Do you go back?

[Dogman]

A couple of days ago I dropped the dog off at the groomers early in the morning and then drove around looking for potential photographs. The light was good and, since it was early, there was less traffic. I shot several pictures that I thought were pretty good. Later I ran them through Lightroom and printed 5 or 6. A couple were good, a couple were mediocre, one was a disaster that I immediately tore to bits and deleted from the hard drive, and a couple were decent but could have been better. So this morning I went back and shot the same "could have been better" subjects again. One particular subject turned out much better but the second was a toss up.

In truth, I don't do this very often. I generally accept my first impressions and move on to other subject matter. Just wondering how many of you go back and shoot the same scene/subject again?

 

[Mcary]

All the time, in fact I've been revisiting a few local places multiple times over the past several years on a regular often weekly or monthly basis. The places I'm talking about are only a 15 minutes drive from my house so if the weather/sky looking interesting**big fan of clouds here** I simply drive over and see if I can find any potential photographs. I also enjoy trying find new/different images from a very familiar place as kind of a fun mental exercise.

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

I shoot some scenes over and over, it is called "my neighborhood". I don't see any reason not to, my photography is not important, it is just my hobby. Many photos of the same scene can document the seasons, or the different groups of people there.

There is one scene that I have shot many times, a high bridge over a busy river, but have not gotten the shot I want yet. I imagine it will be years until I get it.

 

[rhl-oregon]

In poetry, there has been a long fault line between advocates of ‘first thought best thought’ and advocates of ‘emotion recollected in tranquility.’ Spontaneity versus revision.

Something like it runs through all the arts, and probably through any artist at different points in her life.

The mistake is to become partisan about one approach or the other; to substitute ideology for feeling and thought and technique appropriate to the subject and the moment. Knowing a bit about the catalogues of Van Gogh and O’Keeffe, I wouldn’t have wanted the former to be content with one self portrait or the latter with one flower study.

Some things I photograph again and again to revise them, that is, re-see what I thought I was seeing. If the revision shows refinement or a rare breakthrough, great; if not, it is at worst like documenting an old friend’s face over years. Some things you get only one chance to do your best—lovers on a bridge in Florence at the golden hour. Perhaps it’s best to treat everything as the only chance you’ll get, then be vigilant (and grateful!) for subsequent, similar opportunities to refine your craft.

 

[benlees]

I go back to the same places all the time. But I never (now!) try to reproduce "the magic" of a particular shot that I like because it no longer exists. Shame about that!

 

[Ronald M]

I have gone back many times and got worse pics than first time.

There are too many variables to outside pics to even equal the first time attempt. Season, time of day, weather are among them.

I do go back to try different things because things change.

 

[Bill Clark]

It took me a long time, many sittings but I finally did it.

I actually made a few photographs that my wife likes!

Yippie.

 

[Steve M.]

I'm just wondering if you went back for the dog?

 

[Corran]

You aren't mentioning what kind of photographs you are shooting. If shooting people/street scenes it's kinda hard to go "back" to a subject, unless you know them.

If a static object or a landscape...well personally I generally make my best photographs the 2nd or 3rd trip. I mean, sometimes I'm lucky and get perfect lighting and nail the composition, and exposure/development, etc., but often times I need time to digest the place, find the best place to shoot, try a couple images, revise, and then make the "best" image of a place I can that communicates what I want to say.

There is a beautiful location deep in a salt marsh down in the southern area of Mississippi that I have returned to about 5 times now. It's just about a quarter acre area that is rife with opportunities. Every time I go, I find something interesting, and I also keep trying one certain viewpoint to get the "best" image I could. I also have returned in the morning, evening, etc. Back at my last residence, there was a river area that I photographed at probably 500 times.

I don't believe anyone can shoot a landscape perfectly the first time, every time. Time of day, weather, season, etc. means one composition has an infinite number of options over time, not to mention all the other variables.

