Why does it take so many tries?

I think the basic question, without lots of qualifiers (such as photography vs. digital art), was why it takes photographers so many tries to get a decent photo whereas a painter might well have a keeper with each effort. The very core of it is that photographers cannot conjure up a scene from their imagination to photograph, it must exist in reality to capture it. And the photographer must be there at exactly the right time with all the right settings to do so.

 

Even digital art must be derived from captures in reality and likely takes more than one try as well.

 

"While we may wish to capture a certain scene, the chances of all variables coming together the way we visualize at the right time is unlikely."

 

My own type of photography usually consists of less pre-visualization and more seeking out the opportunities. I might not find the scene I was looking for; often I find nature has provided one that's even better if I look hard enough.

Heather, you make two sound points and you've definitely identified a weakness in the view I sketched. A lot of photography is not simply execution of a largely previsualized image. It involves seeking out a vaguely visualized image that the photographer thinks, or feels, is "there," waiting to be revealed. And obviously you're right about the difficulty of capturing an image that is presented to the photographer by reality, rather than created by her from scratch. The nature photographer just has to prepare herself and her camera and wait and hope for external factors to fall into place - the critter has got to look this way for just long enough, with the right expression, in the right light.

 

But I think we can draw out some of your points and mine so that they converge. The key idea is that, as you put it, a painter conjures up an image, while a photographer captures one. The capture process is messy, unreliable, and not completely in the photographer's control. But the painting process is also messy and unreliable. (Someone alluded to this above - painters redo or undo lots of brush strokes, paint over things, and so on.) And the painter's conjuring process involves a sort of seeking, too, with lots of trial and error. I doubt that most painters completely previsualize what their finished work will look like.

 

So I'd say there's a reasonably strong analogy between the painter's conjuring up process and the photographer's seeking out process, at least much of the time. You're right, though, that even if we allow for that similarity, there's an element of luck and contingency in photography that has no analogue in painting. Not too many painters' canvases suddenly jump up and fly away in the middle of a brushstroke.

"Not too many painters' canvases suddenly jump up and fly away in the middle of a brushstroke."

 

You're also dealing with less than cooperative films, sensors, papers, lighting, color balances, ect., ect., ect.

 

One just needs to go into a Jazz club on Saturday night, right on or about one thirty in the A.M. to get a feel for the photographic challenges.

 

Going out into a backlit/frontlit outdoors setting, where light intensities are all over the map, considering the dynamic range restrictions present their unique set of photographic challenges.

 

Wide raging conditions, dry, hot, wet, cold, windy, whatever all present their challenges.

 

The point, it's not always possible to sum a scene up, conditions considering, to grab everything in one summation shot.

 

Besides, it's photography and I don't have to get just one shot. I can get as many as I want, when I want, how I want, without restrictions.

 

Painters, be jealous as you sit in front of the same old easel or six for the next twelve months waiting for your paint to dry. While you're hanging, waiting for your paint to dry I can take my gear easily into stormy rains, wind blown deserts, war zones, pitching ships, the pits of a F-1 raceway, Jazz clubs, fashion runways, primer sports areans, news events or cruise the quite protected environment of a NYC loft doing glamor shots, all in that same said year:) Neener, neener, neener:) LOL :)

Fraser

 

'Second, if you visualize a well-composed image and it takes you 10 exposures to capture the image you visualized, then you were successful. You got the image. This scenario shouldn't count as a 10% success rate; it should count as a 100% success rate. A "low" success rate is when somebody keeps failing to nail the image, no matter how many exposures he shoots, or when he just doesn't have the ability to visualize shots that "work," no matter how many he tries to shoot.'

 

Nice said and I think true. Even you never know what will happen in drying of the film, or memo card.

'"So what is now this? It is that anyone defines photography in own way just to suit his way of thinking."

 

That's what you're doing Daniel...'

 

Thomas you said there is no thrutfulness in photography (did you) and you practice it. So you consistently lie with your own work. What is a name for anyone that always lie. Can you concude just anything else. I would reverse what you said above toward your own name. Sorry I do not think that about you I just think it is just wrong conclusion from you (conclusion about what photograph represents: true or not).

I am a little surprised that no one mentioned the obvious ... that even a master painter will create small sketches in pencil, or do other work that helps him lay out the painting, or play with available alternatives. Wouldn't it be logical to view those extra photos as equivalent to that?

