Statistical Photography

[joseph_barbano]

All photogrpahy is statistical. The "decisive moment" vitiates the

statistical approach in making everything come together at the right

instant: exposure, composition, subject.

 

Leicas do not lend themslves well to statistical photography, such

as sports, where a large number of exposures and focusing

adjustments are required very rapidly with a subject is also

changing very rapidly. The manual technology of Leicas just makes

it hard. I really appreciated sports photographers a few years ago

who were able to nail it when they were using fairly manual

equipment. Basically, being selective was important.

 

Enter digital: almost unlimited exposures (no film), autofocus,

motordives, affordable telephot optics, etc. Not much need to be AS

selective since it's technology driven. Just aim and shoot: keep

the trigger down. When I see a really good photo from digital now I

say "statistical photography". I read of photographers who shoot

hundreds and hundreds of photos in a seting where a few years ago

when using film, an order of magnitude less exposures were taken.

It's great sampling, but the pictures don't seem to be any better

than before; just more of them.

 

Even for we Leica photographers, there's no doubt that a DSLR for

sports or action is the way to go. In the purest sense, this is

statistical photography. Get within close range, or where autofocus

isn't a must, or where being selective matters then there's another

type of photography; this is where Leicas excel.

[jmack]

I think you have hit on something when I shoot a lot of digital I am not as careful.The editing starts to wear you down if you do a lot of shooting and the frames start to look alike.When I shoot with the leica it is all or nothing.

[al_kaplan1]

I prefer having control over when the exposure is made and the Leica (and other similar makes) rangefinder cameras have much less shutter delay than SLR cameras. Also, when shooting sequences, whether with a DSLR or motor drive film camera, you're locked into the camera's sequence. You can't take the shot between the program's exposures.

 

There are too many people out there making excuses to justify purchasing the latest auto everything camera so they can one-up their buddies ove a brew, but have never developed the skills to set exposure and focus, even framing, using the potential for "automatic" hand/eye coordination that's already programmed into their genes. I see at least as many photos these days with timing or focus defects as I did years ago.

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

...and your point is!

[working camera]

I have to agree with Al Kaplan 100% on this.

 

The fantastic technology built into 35mm and DSLR cameras these days seems to have merely provided us with greater volumes of images in an age of saturated visual stimulation.

[elijah_free]

I purchased a Minolta 7D to use with all of my SLR lenses last year. Had a really good time with it. Took a LOT of images I would never have otherwise. Statstically, I had some great shots. However, the amount of shots I took was astronomical compared to when I use film for the obvious reason. the good part was the instant feedback where I could critique my work and learn from it. The downside was that the odds where with me that I would get a good shot. Made a lot of junk too. More than usual.

I got a new scanner, Nikon 5000 ED,as my old scanner was just plain worn out. Made a big differnce. Went back to my Leica gear and shooting more selectively. Making beautiful images IMHO that I am enjoying more than ever. Using the Leica is my idea of Zen photography when I am shooting with my old user M3 etc. Yesterday I went to a marsh and there was a fellow painting who looked a lot like Van Gogh or Monet. I got a few shots of him and we talked about art a bit. Went on to spend some quality time shooting the beautiful landscape, contemplating compostion and the beauty of nature. That doesn't always happen for me when using digital. So, back to using my leica gear most of the time now. Thanks for starting the thread.

[terry_rory]

If digital is so 'slapdash' then why am I going out into the countryside with my tripod and remote release more often and why have I just invested 153 UK pounds in a new Lee Filters system to use on my D70?

 

I want my landscape shots to be as right as I can get them 'in the can' rather than spend more time on photoshop and end up replicating the effect of filters in a degraded fashion.

 

Why am I at pains to only ever shoot RAW and convert to 16 bit TIFF and why am I ploughing my way through a PS7 manual to find the best way of presenting my stuff on the web and prepare my best images for printing on a Fuji Frontier system on 15x10 Fuji Archive paper rather than a home inkjet A4 print?

 

Why am I learning to interpret histograms and why do I bother to take more care not to get blown highlights?

