Jump to content

One shot one kill?


cheewai_m6

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I try to make every shot count, much like everyone else. At the same time, I don't pressure myself in to "one shot one kill" I just care about the art I am trying to make.

 

It's a fun idea though :) If I can afford it, I would love to attend the Palermo get-together. It sounds like fun :)

 

It's more than fun. It's a blast! I know what you mean about affording it. I am scrambling mentally to find the Euros to fund it myself. It is always a last minute thing for me. Three issues stand in the way. I just have to swindle the 'hat trick'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...one shot one kill = where I strive to be. However the goalposts keep moving. My percentage is in the high 80s, but I seriously doubt, in view of the sort of material I shoot, that I will ever be a 100%er. Not sure if I'd ever want to be one, come to think of it. I like to think a dollop of uncertainty makes the whole photography thing worthy of all the investment, emotional and otherwise. Maybe if I earned my crust from it my view would be different. Hmmm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello pico,

 

Thank you for your comment. If you don't mind I have a question for you: Prior to the time when 1 person captures an image of something & the other puts a hole in it what are the differences in technique between a hunter & a photographer?

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

Michael I must pay for my poor joke with the admission that I do not hunt, but I live in hunting country and used to permit limited hunting on my property of 5,500 acres of rolling land of field, woods and cliffs. Hunters dress to blend into the environment - in orange spotted camo (which presumes the hunted are color blind), they deodorize their clothing and weapons, and some carry a sword to finish wounded game. Very often game is wounded and then trailed to its demise. When collected, often the game is gutted in the field, leaving the innards on the site to make it lighter for removal and as bait for coyote hunters later (usually hunted at night by men dressed in white when there is snow.)

 

Photographers, on the other hand, rarely pursue an individual to the final photo, leave remains, all that gore.

 

The grizzly nature of hunting is what makes me reluctant to use the expression 'shooting' with photography.

 

A little story: when I moved onto the property, it had been unattended for two years and the previous inhabitant forbade any hunting whatsoever for years, reserving it for himself. The area had so many deer and were so accustomed to humans that in order to get onto my driveway sometimes I'd have to literally nudge adolescent deer out of my way. I counted 36 deer on the lawn (approx two acres), and saw many in the fields. The DNR was called and they considered the area a disaster, a perfect storm for a terrible deer starvation and probably overpopulation of coyote for the next Winter. Accomplished hunters were given multiple licenses and ordered to kill every deer they could for days, and to remove complete carcasses, no field gutting. They were instructed to operate like tactically trained army. Photographers, perhaps news people, sometimes act like this and perhaps that is shooting.

 

The next year we leased some excellent pasture for beef, and got an awesome Great Pyrenees dog and Collie mix dog and the coyote problem vanished in weeks.

 

gp_n_molly.jpg

 

There's me darlin Molly and The Big White Dog. Holga 120 Camera.

 

Too much typing. I'll quit now.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why photography should aspire to be any different to any of the other arts where work is what makes great images, work makes great books, work makes great music, and etc. Even the Zen archer looking for the perfectly aimed arrow knows it doesn't come without work, so how come photographers want to put their feet up and take it easy by imagining they captured the perfect image? The only way to know if you captured it is to have at least one before and one after that are worse, and if you can't show those you are kidding yourself.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why photography should aspire to be any different to any of the other arts where work is what makes great images, work makes great books, work makes great music, and etc. Even the Zen archer looking for the perfectly aimed arrow knows it doesn't come without work, so how come photographers want to put their feet up and take it easy by imagining they captured the perfect image? The only way to know if you captured it is to have at least one before and one after that are worse, and if you can't show those you are kidding yourself.

