Interesting Observation

I have photographed many weddings using mostly film. I was recently

involved in a wedding as the multi-media technician for the church

and noticed something about the photographer for the wedding.

 

Almost every photograph she would look at the view screen on her

camera to see if the shot was OK. People would be standing in their

posed positions while she checked her shot for exposure,

composition, whatever. This dramatically slowed down the whole

picture taking process. A post wedding picture session took over an

hour when it should have consumed no more than 30 minutes.

 

I was never able to do this with film of course when I photographed

weddings. I learned to get my exposure correct, pose people, and

take a couple of shots so that at least one turned out correct. I

shot digital now and I do not "chimp" every shot. Maybe I should.

 

Is this one of the problems with shooting digital? Exposures are

guessed, then checked. Is this better or worse than when film was

used? You probably have a better chance of getting it right if you

can check the results. But would not experience with film and

relying on your expertise be better than constantly checking?

 

I just thought it was an interesting difference in the way that

digital trained worked vs film trained.

It's not a film-vs-digital issue, it's an issue of skill and experience.

I don't see why she would need to check every single shot. What did she do for the ceremony,

when there was no time to do this?

I think it's the temptation to make sure every shot was right when you were given the choice. I have found myself checking the picture right after every shot too when shooting digital. Luckily I am not a wedding photographer.

It's called 'chimping'. Moose Petersen has an interesting article about the dangers of getting overly reliant on this...

It's at this link: http://www.moosepeterson.com/journal/docs/vol72.pdf

 

Very interesting reading for me (since I shoot only digital). His point is that shooting nature photography, you get so caught up in looking at the display you miss 'good stuff'. But it also applies to other areas - and here's a good example.

 

I DO like digital, since the odds of missing a full failure (and losing a bunch of shots) goes down, but you gotta be careful you don't get into reviewing each and every shot.

 

... and this is where the film guys jump in about how film is more reliable <grin>.

i like to loose sleep, toss and turn, and obsess. hence>film user

I knew people who would shoot a Polaroid every five or six shots. Since this involved changing the back (twice, usually), and waiting for the Polaroid, it was extremely slow. I'm sure this is the same type of person, and it doesn't have to do with digital or film. It has to do with, as Steve Wolfe pointed out, experience.

"... and this is where the film guys jump in about how film is more reliable <grin>."

 

 

But film is not more reliable, and we were not better shooters when we used film. Film latitude and good labs covered our tails more times than we would like to admit.

i'll admit that i do peak when i get a chance. i don't let it slow me down. i have my view setup so i can see the histogram along with the picture. this is most important to me. it becomes a problem when children realize that you can see the picture and they want to see too...

The exposure latitude of digital seems to be less than with print film, and this makes a lot of photographers nervous. When shootin RAW I'm not so sure that's true, but... I check the histogram with most every new setting/arrangement, but it only takes a second & I doubt it slows a whole shoot down more than 1 minute, total.

 

Digital is more reliable for me, since I can fix right away, what didn't work.

Sorry but you really do not know what she was doing, you can observe and you can judge but you really do not know. Maybe someone was a blinker, and maybe you are just judgemental. Should have asked her why.

In my opinion it's not a "problem" with digital, it's a perk. Digital allows you to check multiple things: blinks, composition, lighting, exposure, histogram. I think it would be a great waste of the technology and a missed learning opportunity NOT to check your exposures after you take them. Not every digital shooter takes excessive time to glance at the histogram/exposure to check for a few things - usually a quick glance is sufficient and doesn't slow down the flow of the event.

 

 

It's possible the person was a new and anxious shooter who didn't trust her camera or skills. It's also possible that/she was a fine artist who liked to take time to perfect the images.

 

One of the great benefits of digital is the quick learning curve. Since you CAN look at each exposure, a dedicated shooter can get good very quickly, and then it get easier and easier to set up shoots.

 

Just my $0.02....

Jennifer

It's possible the person was a new and anxious shooter who didn't trust her camera or skills. It's also possible that/she was a fine artist who liked to take time to perfect the images.

 

You took The words out of mouth, I have to agree 100% As I have just started shooting Digital it is learning and trust your new gears. how many times you flash misfired for what ever reason anyhow I do not care how good of photograher if you have a new toy you can't help but double. after all it is a wedding she is shooting not a portrait.

I'm a chimper. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing unprofessional about reviewing shots. It's a choice based on shooting style and preferences. Those who say pros chimp because they lack skill, confidence and professionalism are generally ignored in the circles I run in. It's an old argument that doesn't hold any water. I answer to my clients, and sometimes I catch little things by chimping that help me to adjust on the fly and produce the best images possible.