 

Why am I bothering to learn more subtle sharpening techniques, use the optimum colour space, convert to B&W using RGB channel mixing, get my screen gamma as right as I can etc etc?

 

Just so someone can globally accuse all of us DSLR users of indulging in 'statistical photography' !!

 

Should someone judge 180 years of film photography by it's lowest common denominator, the $5 disposable ??

[thom_bennett]

Great subject! I recently purchased my first Leica so that I can experience that decisive moment; that moment of being in the world, truly engaged with it visually and attempting to capture something meaningful onto a frame of film. To me, the reason I wanted a Leica was to force me into more careful seeing.

[terry_rory]

"I prefer having control over when the exposure is made" "

 

Rubbish. There are even more variables to understand and control with a DSLR.

 

"Also, when shooting sequences, whether with a DSLR or motor drive film camera, you're locked into the camera's sequence. You can't take the shot between the program's exposures."

 

Eh?

 

I can shoot with or without auto at will. Most of my shots are single shot. I can do bracketed sequences by choice. I choose, NOT the camera.

 

 

"There are too many people out there making excuses to justify purchasing the latest auto everything camera so they can one-up their buddies ove a brew"

 

Who is excusing what and to whom Al? Do you mean we have to excuse ourselves to our buddies or to you?

 

When it comes to what I do with a camera 'over a brew' I can honestly say I am not endlessly photographing myself or 'excusing' my purchases. (I assume you mean a Leica does not have to be excused whereas a DSLR does?) In fact I prefer not to talk photography at all over a brew.

[michael s.]

Trevor -- So many questions; so few answers -:)

 

In my case, the addition of a good digital camera has prompted me to take more photos, experiment more, try things from different angles, and to take a few shots that can only be called "fliers" (shots with a low probability of achieving a good result). All of this of course goes well beyond bracketing. Results vary, but I find the whole thing to be great fun.

 

 

Does anyone believe this is bad or wrong ?

 

On the other hand, when I'm shooting with the M6 or other film camera, I try to take my time, think more about what I'm likely to get by firing the shutter, prepare for what I might be doing in the next moment, and concentrate on principles of photography, a hobby I've taken up only comparatively recently whose fundamentals are by no means "second nature" to me. Again results vary, but I have a great time trying.

 

Does anyone believe this is bad or wrong ?

[monochrome11]

can't we all agree that cameras are nothing more than tools... and that it is up to the photographer to decide for their own personal reasons what suits their needs best?

 

i come from a film background, went digital and back to film... not because digital is bad, but rather, because i enjoy the photographic process with film more than i do with digital imaging...

 

the world of photography would be soooo very boring if there was one camera that could do it all... learning the quirks and personality of camera (be it digital or film based) and applying them to the best of one's ability is what the whole photographic process is about... (from capture to print)... i'm quite enjoying a the best of both worlds right now.. capture on film, scan to digital and i can produce both analogue and digital output... what has impressed me most with digital is the shadow and highlight detail that i'm able to bring out of a film scan... i will continue to develop my skills in the darkroom and hope to be able to produce beautiful wet prints one day, and i feel that digital scans allow me to see into a negative on a level that i wasn't able to before... it guides my wet printing process as well as i'm armed with so much more information about what's in the negative before i begin the analogue printing process...

[Brad_]

Jeez, when will these digi vs film threads (which here are <I>always</I> started by film

proponents) end? Seems to be a ton of insecurity out there... Wonder why so much time is

spent on justifying a choice? Must be that making good photographs either isn't the goal, or

not maybe not happening.

[awahlster]

Joseph have you ever actually seen how some of those desisive monment sports photo's were captured????

 

The finish line at the Olypmics might have 20-30 cameras all set up by one photographer to catch the right frame. I watched a Sports Illistrated special a while back that showed how at the finish line for the 100 meter dash their photographer set up a couple dozen Canon SLR's with all marror of different triggers and lenses hoping to catch just the righ shot.

 

Another thing is you never see the ones that don't come out right (unlike around here where any crappy photo with enough explaition can become art) So while they may get the perfect snap they may also have burned up a dozen rolls to get the right shot.

