exposure etc and it can be a very enjoyable experience.
A couple of thoughts. I think Cartier-Bresson’s “decisive moment” is a bit misunderstood. It was his American publisher’s suggestion, shifting away from the photographer’s “images on the run”. Whilst I’m sure he was a disciplined shooter, his contact sheets often reveal multiple shots of the same subject. I remember reading that William Albert Allard, the famous National Geographic photographer, would take 300+ rolls of film on a single assignment, from which only a few frames would be selected for publication. It’s the cost of film that seems to be a central issue. Even really great photographers of the film era probably burned through plenty of frames (with a few notable exceptions, like William Eggleston). I don’t tend to take more than one shot of the same thing because, like Henry Wessel, I like the idea that I’m saying “Yes” to something visually. Saying “Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes etc.” doesn’t make much sense to me.
If i remember well, for the photograph Cartier-Bresson took of a dog and a couple he spent one roll of film.
Now, true or not, there is a great difference between his approach and the Vinogrand ones, for example (what John Free called the monkey shot).
Personally, i consume maybe 10 rolls par year, very rare i take multiple images from the same subject just because there are actually different kind of situations.
There are those miracles, very fast moments that you have only one chance, and there are evolving situations that give you the opportunity to "study", you can even walk around them, waiting for the best moment possible.
Another interesting post, Andrew that gives us a lot of material to think about. I don’t think that even with my digital camera I photograph a lot of frames from one subject unless I want to see it from different vantage points. With film I noticed that I only take normally one shot. Unfortunately, it happens often that it is not good because as you write, I didn’t take the time to think it out properly. 😊
I think that when film ruled people still must have made different shots from something. Depending on what the shot for was. You see this sometimes in books. Magnum, for instance, has a very good book about this subject that you probably know about, the Magnum contacts sheets.
It is indeed a good exercise to expose and compose as good as we can beforehand, but again this depends on the situation one is in. When the moment is quicker than the speed of light, you just press your shooter sometimes more than once and just hope the good one is among the lot.
By the way, your photographs of the path in the nature, the boy in the train and the still life with the items from your studio are beautiful ones!
I can’t agree more! This has long been my approach regardless of whether I’m shooting film or digital! One frame and move on. I was on a photowalk with a small group and a young fellow said he will probably come away from the 2 hr photo walk with “a couple thousand frames”, he asked me what software I use to cull my images. I said this one .. pointing at my head plus this one .. holding up my shutter finger. “How many photos have you taken?” he asked. “Ten I said and probably half are keepers”.
Great article. I think we all feel the pull to shoot extra frames at different points in our photographic journey. When I’ve been really busy shooting, I actually tend to make fewer frames. But when I’m out of practice with a particular format or subject, the second-guessing starts to creep in, and my mind wants those extra frames as a form of certainty. Really good food for thought all the way around.
Thanks Benjamin, good points.
i'm in both boats so to speak. when i'm photographing rugby, i use a digital camera with loads frames/sec, i use burst mode and i think that's normal. i did use a film camera at rugby (just to experiment the sport photography from the '70's) with decent results that can be seen in my archive. but i am also using film cameras and with them i don't have the need of taking more than one shot for a scene/situation.
For the most part, I try to adhere to the one shot approach with my photography. However when I’m hiking with my camera, I do find myself photographing similar subjects as I encounter them along different stretches of the trail. In those cases, I am capturing the earlier image without knowing that a more intriguing version of that type subject would present itself 15 minutes down the trail. Since I’m using digital, the primary cost of this redundancy for me is my time reviewing/editing the resulting images. Perhaps FOMO is my primary motivation in these cases …
I know just what you mean Todd, I've had a similar thing many times.
This approach seemed to go hand in hand with shooting slide film (as I predominantly did in my younger days). My friend, who encouraged me to take photography more seriously, often tried to get me to shoot more film. Then again, he shot mostly b+w and did all his own developing/darkroom. Maybe I was just tight with film😬. Going digital certainly freed me up. Since coming back to film a few years back I've been a bit less frugal though, even when trying out a new-to-me camera I can't just blast away at any old thing, I still have to try and make a competent attempt at each frame..