Patrick

 

Yes painter scetch a lot before reach for oil. It is somehow equivalent to rearenging tings in still life for photog. But this do not means shoot each setup. Painter also have time to analyse the sketch, photographer (e.g. when shoot people) do not have time, photog must be like a cobra, must feel trill before the shoot, must go by passion into releasing the shutter. It should not be just 'finger work'. This do not means use motor drive, I think. Also painter change scetch many times especialy when he works by 'markup', when paint is ordered and constrained by customer. Constraining can be what customer want that paint represents, sometims and in such way that is not artists way. This case requires a lot od sketches... Too long story. Painting and photography are different and is very very difficult to compare the process.

 

Yes painter have much more time. What it should mens. Nothing. If I can produce paint in split of secund it do not means I will make many of them, even randomly, and choose one to present to customer and rest is scrap. If such case (have to make many) I will refuse the order. Painting process is just time (last long time) established process. It is a way of practicing and painters never ever even and tryed to compare painting process with photography process (especialy moment of shooting). There is no sense in it at all. I think that photographers are after painting pricess not for the process sake but quality sake, how I can get painting quality,...., which camera to buy, and so on.

I always remember that we are attempting to capture a single 1/500th of a second (depending on your exposure)portion out of an endless stream of reality. However, we are not able to react fast enough or see fine enough to pick that 'perfect' 1/500th of a second chunk...and so we take multiple shots...hoping that, one of them, will be the 'right' one.

 

Even scenes that appear to be static have enormous variation and movement...landscapes are effected by the movement of clouds in the background; a bird flying into our field of view; an animal wandering into the scene; the sunlight disappearing; the wind moving the grass and leaves. All of those tiny details can make or break the success of our picture and, so, we take a dozen shots...or a hundred shots...to get one. We are covering a longer span of time in hopes that we will capture the 'right' 1/500th of a second. Of course there are no guarantees...but we are improving our odds if we shoot more than a single shot.

"Thomas you said there is no thrutfulness in photography (did you) and you practice it."

 

Would you care to post a link to the above quote for contextural purposes or are you just wanting to take my comments out of context?

"Even scenes that appear to be static have enormous variation and movement...landscapes are effected by the movement of clouds in the background; a bird flying into our field of view; an animal wandering into the scene; the sunlight disappearing; the wind moving the grass and leaves."

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/2436378&size=lg

Thomas

 

'Would you care to post a link to the above quote for contextural purposes or are you just wanting to take my comments out of context?'

 

It was around the post PHOTOGRAPHY OR DIGITAL IMAGING just prior to this one.

meryl

 

'I always remember that we are attempting to capture a single 1/500th of a second (depending on your exposure)portion out of an endless stream of reality. However, we are not able to react fast enough or see fine enough to pick that 'perfect' 1/500th of a second chunk...and so we take multiple shots...hoping that, one of them, will be the 'right' one.'

 

We do not walk with a camera on the eye. You see than you react than you decide to take the camera or not. When you point the scene through the finder just check is still all OK. If it moves, follow. As I said like a cobra. Sport shooting is different. If you miss it just one more nice moment in your life. You, as PJ, also have to have good instict where and when to go...

"It was around the post PHOTOGRAPHY OR DIGITAL IMAGING just prior to this one."

 

Then it won't be a problem for you to find the quote and post the link.

 

"Context is the first thing to go online."

Daniel, you are correct. We do not walk about with a camera up to our eye. But, I was referring to a situation where we might have a camera mounted on a tripod and where we have time to choose our framing and composition. This could be a landscape or a studio portrait.

 

For example, consider a photographer who must take a shot of a group of people. At any moment, and unpredictably, someone in the group may blink...the photo would show them with their eyes closed. Or someone may not be smiling or may have have an unattractive expression...to allow for this...the photographer will take several shots...hoping that he will capture that moment when everyone is looking their best.

 

Sports and action photography is a good example. There is a lot of very fast action. The professional sports photographers that I know have an understanding where to position themselves where the action is likely to happen. During an automobile race...action frequently happens at the curves, where the cars, moving at high speed, must turn without losing control. At a baseball game, action is going to happen at the bases and at homeplate. These photographers position themselves carefully and thoughtfully...but even they will shoot a burst of shots when the action happens...to freeze time and to see what was too fast for the eye to catch and remember. The camera catches it and holds it...but we cannot know the exact instant to press the shutter...so we take a burst of frames...as fast as our gear can operate...and see what our eyes could not.