 

They showed editors sitting at a screen running ACDC as fast as they could running through the first half of a football game looking for one or two good photo's to send out. Theses guys were seeing a different frame ever 2 seconds and they were watching 20 minutes worth of photo's from a half dozen or more photographers spread around the field.

 

The machine gun approch.

[jeremy_tok]

Let me propose a thesis.

 

Photography can be split into two types.

 

Process-oriented and results-oriented photography.

 

Both produce pictures as output.

 

But the emphasis, the reason for doing, of the former is the way pictures are taken: the tools, the medium, the philosophy, the process.

 

The latter emphasizes the final imagine, caring little how it comes about, by what means, with what tools, under what conditions, as long as it does.

[andrew_neuman]

A thread about Digital Photography is not going to fly well in a film based forum. At the end of the day - I think what makes you happy is what really counts. Each to his/her own. IMHO each types of photography introduces its own paradigm and "vernacular" - in a way that each with have its devoted disciples - ready and willing to go on a crusade/jihad against the other camp - just to "spread" the good gospel. Personally, I like the way "time" is more tangible in film based photography - and especially with a range finder - doesn't have to be Leica but they do make the best RF system. The way times is spent is much more fluid where as in digital photography - time is more stacato - frantic. What Al said about time/process is very true. Film based photography tends not to lock you into a "process of medium". From a limited range of control film/lens/aperture/shutter/framing you can set your shot in a film system and it is this "moment" of setting the shot that a photo begins to form - mentally then physically. With digital, you grab a set of parameters to throw at your subject and the shot is not form but more like "recorded". But ... horses for courses or course!

[terry_rory]

So we are going to call shutter speed and aperture and ISO (speed) and focus and metering 'parameters' when used on a digital camera and these are 'thrown' (thoughtlessly) at our subject in the vain hope that we will get a decent 'file' statistically after a few thousand shots(?)

 

On a film camera they are 'controls' and we use our full physical and mental and emotional being in a Zen like way to draw the subject in to the frame to create a real photograph, an artistic statement.

 

Hmmm no bias there then.

[Spearhead]

<i>Personally, I like the way "time" is more tangible in film based photography - and especially with a range finder - doesn't have to be Leica but they do make the best RF system. The way times is spent is much more fluid where as in digital photography - time is more stacato - frantic.</i><p>

 

Some people are skilled enough to take lots of great shots fairly quickly. There are plenty of examples here of people who take plenty of time but get nothing worth looking at. What was the point again?

[lb-]

"Photography can be split into two types. "

 

ok, and I suppose photographers can be split into two types.....

 

hobbyists and people trying to make a living.

 

no offense meant to anyone and hats off to people like Al who have been able to continue to make their living shooting only with leica rangefinder cameras but for me and pretty much every other working photographer I know digital capture is a client driven market reality and not so much a matter of what we prefer.

[al_kaplan1]

Trevor, don't get so defensive! Other than the mirror delay of ALL SLR's you can treat a DSLR just like a manual rangefinder, choose where to focus, what to frame, and when to push the release. My point is that most users DON'T use them that way. They blast off bursts, counting on the electronics for focus and exposure, sheer chance for timing. I often see photographers reviewing their last bunch of shots in best chimping posture while completely oblivious to the new action that's taking place unrecorded. I'm not saying that describes you.

[andy m.]

I'm not so worried about statistics. One of the main statistics I have observed relates to the ease of creating mediocre images vs. masterpieces with any other type of camera- including Leicas. At least with a DSLR there is rapid learning via immediate feedback.

 

Is the shutter lag of, say, a D70 really so long? The Canon D60 I use seems pretty fast, although I do like to be able to keep my eye on the target during exposure. Keeping both eyes open with an SLR just doesn?t seem the same, so I do like using a Leica for that aspect, when photographing people.

 

As soon as the rate of digital technology progress stabilizes a bit and they make available affordable DSLRs with bigger sensors, I'm getting one. For now, I'll use film most of the time. But it's the picture that counts at the end of the day and I?m not seeing much evidence that use of digital capture is impeding the work of its proponents.

