Planned vs. opportunistic shots

The forum seems to be a bit slow lately, so let me pose this question

that I've been thinking about lately. How many of your nature shots

are well-planned and thought out in advance, i.e., you make it a point

to be at a specific location at a particular time to capture a

subject, as opposed to "grab shots" for which you happen to be lucky

enough to be at the right place at the right time? Is there a

noticeable difference in the percentage of keepers between the two

categories? For some subjects, the pre-planned shots are obviously

not real predictable, but for others... I find myself thinking more

these days more about shots of the pre-meditated kind, but also find

that I often don't follow through. Just curious.

Actually I've had bad luck with both. Ex. As I passed a river on the way home, I passed a perfect scene and I acutally had my camera with me. I got a half roll of great shots--except, in my excitement, I neglected to turn off the date imprint from the previous shooting. I set up at the same place four times, but didn't get the needed sunset once. Or the time I traveled 90 miles to be at the right place at 7:00 a.m. That was the day the sky was so overcast, the lake blended in with the sky. Unlike Galen Rowell, I can't seem to predict the right place at the right time On the other hand, my macro shots are carefully planned and usually turn out quite well. So for me, it's a toss-up. I do have a general plan as to where and when.

It seems to me that the two blur together. Here's an example: I

visited Yosemite over labor day weekend. On the first evening, it was

overcast and rainy, drowning out any possibility of any evening sunset

pictures. Driving back to camp, however, I spotted a foggy situation

near the top of a pass. Thinking quickly, I realized that the reduced

visibility allowed me to isolate some interesting looking rocks and

trees without the surrounding area's cars, highway, etc , and I

quickly stopped, ran out with my tripod, and shot a roll of film. One

of those pictures turned out beautifully.

<p>

The next day, I was up at Glacier Point waiting for the Alpenglow on

Half-Dome. The cliche picture, I know, but I wanted it. The weather,

once again refused to cooperate, and after waiting for 3 hours for the

storm to let some light through, I gave up and packed up. As I was

driving away, however, the clouds parted. Upon spotting the situation,

I quickly pulled over at the next viewpoint, set everything up, and

proceeded to shoot another roll to take advantage of the situtation,

trying every lens I had with me. The result was a look at half-dome

with pinkish-red Alpenglow that I've never seen before. Not a cliche

at all.

<p>

In conclusion, I have to say that how you fare depends very much on

your ability to react to the changing light. It is one thing to be

somewhere at the right time, but it is another thing to creatively use

the situation to provide a good picture. If the light or weather

doesn't cooperate, changing your goals rather than sticking rigidly to

a shooting plan is the only way to get pictures worth looking at. Even

when everything cooperates, you still have to work. Galen Rowell's

most famous picture is "Rainbow over Portola Palace." But you have to

remember that there were others who got off the bus at the same time

as him, but they stayed in position and took snap-shots. Only Rowell

had the insight that if he ran a couple of miles in a particular

direction, he could line up the rainbow with the palace. Even when he

reached that position, he had to wait around for some time until the

clouds opened up enough to light up the palace.

<p>

I've watched Rowell in the field, and he is definitely not afraid to

pack up his tripod, walk a few steps away and then suddenly see that

the light had changed entirely and looked better, and proceed to redo

the entire shoot. It might not get him a better picture every time,

but having the persistence to keep trying is why he gets as many good

pictures as he does. Luck does play a role in great pictures, but as

the saying goes, good luck only happens to those who are prepared for

it.

I guess it depends on what you call planning. If planning includes

bringing the right body, lens, film and accessories to get the

opportunistic photo that suddenly presents itself, then I guess most

of my shots are planned.

Most of my photographs are not well planned. I like to explore an

area, especially if I have never been there, to see what it offers. I

photograph subjects that grab my attention or that I think are

interisting. Many times while exploring I will see something that

would make a great photograph eventhough it is not the best time to

shoot it. This is when I start planning shots. I'll rememer the

location and come back at the optimum time or season.