 

Steve

 

 

...knew I wasn't alone. :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little story: when I moved onto the property, it had been unattended for two years and the previous inhabitant forbade any hunting whatsoever for years, reserving it for himself. The area had so many deer and were so accustomed to humans that in order to get onto my driveway sometimes I'd have to literally nudge adolescent deer out of my way. I counted 36 deer on the lawn (approx two acres), and saw many in the fields. The DNR was called and they considered the area a disaster, a perfect storm for a terrible deer starvation and probably overpopulation of coyote for the next Winter. Accomplished hunters were given multiple licenses and ordered to kill every deer they could for days, and to remove complete carcasses, no field gutting. They were instructed to operate like tactically trained army. Photographers, perhaps news people, sometimes act like this and perhaps that is shooting.

 

Freaking... FIELD DAY!!!

 

:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why photography should aspire to be any different to any of the other arts where work is what makes great images, work makes great books, work makes great music, and etc. Even the Zen archer looking for the perfectly aimed arrow knows it doesn't come without work, so how come photographers want to put their feet up and take it easy by imagining they captured the perfect image? The only way to know if you captured it is to have at least one before and one after that are worse, and if you can't show those you are kidding yourself.

 

Steve

 

Steve, I agree with most of your sentiment, especially the hard work bit. But it is not always possible to get the 'before' and 'after' shot to 'prove' the 'perfect' shot. My natural style of work is such that just getting the/a shot is an achievement. You instantly have a gut feeling when it, the only one, is the 'perfect' shot. On assignments where the action is fluid, I always adopt the 'series' approach. See a peak coming and prepare. shoot now, pause, assess, shoot again, assess, shoot, ah! Got it. Stop.

 

Assess, by the way is NOT chimp, it is a mental process to determine 'will the scene get better, or will I stop now? My contact sheets were an interesting teaching tool for me. Always checking to see if I shot to the peak, or did I overshoot.

 

Street (my style) OTOH, is one shot (mostly) and I simply become a sniper. But that can always change in a blink. As I said in an earlier post, photographers must always remain adaptable.

 

P.S. Steve, the thumbies are working brilliantly. I often think of you when shooting. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder where Diane Arbus would rank among photographers if she'd followed the "one shot, one kill" philosophy.....

 

Contact sheet: http://darrylcorner.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/diane-arbus-planche-contact-12295419911.jpg

 

One of her greatest pictures is 2/3rds of the way through her "shoot" (top left, frame 8 out of 12).

 

I always shoot "scared." I assume everything I've shot so far in a situation is junk and that I can do better (one reason I don't chimp). I work the subject always looking for something better - and that pays off more often than not.

 

Golfers get only one shot when it counts - but they back that up with constant practice (and countless "wasted frames") on non-tournament days or through the off-season.

 

"It's a funny thing...the more I practice, the luckier I get." - attributed to both Gary Player and Arnold Palmer

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Adan, my calculated guess is that Diane Arbus did employ the 'one shot, one kill' method, based only on the contact sheet you linked. Frame 12 seems 'clearly out of series' and the expression on the accompanying adult looks very much like, "what are you doing? Why are you taking our picture?" I read it as a passing opportunity that she grabbed.

 

Another observation is that the contact sheet is printed 'out of order' according to my sense of order. ie. not 1-12 consecutively. Just curious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Garry Winogrand contact sheet

 

Chasing Light

 

and on it is one often reproduced image, with his work both before and after. An excellent example of the 'never give up' attitude.

 

I truly think this idea of 'one shot one kill' is a bastardisation of the myth that Winogrand, HCB, etc only shot the decisive moment and not five hundred photographs that weren't so good either side of it. And I can fully appreciate the concept of 'one shot one kill' because with large format I took the lesson from one of my mentors the photographer Thomas Joshua Cooper who only takes one sheet of film out each day!

 

But a refined contemplation of the landscape isn't what we are talking about here. I worry that the logical product of 'one shot one kill' are even more boring and safe images, and produced with a smug self satisfaction that goes off the scale. Winogrand knew that safe wasn't good, or an option, hence his vast use of film. But that film was not wasted film, its simply what it took to become unsafe, to drag himself away from conservative human nature.