 

I was looking at grant's website yesterday, I think he is using a DSLR these days (not sure) - but his images, and those of several other DSLR advocates look pretty good to me.

 

Is this a film vs. digital thread?

[andrew_neuman]

I think photography is more therapy than "art" - akin to cooking. Each have their own skill level and a sense of what they are happy with. Whatever makes you happy - be it process/equipment/etc - is what matters (in my case it is film & RF). The reason people upload pictures - like the ones that are labelled "crap" on this site is that it makes THAT photographer happy. I can see nothing wrong with that even if I find the picture "questionable" personally .. I will still not think that person is less of a photographer than me. For some people photography is very much an ego trip. My 2 cents worth.

[al_kaplan1]

It's not film vs. digital so much as a discussion about how the choice of a medium, and the requisite hardware, influences what your actual results will be.

[andy m.]

I guess some people are on an ego trip- this is part of human nature. I have skimmed the thread, but I'm not sure what comment this is referring to.

 

Anyway, I know that I really enjoy seeing great photography- and there is plenty of that on photo.net. I am (I think) equally able to see when a photo isn't so good- I know that I take plenty of those myself ;-)

 

My point is that there is no correlation between great work and film use; and mediocre work and digital use.

 

Cheers, A

[andy m.]

Film vs digital hardware ;-) In any case, it's an interesting thread:-) Cheers, A

[lb-]

"I think photography is more therapy than "art"

 

so does that make me a therapist?

 

I'm so confused.

 

hey joseph, I like your photos but I have an issue with your original post.

 

when you said this.......

 

"Enter digital: almost unlimited exposures (no film), autofocus, motordives, affordable telephot optics, etc. Not much need to be AS selective since it's technology driven. Just aim and shoot: keep the trigger down"

 

that's got nothing to do with digital. The above described shooting dynamic has been around long before digital cameras came around. Lenses are the same. motors drives were just as fast (or faster!). only difference is that they change a CF card out instead of film and they can check the shot (both good things). If a professional sports shooter misses the freethrow or touchdown shot because they were chimping I can tell you that it's the same guy that missed the shot 10 years ago because he didn't have a backup camera loaded or whatever. Paying attention and doing your job is an equipment independent skill.

[Jochen_S]

What's this about? I'm not digital bashing. I suppose most of us shoot Leica because it feels good.

 

Statistical photography is or at least can be done with Leicas too. There are winders, 250 frame versions, folks able to carry 3 bodys to do one job and 35mm film is cheap.

[jeremy_tok]

<a href="http://www.horvatland.com/index.html" target="_blank">How Frank Horvart defines photography</a>

[lb-]

here's mr hovarts full quote

 

 

"One difference between photography and painting (or drawing, or other forms of art) is that it takes no talent, and practically no effort, to get an image on film. A modern camera - as the one we are using right now - takes care even of focusing and exposure. All my efforts are spent in holding back, in telling myself: "No, this is not yet the best light for Alexandra, not yet her most photogenic angle, not yet her truest expression." The reason for holding back is not only to spare some film - it's like storing my energy, or rather my expectation; it's letting the image I want take shape in my mind, by the very act of refusing the images I don't want. Until the moment when I recognize, in the viewfinder, the image that I want to see - and then there is no holding back any more."

 

 

hate to say it but sounds like a bunch of extra words to describe BASIC PHOTOGRAPHY to me. I like his work don't get me wrong but uh, basically he's talking about the differnce between a photographer and a security camera.

 

so if the "art" of photography is waiting to take the picture until the correct moment let me ask this....

 

say the technology comes to exists that allows for EVERYTHING to be recorded AT EVERY MOMENT from EVERY ANGLE always leaving only the task of going back and selecting the ones we like. how is that different in artistic intent from what this guy is saying? is it not the same? there's no skill or craft says him, all that matters is the process of selection so........