 

If you know what you are looking for, a quick review of a key shot takes about 1-2 seconds.

Raymond-

 

Enough with all this film valiantry. Due to the method of development it stands to reason that film required/requires a different discipline.

 

Therefore if there were a way to reload your camera and develop the last 36 exposures in 1 minute no film shooter would ever look? No one ever bracketed a few frames in film? Lets just get one more of those okay?

 

If you are shooting film for film's rich attributes thats awesome but if you stay with it for some sort of sick martyr value put a cap on it now.

And I liked old X-Rays much better than CAT Scans and MRI's it was so much better when it was nearly impossible to analyse soft tissue and other structures.

 

Sooo what would film shooters to if the camera manufacturers put LCD displays on the back of film cameras that accurately represented your last exposure?

Well stated. I miss the hell out my old royal typewriter too. Now you have everyone using a delete key. A real typist used an eraser or white out. And dont feel bad that digi shooters chimp, I have a buddy who has recently concluded that CD's and DVDs have caught on for good.

Hurrah booooo. Hurrah boooo. YEAH! Real men don't look at LCD screens! Sure fire sign of

a poser.

The only real disadvantage to chimping is that it sucks juice. I've been milking a battery for a week of daily use by refraining from constant chimping. I wait 'til I get home to transfer the photos to the computer. My exposures are fine. But I'd like to be able to see the photos in the camera during breaks between shooting - so would the folks I'm photographing.

 

What takes longer - for me, at least - isn't chimping. It's the fact that I take two or three times as many photos as I do with film.

 

It isn't an experience issue. It's a self discipline issue. Maybe I'll start carrying a USB cord and flog myself whenever I'm tempted to chimp.

Even though Idefine myself as a hard core film advocate, I still "chimp" quite a bit when I use my digital cameras, the main reason is the lack of consistency on flash output, and I use my cameras on manual yet there is enough discrepancy on the output that in order to get the perfect exposure I often need to check the LCD.

hEY rAYMOND, MY RESPONSE WITHOUT YET READING THE OTHERS IS....I have been struggling to teach myself on film (which is getting expensive) because so many have told me to learn on film so despite the temptation, I carry on. However, when I assisted last season, it was amazing what I could do with digital and found it also useful to learn the proper settings as I could check my results (which I did once in a while, not every shot). I guess your question is why people tell me to learn on film. One thing I can think of though where there is an advantage in being able to check your dig viewer is the issue of blinking subjects. One wedding, the mother of the groom just kept blinking and if not for being able to see the shot, the pictures would have been all of her blinking. How can you be sure of not getting blinks on film? Just take a bunch of pics and cross your fingers?

Well, it is true that you really do not know what this lady was doing. However, if i had to guess, i'd say that this was a confidence issue. I remember doing that on my first few weddings when i was nerveous, unsure of my lighting, exposure settings, etc...

 

I agree with some of the above comments that it shoudn't take this long. For formals, you should meter before hand and dial those settings into Manual mode. I usually take two-three pictures of each formal configuration and will glance at the histogram after every configuration just to make sure i didn't accidently hit a button etc.. This does not hinder anything, i check as the new group etc is taking position. The histogram is a wonderful tool that should be utilitized to verify what you should already know; however, it can be over-used if one is totally dependent on it to get them to where they already should be.

Larry, funny analogy! I had an MRI the other day and was fascinated by the whole thing! I was thinking from a photographer point of view. It is amazing the things they can see with such clarity today! By the way, I think the technicians chimp!

All good responses, with some assumptions that are not true but in fairness were not explained in the original post.

 

This was not intended to be a digital vs film debate.

 

I do know what she was doing by looking at the display because I was helping her. I also don't think it was a confidence issue as she was very competent in posing.

 

It was simply to observe what I thought was an interesting change that digital has allowed. Neither method is good or bad, right or wrong.

 

Digital has allowed instant feedback and if that provides a better product for the customer it is a very real benefit. Digital is changing (has changed) the way that photographs are taken.

 

Me thinks I will start "chimping" more and not expose my film background.

i saw a cop "chimping " yesterday, right before he pulled me over doing 70. Lauren, the best way i know of, to avoid blinkers, is during a formal pose session, with a tripod/ shutter release, so you can watch with your unabstucted eyes. ( or you can always put toothpicks in the eyes).