 

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Films you never get round to developing are wasted.

 

Not so!

 

Olympic athletes train ceaselessly for four years, just in the hope of a few seconds of glory. And it never comes without that training.

 

Shooting film, or excessive digi pics, is training, even if they never get printed. A huge portion of my success is entirely due to 'dummy shooting' that never got printed, but it tuned my reflexes and eye like nothing else can.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so!

 

Olympic athletes train ceaselessly for four years, just in the hope of a few seconds of glory. And it never comes without that training.

 

Shooting film, or excessive digi pics, is training, even if they never get printed. A huge portion of my success is entirely due to 'dummy shooting' that never got printed, but it tuned my reflexes and eye like nothing else can.

 

 

...I may be missing something here, Erl, but of what value is "dummy shooting" if you elect not to view and/or assess the results? If, as you say, you do it simply to tune your reflexes and eye (in other words, it is "training"), how do you measure the level of success (or lack of, therein) of your actions?

 

To my mind, it is ultimately about capturing an image on some type of sensor.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

...I may be missing something here, Erl, but of what value is "dummy shooting" if you elect not to view and/or assess the results? If, as you say, you do it simply to tune your reflexes and eye (in other words, it is "training"), how do you measure the level of success (or lack of, therein) of your actions?

 

To my mind, it is ultimately about capturing an image on some type of sensor.

 

In part you are right, but capturing an image involves more than the 'moment' of capture. A big part in, for example, street shooting, is the mind set and body language. The total presentation of the photographer. Consider a 'western gunfighter.' He must practice 'drawing' and whatever else is vital to his skill. That does not always necessitate actual shooting.

 

In my case and I am sure others, familiarity with your gear must be second sense, otherwise you will fail under pressure. I handle my gear constantly, but shoot infrequently. Far less than some would imagine.

 

After an extended and intense shoot such as travel, I will process images immediately and then ignore them for maybe months. I find I am too close to the images immediately after a trip for example. Much later, I am more like a fresh observer and can see the images for what they really may be, rather than something I have been involved in. An example. In January/February 2010, I was part of an excursion to Antarctica and nearby regions. I have processed the images and intend them to produce a book. I have not started the book yet until I get that 'life changing' experience out of my head. Then, and only then, do I consider I can produce a book from those pictures. That is how I work on my own projects. Clients, of course, always want it yesterday.

 

Not sure if I have addressed your query properly. I hope so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...I may be missing something here, Erl, but of what value is "dummy shooting" if you elect not to view and/or assess the results? If, as you say, you do it simply to tune your reflexes and eye (in other words, it is "training"), how do you measure the level of success (or lack of, therein) of your actions?

 

Looking at it another way, if you could do "dummy shooting" without needing to look at the images, you didn't need a film in the camera in the first place.

 

Erl's later comment about waiting when possible before assessing one's own images is excellent advice, however, and sometimes I remember to follow it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can buy a 35mm negative holder for DSLR's. It attaches to the front of the lens, put a negative in it, aim at a clean light source, take the pic and voila. Post-processing is done with Photoshop i believe.

 

Personally i would invest in a good scanner. Whats the point shooting Leica + good/great glass and cheap out on the scanning part...

 

Might as well shoot with a P&S :p

 

 

Why?

 

 

You can print it in the dark room. Scanning is only useful , if you want the whole world to see it in the internet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?

 

 

You can print it in the dark room. Scanning is only useful , if you want the whole world to see it in the internet.

 

It is getting off topic even answering this, but scanning a negative and working in post processing software provides a source of options that people can only dream of if they were printing in a darkroom. Like an infinite number of paper grades, the ability to experiment without wasting resources, endless abilities to tone an image, dodging and burning that is totally controllable not just for overall effect, but at the tonal level of shadow, mid tone and highlights, and an endless etc. You are missing the point entirely to say scanning is only useful for the internet, it is more useful than a darkroom.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...