[kelly_flanigan1]

What really matters is you buy the latest gear; and condem all prior equipment. Only the latest equipment will work with sports. Get a 2nd mortgage; max out those credit cards. NO DECENT sports shots have ever been before the DSLR came out. You MUST sell all your non DSL gear. :)<BR><BR>TLR's were once marketed for sports photogrpahy in the 1930's. Today a bunch of old farts us them; and need wazoo bright screens; tripods; and shoot static landscapes; ans still have focus problems.<BR><BR>Once folks succeesfully used TLR's; 35mm manual focus cameras; speed graphics for sports; and prefocused; and waited for the action to come to the focus spot; or panned with the action.. There was no Statistical machine gun approach; just skill and talent. A newbie must condem the past sucesses; and declare it as impossible; and wear blinders to past history. Their shallow egos must only accept that a machine gun appoach is always better that a sniper or sharpshooter. They must feel new equipment is better than skill or experience.

[andrew_neuman]

Lucas,

 

This wonderful camera would have to record an enormously large set of pictures for the split microsecond it records. It would have to take into acount the different sets of exposures combinations of shutter/aperture, if would have to take into account ISO settings/film types .. and framing ?. All up .. maybe a few TERA bytes of information to record. No problems at all from a technology point of view. The problem is that it will take you MUCH much longer than that "microsec" to sort through all those shots. I think travelling faster than the speed of light is "possible" but not recommended.

[lb-]

yes, I agree it's not a practical idea. nor is the idea that you're not a photographer unless EVERY SINGLE FRAME ON EVERY SINGLE CONTACT SHEET IS A MASTERPIECE. that sort of nonsense just bugs the hell out of me. How many self important full of crap photographers roll that stuff but would NEVER actually let you look at the contacts or talk to any of their assistants god forbid as you might find out that they too shoot lots of pictures and keep just a few.

 

and hey kelly I agree.

 

and why stop there right?

 

anyone using ANYTHING other than an 8x10 view camera is a blinded newbie ego tripper who just holds down a button and hopes for the best. Lets face it, with the wide lattitue of modern print film and a wide angle lens you've got a fair shot of walking away with a photograph from an M6 by just pointing and shooting and hoping for the best.

 

it's not like it takes that much skill to line up the two little pictures in the viewfinder and make the little red dot appear between the little arrows does it? oh right, my newer M6's arent "real" leicas. You need a meterless M3 for that right. And anyone who wants to pretend like using an incident meter takes any kind of real skill is full of it.

 

and so what if 99% of working sports photographers today have never touched a TLR? might I at least in their defense point out that while a photographer in 1935 shooting race cars did ok with his TLR the cars weren't going 200 mph either.

[barefoot]

I agree with Trevor. I've just spent 100.99GB on a set of filters (serial number 124409966))

that enable me to smoke dutch skunk through a normal silk cut cigarette. These filters costs

me a futher 2.30GBP in tube fares that got me from bethnal green to notting hill (serial

number 33TYTTTTXXXX). Like Trevor I have no idea how to use a camera but I'm fecking

BRITISH and now how to quote things in GBP.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The photo books in the 1930's and 1940's went into alot of sports photo discussions; tables on the shutter speed required; versus the subjects angle to you; distance to you; and velocity. Panning was done when one didnt have enough shutter. Pre focusing; running tests; experimenting were preached and followed. Little time was wasted and spent on camera brand A versus B discussions; like todays marketing sirens. The goals were to get a better hit ratio; through planning and practice; not a random machine gun approach; and lets hope. The books also had one learn the game or sport; to make a better success ratio; not "you need an EOS" and to heck with knowing were the players are going to be; to heck with were the goals are scored. Because the tools were cruder; folks used practice and skill to gain an advantage. This is when folks had less money to spend; and experimented more; and didnt look for a solution in a camera brand name. <BR><BR>Telephotos were affordable to the masses in the early 1960's; they were only 15 to 19 dollars for a preset 135mm lens; with T mount for a 35mm slr.

[terry_rory]

There is no 'eck' in f*****g Stuart. (Unless you are the Queen.)

[terry_rory]

And she uses an M3