 

<p>

 

After you have an idea for a photograph in your head, be sure to pay

attention to the weather reports. However, the weather is so

unpredictable at times that you need to be prepaired for whatever

happens. Many times I have waited at a particular location to

photograph a pre-planned idea, only to have it ruined by the weather.

When that happens try to look for something else to photograph. Don't

let that one missed oportunity destroy your creatvity. Make the best

out of whatever happens.

I have a lot more time to photograph within a few miles (25 or less)

of home, as is probably pretty common with most of us. Over a period

of time, I'll find particular areas that may have some particularly

interesting subject, generally wildlife or landscape. I'll go back

through these areas from time to time to see what's going on. I

recently had an experience where this worked quite well. On a pond

within ten miles of home, a flock of 150 egrets would congregate to

feed for about 30 minutes to an hour around sunrise. Their appearence

was extremely regular and I was able to photograph several rolls over

several days. It made getting up at 4:30 am very worthwhile;)

 

<p>

 

It's not so much a situation where I know exactly what I'm going to

find in any particular area at a particular time. I have an idea of

what sort of weather conditions, or time of day, will create possibly

interesting light in particular locations and try to be there about

that time. Determing the feeding times and areas of wildlife

dramatically increases the chances of success.

 

<p>

 

The old saying, "f/8 and being there" implies that you know where to

be and when to be there. I think a combination of reasearch

(theoretical), and trial and error (empirical), knowledge will put you

in the right place at the right time. You have to apply the research

to the particular environment you're in to determine the results. For

instance, I have been told, and have seen, deer on the wildlife refuge

near my home. In order to get some pictures of deer, I need to do some

reading to find out what they feed on, what time of day, what time of

year I'm likely to find a doe with a fawn, etc. Then I have to look

for those areas at particular times of the day and year. Just like

hunting, but different end results. Likewise, I don't plan many

outings for the middle of the day, because I know my chances of

success are pretty slim of finding a suitable subject or light.

 

<p>

 

So, as far as visualizing specific images I don't do much of it, but I

do try to determine lighting effects and timing from other images I've

seen that I like, as well as having an idea when a particular subject

might be in a given area.

Piaw Na makes two excellent points:

 

<p>

 

1) If the light or weather doesn't cooperate, changing your goals

rather than sticking rigidly to a shooting plan is the only way to

get pictures worth looking at. Even when everything cooperates, you

still have to work.

 

<p>

 

2) Luck does play a role in great pictures, but as the saying goes,

good luck only happens to those who are prepared for it.

 

<p>

 

Those two things being said, I use both methods. I have set up for a

number of interesting shots on many occasions, and I also stumble

across many others. Sometimes I get exactly what I wanted, and

sometimes not. But I find that even though the weather or light

sometimes bags when I am looking for a particular shot, adapting to

the changing situation and trying things from a different approach

works well for me (rather than giving up, and calling it a day). I

often end up with great shots other than the one I was initially

attempting to get. Even when the pictures are of the original

target, but under different circumstances than I had

imagined/wanted! I can (hopefully) come back for the initial goal

some other time.

 

<p>

 

I would guess that perhaps part of the reason that Peter might not

follow through on pre-planned shots often is because of the rigidity

of "the plan", and/or the significant effort that is sometimes

involved. If you subscribe to the philosophy of "I have to be there

at 6:47 AM, at this spot, with this tripod height, this lens, this

filter, this weather, etc", and that is the only acceptable shot that

you are after, then perhaps this rigidity is somehow subconsciously

unattractive to him, and that is why he doesn't follow through. Who

knows.... When I plan a shot, and it doesn't work out quite right, I

make the best of it, and move on...Of course if you spent a lot of

money and/or time getting to the location, it hurts a little more to

have it pass by. I am just making general comments here, not a

cost/benefit analysis....

 

<p>

 

IMHO, combine both methods (but don't be obcessed with either), enjoy

yourself, and when the situation changes, adapt. Have fun with it.

