>>3226384>this is literally what Bresson championedThat is not even a little bit true. Look at his contact sheets. Like all great photographers, he worked the scene and took a bunch of shots before picking out which moment is decisive.
http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2014/05/23/debunking-the-myth-of-the-decisive-moment/>This is what made New TopographicsTaking one snapshot and not considering composition? I would very much disagree with that. Hell, one of the Bechers' photos from the show is an... I guess octatych would be the word? Eight different views of the same scene. Very different from Eggleston's "Take one shot and just move on" methodology. And even with their single shots, they would compose very meticulously before firing the shutter.
>This is what literally every photographer has done that has worked outside of the studio.Go google "[famous photographer's name] contact sheet" sometime. Eggleston is *very* much the exception
> Just because a process has become instinctual does not mean a subject has not been carefully consideredWhich would be a valid argument except that HE HIMSELF has said that the reason he doesn't take more than one photo of a scene is because when he does, he CAN'T TELL WHICH IS BETTER.
There are two times when a photographer habitually takes just one photo of a scene. When he doesn't know what the fuck he's doing, and when he's a master of the craft and can mentally discard all poor compositions automatically. You're arguing that Eggleston is in the latter category. I'm arguing that he's in the former.
A great athlete doesn't have to take time to consider every motion, sure. But there are people who aren't considering every motion and hitting the ball out of the park, and there are people who aren't considering every motion and striking out most of the time except by sheer dumb luck. I can't see how anyone can really look at the bulk of his portfolios and not realize that the few good ones are just sheer dumb luck.
