Something that I've noticed from time to time is that when I a particular scene that I want to photograph, unless I'm trying to do HDR or stitch, often the first photograph that I take of a scene is the best. As a for example, the image I posted in Experimenting with surf/stones
is the first of a small number that I captured at that location but none of the others worked as well as the first.
Is this something that others find?
Or is the "first shot being the best" simply a die roll and thus luck?
I suppose what's nagging in my brain is that there's always a reason why I stop to take a photo or go some place to take a photo and in that first instant of response to that scene, I somehow capture it correctly. Thereafter I try to analyse it and search for more but in doing so, move beyond the emotional impulse that drew me into taking the photograph and also the "right"(?) composition.
I suppose a question that comes to mind is should I stop trying to be technical when taking photos?
Absolutely; technique must be automatic so that all you are really aware of is the image.
I find that the temptation to shoot around a static subject is a throwback to model days, where it was a matter of catching a basic shape and then working to get the response from the girl within the basic format one had selected. With dead things, you don’t get any kinetic reaction from them unless at the shore, but what does happen is that insecurity slips into the equation… the hedging of bets.
I’d imagine that for a specialist, landscape wouldn’t be much about changing viewpoints a lot, but setting up with the one you like and then waiting for atmospheric changes to create the differences through time. A very different approach.
In both cases, I think you have to be totally unconcerned with camera operations, setting etc. which have to be second nature. I don’t mean you disregard them of course, just that you hardly need think of them consciously.