 

<p>

 

Oh yeah....The method used doesn't seem to make a tremendous

difference in the number of keepers that I get. When things work out

with either method, I usually get keepers. When they don't, then I

end up with little or nothing...

I've found also that being flexible is the only way since there are

too many variables involved ( light, wind, weather, etc). However, I

return to locations through the seasons where I know what I can

generally expect to find and then be flexible enough to recognize the

opportunities as they present themselves.

I think we are all saying the same thing. In my case, when plan A didn't work because of the cloudy day, I went to plan B: "Wing It" Since the people for whom I was taking the pictures didn't know about plan A, they thought the pictures were great. (They were good - but not like the one I had planned).

Joe Boyd's experience especially, and a lot of the others also,

mirror my own, to a great degree, especially when it comes to the

proximity from, and frequency of visits to, a given area. The more

familiar I become with a given area, in the various seasons and times

of day, the greater the chance that my visit will be planned. The

selection of actual subject matter and specific location still seem

to be more luck than planning. I will have an idea of lighting and

general areas that should yield some results, beyond that it is still

search and shoot.

 

<p>

 

Luck favors the prepared photographer, and the better you know your

equiptment, abilities, subject and terrain the more likely you are to

"plan" and image, and the lees likely that you will rely soley on

luck.

 

<p>

 

As to percentage of keepers, I might give the edge to the "planned"

images, where I was there at a time I thought might produce results.

I tend not to produce images in situations where they might not come

out, but instead, use the time to get to know an area and determine a

time that might be more condusive to photography.

Ya know, after years of practice as a design professional (architect)

I find that the best designed sometimes "just happen". What I mean

is that you can't alway plan you designs or shots. Somestimes you

just have to depend upon your experience, talents, and technical

competence and let things just happen.

 

<p>

 

This past summer my wife and I spent many hours in Rocky Mountain

National Park. We rose early, scoped out the areas we wanted to

photograph and returned only to find that we would wait hours for the

perfect shot, all to no avail. On those occassions that we were

spontaneous and took advantage of opportunities and what nature

handed out, we got some excellent images.

 

<p>

 

My experience indicates that the best stuff happens when you are

prepared, and let it happen, don't force it. FWIW.

 

<p>

 

Mike

Interesting thread!

Often I find myself in a position where I need to do nature-photography the opportunistic way. Time usually does not allow for careful preparation and setups, it's this or no photography at all. Nevertheless I want to be prepared for the unexpected and haul everything from 24 to 300mm+, extension-rings, flashes, synch.cords and tripod. Within minutes of departure I will curse myself for my indecisiveness and the 'nature-experience' can be severely hampered by the load of equipment. (This leads to other frequented topics, like "Which three lenses?").

 

<p>

 

Hardware-wise, I come prepared. What follows should be the actual photography, making the right decision at the right time. Being there, seeing it. The first step to do this though, requires the motivation to unpack my overloaded and crammed backpack. To unstrap that unwieldy tripod, change to the desired focal-length, move myself in position... Too much preparation on the hardware can become a serious limitation! If you 'plan' to do grab-shots, less is more: one body, one (even prime!)lens, a tripod with quick release, perhaps a flash. A combination like that can be quite liberating. I rarely do this, because I am afraid I will miss something. I have too little time to go 'outside' and want to use that time as optimal as I can. I realize that is naive. On some occasions however, I quickly forgot my pains and complaints when luck did indeed favour the prepared. Some satisfying portraits of foxes justify many aching shoulders in the future.

 

<p>

 

Obviously, there will be more 'keepers' whith opportunistic photography as opposed to staying home and not taking pictures at all. The argument is that experience has taught me what 'works' on a quick photograph and what subjects are better left photographically undocumented until more relaxed occasions. When I do have/take the time for preparation, I choose more 'difficult' subjects, like small mammals or insects > 1:1. This actually produces LESS keepers than the casual, walk-around photography! But the images that succeed are my personal milestones.