Proof sheet of life.

Over the decades I was stingy with film: or, as I liked to put it, I didn't shoot until I saw the whites of their eyes. For a long while I was deliberately the same with digital, but now I have seen the advantages of firing bursts of two or three in certain situations. By today's standards that is still economical. I remain properly stingy with film. There are of course times when getting a picture, any picture, is more important than the quality of the picture.

While I shoot thousands each year, I rarely send them to print. I only print family photos for my mother. But I have a sort of "electronic" photo album since I shoot and post a photo a day on my blog and post family and friend photos on Facebook. Last year I printed a book containing all of my blog posts for 2010 and will do so again in 2011. And every once in a while I'll enlarge, print, and frame one of my favorites.

Many think that a photo is a photo, but even in the art world, a work is not considered finished until it is mounted and framed. To me, a photo that is not ready to hang on the wall, or published in a book, or such, is just a potentiality, an unfinished sketch. A serious artist has workbooks full of sketches, but she only considers them ideas, not art.

I don't shoot a lot of images in any one situation or place. It was the same with film as it is with digital, with the exception that I do shoot a little more in digital to make the exposure modifications necessary to obtain the desired result, once done with film as much in the darkroom as in the camera. But pointing the camera in this and that direction, or from this or that angle, during a multitude of shutter bursts has never been my approach.

The parsity of instantaneous shots results from a conscious observing and identifying of interesting images before they are made, over an interval of some length. This means that when the photograph is made it or the approach has been previously thought about and acted out in my head. However, such thoughts are also not foreign to that of exploration (with its unknowns), but that is normally a conscious act as well, in which I try to see how something may look upon photographing it differently, rather than pre-determining all the parameters and intended effects.

With an approach of limited picture making coupled with a sometimes lengthy and intensive period of searching for images (in the mind, in the field), or creating them, my success rate is probably higher than if I photographed more rapidly and less coupled to a specific intent. The series of images (as files or as proof sheets or contact sheets) often have a lot of interrelationships with each other, although only some may be "on target". Quite often, I will go back and remove earlier choices or elevate rejected ones to the selected level, and to treat the image in post exposure in possible new ways. That process can be as thought-provoking as was the initial photographic approach. The process is a continuum.

For me, each photo taken is a bit like layers of paint on a canvas, some of which simply become part of the depth beneath the surface, and which add dimension to the work. It's not necessarily a matter of keeping or throwing away, which can be a bit of a false dichotomy. It's a matter of building and practicing. It's process, not a game of win or lose.

For me, it depends, because some things are so fleeting that one exposure is all you get. Others, when I think there's something there, I might do a whole lot of exposures, often bracketing in 3rds f/stop or if it's low light, low shutter speed, I may do several exposures, leaning on the IS, hoping to get a steady one while wishing I'd brought even a table tripod. Also I routinely "work" the subject, exploring, trying different approaches. Sometimes I know I have it in the bag, but keep going, to learn, experience, push myself, and who knows, there's a whole lot I know I've missed.

In the end, it doesn't matter how many exposures it took. There's no shame if you torch battery after battery.

I don't shoot a whole lot more now that I shoot digital. I still edit quite a bit in my head while shooting. Interesting that when I used to shoot 4x5, which is a very slow set up time with a tripod, black cloth, focusing loupe, and composing upside down, etc., I had a high rate of "keepers" that would end up mounted and framed, probably 75% or more. With smaller cameras with rolls of film or digital I apparently make a lot of the "in between" shots leading up to the keepers. With the view camera the process is so painstaking I guess you are more careful that the shot is what you want before tripping the shutter. Of course, I was shooting landscapes or people who weren't moving!

I certainly make significantly more exposures in digital than I ever did with film which is why I've got two film cameras (Hasselblad and Contax IIa) to force me into "thinking" about what I'm taking rather than just making an exposure because the scene looks interesting. Also as I've mentioned before I tend to keep even the bad digital shots.
Also I find myself being lazy while shooting digitally in that I can always post-process the photograph. Might be a bad habit.

I personally don't like burst. It's the scratch ticket of modern photography.

I still shoot a lot of B&W 35mm film and have very different targets than when I shoot digital. Shoot wisely. Every bad shot wastes more of your time.