Repeating your images: Good or Bad?

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

A viewer of some of my Plum Island photos (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102031.0) inquired whether I worried about repeating myself when revisiting a familiar location like Plum Island.
Specifically, Diego Pigozzo wrote:

I have a question (and I assure you, it's a sincere one): once you've found that a certain combination of subject/composition/light/postprocessing/etc.etc works, what does makes you keep shooting the same kind of photos?

I'm asking this because I often found myself saying "oh, this would be similar to the shot I took some time ago" and I don't take it.
But I realize that's probably me that I can't go beyond the "stilistic" part of the shots.

I thought it was a good question, deserving of a thoughtful reply, but I was about to leave on a two-week trip and didn't have a chance to collect my thoughts right away. So here is my delayed response. I invite comments from others if the topic interests you. I don't pretend to have the final word; the best I can do is present my own thoughts on both sides of the question. And Thank You Diego for asking.

I love to visit new places, looking for images that will mean something to me. But over the years I have found that many of the shots that I feel happiest about are taken at places with which I am very familiar.

Plum Island is an 11-mile long barrier beach off the coast of Newbury, MA. Much of the northern end has residences, full and part time, but most of the rest of the island is part of the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge, which "was established in 1941 to provide feeding, resting, and nesting habitat for migratory birds. Most commonly associated with Plum Island – a barrier beach island – the refuge is comprised of more than 4700 acres of diverse habitats including sandy beach and dune, cranberry bog, maritime forest and shrub land, and freshwater marsh. The most abundant habitat on the refuge is its 3,000+ acres of salt marsh, one of the most productive ecosystems in nature. Parker River provides pristine coastal habitat for over 300 species of resident and migratory birds, as well as a large variety of mammals, insects, fish, reptiles and amphibians. The refuge also provides critical habitat for the federally threatened piping plover." (quoting from the refuge website). A single road, paved for half the way, runs from the refuge entrance to the southern tip, with parking lots for seven sections of the beach, each with a boarwalk that leads through the scrubby woods, over the dunes, to the beach.

I visited Plum Island many times for many years before I ever got a picture that I felt captured any of the essence of the place. I kept returning because the unspoiled wildness of the terrain, and the constant pounding of the ocean on the beaches, gave me a sense of being very close to Nature. Eventually I was there with camera on a sunny afternoon when the tide was almost low, and the receding water had left wonderful patterns in the sand, illuminated by the low sun. I visited at least four of the beaches that day, finding different types of patterns at each. This first "successful" visit was in the winter, when there were few footprints to disturb the sand patterns.

I have made several more winter visits under similar conditions, and at the start of the day I have often worried that I would only be repeating images seen before. But, after warming my eye up a bit, I have almost always found something new and (to me) exciting. Do I repeat myself? Yes, often. But almost every time I go there I find something that feels new or different (to me, at least).

I like to compare doing photography to being a musician. A good musician in any genre must perform the same music over many, even hundreds of times. Even between concerts the musician will still practice the same piece that is so familiar. The mark of the top musician is the ability to find some new idea each time the piece is played, and to convey that idea as if the musician has just discovered the entire piece. I think repetition for a photographer can work the same way. If you really try to find something new in the familar every time, your seeing can grow and become stronger.

On the other hand, I have often tried to duplicate a good photo and only come up with a very poor imitation. But I think I learn a little even from my failures.

To summarize, here are some of the potential benefits, as I see them, of revisiting familiar places or subjects:

1.   Your understanding of the essence of the place or subject may improve with practice, enabling you to discover new aspects of the place or subject.
2.   Practice with the familiar can help you improve your seeing and compositional skills.
3.   If you do find yourself taking the same picture as before, the new version just may be better than the original.

And here are some of the potential shortcomings of repeatedly photographing the same subjects or places:

1.   You may end up shooting the same photo over and over again, which can lead to boredom.
2.   An attempt at "improving" the original image is likely to fail if the inspiration for the original shot isn't there.
3.   Taking the same photo over and over again can dull your seeing.
4.   A repeat of an earlier photo is often worse than the original.

It's a trade off. I have photographed in some wonderfully photogranic locations that I'm probably never going to be able to get back to. For some of these, I'm quite sure I could get better results the second time around. The third time? Who knows.

I have visited Death Valley only once for about nine days, and the images that I am most happy with were taken at Stovepipe Wells Dunes, which was one place that I visited several times, both early in the morning and late in the afternoon.