 

Those events...like so many events in the world...can never be repeated. There is only one finish to each race...one winning run..and they won't get another shot...so they take 50 shots.

Meryl

 

That examples you mention are typical example for autofocus, and car racing for motor drive. Some photog say also it more likely to miss (car racing,...) if you use motor then if you prey. But I am not sure we talk here about that cases, cases that photog just cannot control. War photogs are even worst. Do you think that photog use minolta spot meter, manual focusing,.... flash, smile, puuuf, thank you. Usualy he just push a camera behind the corner and motor whatever, or someone can shoot him through 1/4 inch lens diameter. For some behind the line camera looks like secret weapon, especialy with 300 mm lens. Eh.

~ I am a little surprised that no one mentioned the obvious ... that even a master painter will create small sketches in pencil, or do other work that helps him lay out the painting, or play with available alternatives. Wouldn't it be logical to view those extra photos as equivalent to that? ~

 

Very good point. The finished artwork does not emerge full-formed, either conceptually, when the artist is previsualizing it, or technically, when she's painting it. There's lots of trial and error on both counts, which is closely analogous to the trial and error in photography. Add in the contingent factors over which the photographer has no control, and the questions in the original post are pretty much answered.

I expect that all of the war photographers in WWII would have had to use cameras with Manual Focus.

 

In many cases where I have a good idea where 'action' is going to happen, a person with a manual focus camera can set their hyperfocal distance to cover the field of action. This would make sure that there was no delay in the camera focusing.

<I>I partly agree. But let's take an example from your own portfolio:<P>

 

http://studio-nelson.com/images/EAndS.jpg <P>

 

I don't know how this portrait came up, but I guess you had "preparated", that the women should be photographed with her cat and that the light should fall on her face in a certain way.<P></I>

Ironically, that one WAS a grab-shot. I was setting up my lights when my cat came into the studio and I asked my wife to pick him up and take him out. She picked him up and turned toward the camera and I said, "just hold still for a second". I pressed the shutter and got that great portrait of the two of them. I love the contrast between their expressions, and I just got lucky with the light on her hair to frame her face, and the catchlights in their eyes. I've always treasured that photo because that was the best cat I ever had and he died shortly after it was taken.

In a creative thinking class I was challenged with the assignment of drawing an apple 100

different ways. Knowing that I needed such a large quantity, I started with very basic

apples. As I got deeper and deeper into the assignment I was forced to be more and more

creative with my vision of what an apple was. I now look at apples VERY differently. I

wouldn't suggest that everyone who takes multiple pictures takes pictures in this way, but

that perhaps it is a means of reaching something more creative or perfect.

 

If we revisited the same image every day as you do with painting, we would find new and

different ways to photograph it to perfection.

Anne, your drawing apples was a direct relationship between the apple and your eye hand

coordination. Drawing teaches you to see, there is more time. Photography teaches you to

notice. Although 1/500th of a sec sounds like a moment, it was a moment lost to the

photographer. It will be noticed later in the darkroom. Visual perception comes from

meaningful interaction with what ever is being seen. Painters have the time for their

subject to become known to them, like your apple did. By the way I wish there was an

apple in your porfolio to inform us of the insight you gained by drawing it. Photographers

live in actual moments that unfortunately go by too fast to be fully percieved. Thus the

overabundance of disconnected shots which show a lack of mental focus . The

photographer finds focus by attemting to recreate a long meaningful moment with a lot a

short ones. It is rather like putting together a puzzle with hundreds of pieces so that you

can understand why 1 or 2 or 3 of the pieces seem to speak to the core of the whole. I

have always thought that studio photographers would benefit greatly from spending time

and drawing the subject first. Drawing skill is not necessary as it is the seeing that is what

its about. You will have an apple experience with what ever you draw. This is a major

difference in painting and photography. The original photojournalists were quick sketch

Artists. Whether they were covering a war, fire, baseball game or fashion show or

whatever, they were trained to put together the facts of the scene, create a composition,

tell a story , do likenesses etc. etc all very quickly and always under adverse conditions.

Finally, don't let anybody try to tell you that painters, sculptors have very much in common

with photographers. One is limited by an imagination which is bound to and as good as

the technical gear your have, the other is limited only by our imaginations depth or

superficiality. One "captures" the moment, as though it was a prisoner locked in time. The

other strives for essence , releasing the many moments to be absorbed in a unifing whole.

Good luck to all who pursue either.