Landscapes - how much do you shoot per outing

Ray,
II don't quite get your drift. However, when I shoot medium format I am very careful to precheck my frame and exposure carefully and then usually shoot only one or two frames. When I shoot slide film, 35mm I tended to shoot more, and bracket my exposures. With digital I tend to take a lot more images, compose more shots, etc. I sometimes miss the old ways, the discipline required to get good images.
Anyway the magic of taking a good landscape image is having an understanding of the light, the composition, knowing your equipment and bringing it all together. We all have successes and failures, hopefully we all get better with time.

I have not gone to larger formats yet. With 35mm film, I only shoot 2 or 4 frames if that. With digital, maybe 15 locally or 25 per day if I travel out. I find that when I am out, I have my composition sought before when I checked locations out etc ... But the light is just not that grand. You may have a peach colour sky but the foregound just looks plain. Good lighting has happened before when I have been out but they are few and maybe b/c I am not in a rural area and maybe our cities are smaller there is less of an impact even without the right lighting. Ie/ our city only has 500k people and it's the capital.

Yeah I am just curious if that was somewhat similar to you guys. Re: medium format. Yeah 1 or 2 frames like you say. I don't really need to bracket because I spend a lot of time metering and in the past I have written up notes. Plus that I tend to shoot at pretty much similar lighting. Dusk and dawn and outside there are many mid tones and I have in mind a few techniques how to correct it. At occasions I take a dSLR out as my light meter. Saves me moving the camera and recompose again. I don't have a external light meter yet......

I find that with my buddies, they tend to take many more pictures but it isn't landscapes. Ie., events, portraiture, journalism etc ... or others that maybe they call them abstract.

Depends on a LOT of factors. One is if I'm using my D300 or if I'm using my Chamonix 45n-1. Depends on how inspired I feel by where I am. Depends on how well I'm "seeing" that day. Lots of different factors.

Kent in SD

When I shoot my RB67 medium format for landscapes which gets 10 shots per roll, I usually take two scenes maybe three per outing. Since I bracket that's about one roll. If I get one decent shot, I'm happy. When I go to a party or on vacation, I take my digital and shoot away since I want to put together a slide show story. But even then, I'm conservative and shoot like it's 35mm SLR film and not rat-a-tat-tat like a digital machine gun.

Hi Ray

I think the problem you have is not how many pictures to take but when. Light changes in intensity and colour throughout the day and according to season and weather. Our eyes are wonderful devices that accommodate most of these changes without us being aware of them. The mind's eye used in preconceiving a shot even more so. Sadly film is not that good at representing a scene as you want it especially slide film which has little latitude and is not normally printed. Digital is a little better mostly because you are able to manipulate images afterwards. However, whatever camera or recording medium you use it helps to be on the scene at the right time. Understanding light takes a lot of practice so take as many pictures as you can at different times and in different conditions. I've just read an excellent book which should help - "The Essential Lighting Manual for Photographers" by Chris Weston (2008) Published by RotoVision. This book has a large section on natural light and landscapes and explains the above points better than I can. Good luck.

I don't think there is any hard and fast rule about it. If the light "doesn't happen", then maybe you take only a few shots, or none at all. I like wildlife photography. In some situations, I'll be shooting frequently, in others, not so much. I find I have gotten more reflective about what I attempt to shoot (in the early days, everything that moved got a frame or two, now, not so much, when I know I'll only get a fuzzy dark shape in the computer!).

What I love about shooting digital is the freedom from having to worry about reloading and the cost of each roll and processing. There are days I've gone out and shot over 700 images, something that would be unthinkable to me with film (that would have cost about $300!). Of those, only a fraction are really good images worth further review (for me, less than half of most days shoots actually go from camera to computer), but with each frame, I'll hopefully learn something new. Maybe it's just how to better hold the camera, how to adjust settings on the camera, exposure compensation, it could be anything.

I've not done much in the way of real landscape shooting, but the times I have, while I did shoot fewer frames (the landscape doesn't move nearly as fast as birds do!), it allowed me to take the time to work with the camera and experiment. There are so many settings on modern DSLRs to learn, that I found it a refreshing change to be able to work with them and experiment.

You never know, you may learn something that you'll remember years from now that will let you make a really good image!

Okay .. this may be bit naive.

With my digital camrera images, I just add a bit of S-shape to the curve and a bit of sharpening and noise reduction. I don't post process much.

I recalled the time when I shot Velvia. I then downloaded a Velvia template for Adobe Lightroom (for my digital camera images) and the result was very potent. In regards to the glorified images we are swamped with, how much do they represent reality? If we used a digital camera at its "normal" color setting instead of vivid or if we shot natural film like Kodak E100G or Fuji Astia 100 could we get something similar?

One of the pro's here in New Zealand might be regarded the best landscape photographer (here). He has openly said he used Kodak E100G but his portfolio doesn't have much crimson skies, it's more moody skies or morning fog or the golden light after sunrise or maybe even just plain white direct light that just suddently hit the subject or just silhouetted images where the sky is a light yellow or orange colour. Maybe this is partly to do with his taste and that he didn't choose to use Velvia?

When I got involved in photography. Using the public library, I took out Galen Rowell's book "Mountain Light" I think he used Kodachrome but the images were more natural looking and then his book "Inner Game" he used Velvia and they were so much more saturated. Is that primarily to do with saturated film and how about capturing those in reality with our own eyes - or is that just not possible?

As Kent says, there are a lot of factors that determine how many frames I shoot in an outing. It might be none or a couple, or it may well be more than a 100, depending primarily on what I find. Also, some "outings" may last for 2-3 months, and I take along a computer and backup drive. Too many factors to answer the question satisfactorily.

I always want a picture better than in the past, and elements don't always align to allow for that. In a familiar (like for you, local) place, I would as well take less shots.
In a new location, I would take more shots, which doesn't mean there will be many keepers, there might be an eye closed kind of pick -- a placeholder for future, so I have a reference for exposure, location, focal length.
Since you're shooting film you are more limited in experimenting because of cost/shot, but basically things don't align perfectly -- you know what you want, and it's not quite it. I know the feeling, and there is nothing wrong with taking a few or no pictures if you know you won't like them (mostly because of messy sky).
I have been to this local spot for over 100 sunsets across 4 years

and things never the same, but many times (Sept-Nov being my interest period) there is no shot (for my liking).
And this is a landscape shot but it has the boat rowers, and bridge walkers (missing a plane taking off) that I want in there.
There are many components I want:
1) sky look - either no clouds but properly balanced to foreground, or proper cloud formation
2) starburst in just the right look
3) rowers
4) people on the bridge, preferably 2-3 close together but their silhouettes not touch, turned so you can make out head/hat details if you zoom in... etc
5) maybe a plane, but that's optional
6) a certain look in the water, ripples or perfectly calm
So the list is big, the rowers don't have an exact daily schedule, sun and clouds do what they want. I had days there where I took shots but knew none were keepers, and they weren't. The next day though there were some keepers or almost keepers.
To get perfect keepers you need to go to a place a few days in a row, hope for best, and try again another season or year.
And post-processing is important too if you want perfection.