How much repetition is good or useful? Please add your thoughts.

[Diego Pigozzo]

If I understand well you're basically saying that "getting a shot similar to a previous one" means quite a different thing from what I meant.
For me, "similar" is something about the subject/style of the shot while for you is much more about meaning, personal feeling and self-expression.

As in the musician example, your ability to use the medium is so internalized that you can use the photography as a mean of meditation: the great length you go to describe Plum Island quite telling about what your idea of "Plum Island" is.

For my part, instead, I'm still struggling with the medium so I'm finding difficult even to think beyond the technical side of the photography.
That's why I tend not to shot the same "kind of photo" twice: like a novice piano player, it would seems to me I'll never get better at playing if I keep playing the same tune over and over again (even if I know that "repetita iuvant").


About the "How much repetition is good or useful? " question, the right answer probably depends on the specific point the photographer is at.
At the beginning, I think repetition is not very good because it limits the exploration (of personal taste/of subject/of kind of photography/etc.etc).
In the middle, when some "photographic personality" is starting developing, probably repetition is good exactly for the same reason you state: it helps to sharpen the non-just-technical skills.
In the mature age the question will probably loose much of the meaning: regardless of the subject/style, two shot will probably be different because they are a tale of the feeling of the moment.

[Colorado David]

I go back to some familiar places regularly for several reasons.  They are close and don't require a lot of effort in travel and other arrangements.  I have specific knowledge of these places and can shoot under different conditions and know what to expect.  There's always the chance the place and conditions will align and you're able to craft an image far better than what you already have.  There is a sense of serenity that comes from familiarity with a natural area.

[Telecaster]

There are certain subjects I photograph repeatedly, and have done so for decades. The utility pole visible from my backyard, as it's a fine target for initial lens testing and print making. Tonal variation, smooth and detailed areas, high contrast in clear or cloudy skies. Plus, it's geometrically interesting. The small island, also serving as a heron/egret rookery, at my local nature park. A shaded wooden bridge over an old, dried-up river bed in the same park. Each of these photos is mostly the same as all the others, yet different enough that I enjoy them all.

-Dave-

[Rajan Parrikar]

Eric,

When I first saw the question posed by Diego, the analogy to music is what occurred to me right away. Specifically in regards to Indian Classical Music. When the musician announces the raga (s)he is about to sing or play, he gives the plot away. At that point the aficionado already knows what the landscape is all about. But it is the retelling of the story, the spontaneous variations on the familiar theme, and the insertion of some fresh sentiment hitherto unheard that determines the artiste's class and ken. I like to think a similar process obtains in photography.

[D Fuller]

There is another very important benefit to repeated visits to the same place to make photographs: each time you are here it is a bit different. The light changes, the tide changes, the season changes, a storm causes disruption. By repeatedly visiting the same subject, you learn what those differences mean to a photograph, both for the particular location and for photography in general. For the beginner, it is one of the most valuable ways to learn the language of photographs. For the seasoned photographer, it can be one of the best ways to challenge yourself to new levels of the craft.

[Mjollnir]

Eric,

When I first saw the question posed by Diego, the analogy to music is what occurred to me right away. Specifically in regards to Indian Classical Music. When the musician announces the raga (s)he is about to sing or play, he gives the plot away. At that point the aficionado already knows what the landscape is all about. But it is the retelling of the story, the spontaneous variations on the familiar theme, and the insertion of some fresh sentiment hitherto unheard that determines the artiste's class and ken. I like to think a similar process obtains in photography.

^^^ This.  +1

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Eric,

When I first saw the question posed by Diego, the analogy to music is what occurred to me right away. Specifically in regards to Indian Classical Music. When the musician announces the raga (s)he is about to sing or play, he gives the plot away. At that point the aficionado already knows what the landscape is all about. But it is the retelling of the story, the spontaneous variations on the familiar theme, and the insertion of some fresh sentiment hitherto unheard that determines the artiste's class and ken. I like to think a similar process obtains in photography.

Yes!
A friend and former colleague of mine organizes an Indian music festival in Boston every spring, and I always try to attend. It is always a deeply emotional experience, as photography should be, too.

[luxborealis]

Rajan said it best, so I don't know why I'm adding anything, except to say, repeating images (and places) is a good thing, especially if you try to looking differently and perhaps more deeply with each successive attempt. One can "tick" an image to say, "been there done that", but that's rather shallow (I hate that expression, BTW - it says more about the person than the experience).