 

[presspass]

I have shot the same scenes numerous times and each is different. Farmland changes from season to season and the light is never the same. Sometimes there are dark clouds from a recently-cleared storm. Other times the sun is just rising or near setting. Then there's snow, rain, and occasionally ice. The scene may be the same visit after visit, but the photos never are.

 

[leica M2 fan]

I do go back...

I do go back...

Many many occasions take me back for a little different look. I'm usually pleased with the outcome. I really enjoy just looking through the viewfinder.

 

[giganova]

In poetry, there has been a long fault line between advocates of ‘first thought best thought’ and advocates of ‘emotion recollected in tranquility.’ Spontaneity versus revision.

Something like it runs through all the arts, and probably through any artist at different points in her life.

The mistake is to become partisan about one approach or the other; to substitute ideology for feeling and thought and technique appropriate to the subject and the moment. Knowing a bit about the catalogues of Van Gogh and O’Keeffe, I wouldn’t have wanted the former to be content with one self portrait or the latter with one flower study.

Some things I photograph again and again to revise them, that is, re-see what I thought I was seeing. If the revision shows refinement or a rare breakthrough, great; if not, it is at worst like documenting an old friend’s face over years. Some things you get only one chance to do your best—lovers on a bridge in Florence at the golden hour. Perhaps it’s best to treat everything as the only chance you’ll get, then be vigilant (and grateful!) for subsequent, similar opportunities to refine your craft.

I have a few locations I regularly go back, but not to revisit and rediscover the contents of the subject, but to wait for better light, weather, or a different season. I am mostly talking about landscapes and buildings.

Below is an example of an abandoned house that I liked. The first time I saw it (top) I knew I had to come back in the winter to better capture the overgrown ivy.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I don't often go back. I think I do my best work with fresh eyes.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I shoot the same places over and over as the years pass by to see how they change.

I also have no problem going back and reshooting in the rare times when I screw up an image.

Often, if I see an interesting place when the weather or light is bad, I'll note it in my notebook and go back when light or weather is better.

 

[sreed2006]

I have followed the advice to study my photographs and determine what it is that I like, and what it is that I don't like, about each. (Of course, I don't do that for every photograph, but do keep it in mind when I review a fresh batch of pictures.) I have on many occasions gone back to some places and taken pictures from different angles, with different lenses, even with different cameras, and apply what I have learned. Often I attain a much more pleasing photograph on the return trips than on the first trip. And sometimes, the first photograph remains the best. All that being said, I am not a natural born great photographer, so I also keep in mind the old saying, "Practice makes perfect."

 

[shimokita]

I know that some photographers shoot around a location, looking for the best angle or waiting for the clouds to move or the sun to cross the heavens. I have been called a 'fast shooter' and most times just take the one photo and move on. I do review the results in detail and incorporate the findings.

In the neighborhood I have done the same location many times, but for the joy of the process not necessarily to improve on a previous photo, except in the general sense that one modifies the approach over time.

Some of my better results are one-off in new and different locations, most likely because of the re-shooting close to home \(ツ)/

 

[Archlich]

A good motif never gets old.

 

[jsrockit]

Just wondering how many of you go back and shoot the same scene/subject again?

A lot... and the scene changes all the time with different light and different characters. I am a big believer that you will make better photos if you go to a place often... as long as the place is good!

 

[al1966]

I shoot the same places over and over as the years pass by to see how they change.

I also have no problem going back and reshooting in the rare times when I screw up an image.

Often, if I see an interesting place when the weather or light is bad, I'll note it in my notebook and go back when light or weather is better.

I think that seeing the changes around areas can create some quite interesting narratives, sometimes such as the peak of financial down turns that places like high streets can go through rapid changes.

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

I am guilty of returning to the scene of the crime - multiple times.

Since I mostly do street photography it’s not a problem. The location is the same but the people are always changing. Same place, different face!

Mike