Ah, terrific practice suggestion (and philosophy). Worth a go!
Thanks Renee.
Interesting thoughts and shots.
I shoot with digital cameras. I am not the type to “overshoot”. I shoot when I see something I want to capture. I might take 2 shots instead of one but I’m not a spray-and-pray type. Never have been no matter the equipment I am using nor situation I’m shooting (at my kid’s basketball game it was a pointed click during a play, for example). That’s just the kind of shooter I am.
The only time I take a few shots is if I am using my phone and want to get a shot of my kids in whatever random situation. Then I take a few shots cause somehow, esp my daughter, has her eyes closed in a majority of the shots. 😉
I think even people who shoot with digital equipment can be thoughtful shooters, even though a digital shooter doesn’t have to worry about film count and cost.
It’s kinda like someone saying you need to be religious to be a moral person (something I was told once by a fellow grad student). I’m not a religious person but I have a strong moral compass. I’m also not a film shooter these days but it doesn’t mean I don’t carefully compose a shot and capture it in one go. 😃
Anyway, an interesting discussion you’ve started.
Thanks KewtieBird.
People starting photography could learn a lot by using an all manual meterless camera with a fixed single focal length lens with a range of shutter speeds and F/stops along with using a hand meter for critical exposure.
It helps us to think more carefully about composition, exposure etc and it can be a very enjoyable experience.
A couple of thoughts. I think Cartier-Bresson’s “decisive moment” is a bit misunderstood. It was his American publisher’s suggestion, shifting away from the photographer’s “images on the run”. Whilst I’m sure he was a disciplined shooter, his contact sheets often reveal multiple shots of the same subject. I remember reading that William Albert Allard, the famous National Geographic photographer, would take 300+ rolls of film on a single assignment, from which only a few frames would be selected for publication. It’s the cost of film that seems to be a central issue. Even really great photographers of the film era probably burned through plenty of frames (with a few notable exceptions, like William Eggleston). I don’t tend to take more than one shot of the same thing because, like Henry Wessel, I like the idea that I’m saying “Yes” to something visually. Saying “Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes etc.” doesn’t make much sense to me.
If i remember well, for the photograph Cartier-Bresson took of a dog and a couple he spent one roll of film.
Now, true or not, there is a great difference between his approach and the Vinogrand ones, for example (what John Free called the monkey shot).
Personally, i consume maybe 10 rolls par year, very rare i take multiple images from the same subject just because there are actually different kind of situations.
There are those miracles, very fast moments that you have only one chance, and there are evolving situations that give you the opportunity to "study", you can even walk around them, waiting for the best moment possible.
Another interesting post, Andrew that gives us a lot of material to think about. I don’t think that even with my digital camera I photograph a lot of frames from one subject unless I want to see it from different vantage points. With film I noticed that I only take normally one shot. Unfortunately, it happens often that it is not good because as you write, I didn’t take the time to think it out properly. 😊
I think that when film ruled people still must have made different shots from something. Depending on what the shot for was. You see this sometimes in books. Magnum, for instance, has a very good book about this subject that you probably know about, the Magnum contacts sheets.
It is indeed a good exercise to expose and compose as good as we can beforehand, but again this depends on the situation one is in. When the moment is quicker than the speed of light, you just press your shooter sometimes more than once and just hope the good one is among the lot.
By the way, your photographs of the path in the nature, the boy in the train and the still life with the items from your studio are beautiful ones!
Thank you Luz.
I can’t agree more! This has long been my approach regardless of whether I’m shooting film or digital! One frame and move on. I was on a photowalk with a small group and a young fellow said he will probably come away from the 2 hr photo walk with “a couple thousand frames”, he asked me what software I use to cull my images. I said this one .. pointing at my head plus this one .. holding up my shutter finger. “How many photos have you taken?” he asked. “Ten I said and probably half are keepers”.
Thanks Jim.