Shooting once versus re-visiting (either a style of image or a place) is like the difference between a bus tour of a foreign place and actually living there.

[Isaac]

I have a question (and I assure you, it's a sincere one): once you've found that a certain combination of subject/composition/light/postprocessing/etc.etc works, what does makes you keep shooting the same kind of photos?

I'm asking this because I often found myself saying "oh, this would be similar to the shot I took some time ago" and I don't take it.

The easy answer, is that I find myself saying "Oh, this would be similar to the shot I took some time ago, there's something about it that I must really like and I take it."

However, I know it's not just that because there are other pictures which I do still like but I seem to be done with -- the same elements do not seem to reappear to me in other situations.

[MattBurt]

I think there is a lot of value in returning to the same place multiple times. I do it quite a bit and feel like it has paid off with some compelling images.

One benefit to revisiting a particular place is just knowing how to get there effectively. For me this is usually wild places like mountain tops or overlooks. It's not always obvious how best to approach putting yourself in one of these places and might take a few tries to get it down. Sometimes it's a drive but it could also be a bike ride, hike, or even ski. Getting there efficiently hopefully put me in the right place at the right time and doesn't exhaust me too much. Since the sky and clouds are ever-changing, there should always be a little room for variation even if you are taking the "same" shot.

I get bored with some locations if I do this too much so there is definitely a balance to be found. You need to mix it up enough to not get burned out. I find images I took when bored tend to be boring images so you need to be aware of and avoid burning out. One way to combat that is to take different images even from the same location. Look the opposite way, come at a different time of day, focus on something small if your other shots were of something big or vise versa.

[Isaac]

…might take a few tries to get it down.

Until we "get it down" we haven't achieved the precondition for Diego's question -- "once you've found that a certain combination of subject/composition/light/postprocessing/etc.etc works".

…to take different images even from the same location.

Diego's question was why do the same, not why do different.


You've made what you consider to be a successful image: now what makes you do another like that, and another like that, …?

[MattBurt]

Until we "get it down" we haven't achieved the precondition for Diego's question -- "once you've found that a certain combination of subject/composition/light/postprocessing/etc.etc works".


Diego's question was why do the same, not why do different.


You've made what you consider to be a successful image: now what makes you do another like that, and another like that, …?

Ah, well that is a harder question. I guess I don't do that but I do make similar images.
But if I make a very similar image I'm probably either trying to improve on something from a previous attempt or I feel like I'm lacking inspiration.

So I don't really try to make the same image. Maybe I don't belong in this thread?

[Isaac]

Do you find yourself doing the same kind-of thing, and when you notice then you don't press the shutter (like Diego) ?

[MattBurt]

Do you find yourself doing the same kind-of thing, and when you notice then you don't press the shutter (like Diego) ?

Yes, or I might snap one if the camera is up to my face but I'll often delete it if it's the same as another and isn't likely to be any improvement. But I wouldn't be on a mission to get the same photo. If I'm going on a photo mission to get a shot similar to one I have already then I'm hoping to improve on it even if the improvement is outside my control (like quality of light or clouds).

[B-Ark]

I'm not sure that it's actually possible to repeat oneself. One may go back to the same location, but the light will be different, the sky will be different, the season will be different, the photo gear may be different, but most importantly, the photographer will be different. I see it as a variation on "you can never cross the same river twice".

[BobDavid]

As long as a place or a subject holds your attention, why not revisit it again and again? I think your music analogy is spot on, Eric. Sometimes variations on a theme are subtle while other times dramatic.

[petermfiore]

Re-visiting a location over and over again, one gains much in depth with a wealth of understanding. All of my paintings are born from this process.

Go ahead and see fresh and create fresh...

Peter

[RSL]

+1. As HCB said, "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything." If you're actually looking you'll see something new every time you return to a place.

[Isaac]

Yes, or I might snap one if the camera is up to my face but I'll often delete it if it's the same as another and isn't likely to be any improvement. But I wouldn't be on a mission to get the same photo. If I'm going on a photo mission to get a shot similar to one I have already then I'm hoping to improve on it even if the improvement is outside my control (like quality of light or clouds).

Are you always on a photo mission to get a particular kind-of photo? I will do that, and I will go back to locations when the light is likely to be better etc - but I was wondering about the occasions when I'm just looking around; and when I later look at the photos I took, I recognise the elements that I'd used in previous photos from different locations.