Statistical Photography

[kelly_flanigan1]

If you use a DSLR; dont be afraid to try panning; prefocusing; learning the sports game. This will further better your hit ratio. Some of the ancient methods can still be used with modern gear. Dont get stuck in a rut.

[barefoot]

<chuckle>

[lb-]

Kelly, honstly no offense meant but I would guess that you have not spent any time with professional sports photographers working today (in any sport) if you think this......

 

"and to heck with knowing were the players are going to be; to heck with were the goals are scored"

 

is how they work.

 

Maybe the guy who buys a digital rebel to shoot his kids soccer game but I can assure you that the "to heck with it" attitude or working ethic is NOT the prevailing one at least in the US at the professional level.

 

Is it my "shallow ego" or the "blinders" that I wear that make me choose a canon 1DmkII over a rolleiflex when I'm going out to shoot a job like off road auto racing? More than anything I think it's that I like to pay the rent and to that end I could care less what I use as long as it's the correct tool.

[lb-]

and by "correct tool" I should add I mean whatever I can use to deliver on what the client is expecting.

 

If I'm not working then it's a whole other bag.

 

the last auto racing I shot I did so with an M6 and B+W film. I was driving up and down Baja mexico working with a video production and the last thing I wanted to deal with in the desert was a bunch of battery dependent, heavy dslrs with giant white lenses and since I wasn't shooting stills for the job I took what I like to work with.

 

I guess it really comes down to WHY you're out taking pictures as much as what you're using and how you're using it.

 

sorry for any agressivness in my previous post.

 

cheers

 

lucas

[summitar]

There should be room for both digital and film in this universe. When I want to be sure that I will get an at least satisfactroy photo of a one time or rare event, I go with digital because I check the the exposure and sometimes the focus almost immediately. When I want the fun of playing artiste, I tend to use film. Actually, even when I am concenrating on film, I will slip a Canon A95 into a vest pocket, to satisfy my urge for instant gratification. I think that those of us who are into the nuts and bolts of photography constitute about 5 percent of the market. Therefore the future of digital is assured. I hope the film users will amount to enough to at least constitute a niche market. I would like it to do better than that, but 25 years ago I bought a betamax, because of its higher quality. But, marketing seems to win all the time. And Trevor, you not only woke up on the wrong side of the ocean, but also the wrong side of the bed. Relax. I wish I had your skills with either medium. "Just kidding about the wrong side of the ocean."

[kelly_flanigan1]

Lucas; at several professional hockey rinks I vist; the DSLR newspaper chaps are always screwing around with looking at their DSLR; deleting duds; screwing around with exposure settings; not watching the game much. It is like a sorid affir for them to be ther for an entire game. The darn exposure has been the same for 5 years at many of these rinks; the same darn lights. A simple cheatsheet for each rink is only what is required. Some are just reviewing shots on their LCD; while others are actually shooting images. Many just shoot and scoot; and are there for only 0ne out of three periods. Having played Hockey; I tend to follow where players might be; and be radically closer to the action than the newspaper chaps. DSLR users sometimes miss major plays while deleting duds; which is abit funny.

[ray .]

You don't have to review the LCD. Shutter lag on latest DSLR's

is no more than that of an M- translated, nonexistent. Great

photographs have been made by both types of cameras, and

virtually every camera design ever invented. I don't get people's

attachment to equipment to the point where they attack the other

technology. It takes a clear misunderstanding of a simple

concept to go that road.

[Allen Herbert]

Trevor Hare , may 29, 2005; 03:34 p.m.

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

 

Trevor Hare , may 29, 2005; 03:35 p.m.

And she uses an M3.

 

You can't helping thinking Trevor is the Queen i mean the old Duke.How else does he get all this info on the Royals.

 

Hey, word in the palace is the old Duck got himself a D70.

[andy m.]

<i>'How else does he get all this info on the Royals.'</i><p>

 

Maybe <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Leica/

" >here?</a>

[lb-]

Hi kelly,

 

of course you're right, there are those who cut corners in any profession, I just tend to get

tired of the idea that floats around that using modern technology some how by it's very

nature means that one has no appreciation or concern for craft and good work. I know

that's not what you meant and again, I do appologize for my defensive tone before.

 

despite the fact that I usually shoot with a fast AF DSLR for sports the reality is that I shoot

manual focus and manual exposre much of the time. as you've said, pre setting the

camera and anticipating the action is as often as not the best way to get a shot. I may not

be able to shoot 8 FPS with an M6 but I can say that my hit ratio is usually much higher

with the M for as many shots as I can get off. AF is good for many things (AE as well) but

not all and maybe we can agree that in any shooting situation total reliance on automation

is not a good way to go.

 

cheers

 

lucas<div></div>

[lb-]

hi peter,

 

that's the beauty of it I suppose, we all have our own idea of what makes a "great"

photograph.

 

for better or worse my general opinion of a "great" photo is one I get paid for.

 

guess I'm just a photographer and not an artist.

 

works for me

 

cheers

 

lucas

[john_wire]

<div></div>

[claudia__]

the real estate mantra is "location, location, location"

 

as far as digital vs film it is "preference, preference, preference"

 

seems to me there is no reason NOT to discuss preferences. i find it interesting to associate people with their gear preferences. some people hate this topic...so they should just shut up about it (~_")

[lb-]

".or maybe some a great left hand break with an offshore blowing just hard enough to

hold the face of the wave up long enough for me to get up on it"

 

well as a goofy I cannot argue with this. Sadly I am surrounded by beautiful warm water

rights!

 

and nobody makes a water housing for leicas!

 

life is hard huh?

 

 

cheers

 

lucas

[Brad_]

<I>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.</I><P>

 

Really? Wonder if that "most users DON'T" claim can be backed up in the slightest? Or is it

just mindless yap to bolster ones' feelings of superiority in their approach to photography?

[Spearhead]

<i> 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.</i><p>

 

The problem is that you, and most of the commenters on this thread, have no idea what they are talking about. In particular, this applies to sports. Other than Lucas (and me), nobody here has any recent professional sports shooting experience.<p>

 

Lucas said <I>for better or worse my general opinion of a "great" photo is one I get paid for</i>, but he didn't quite follow through on this. For professional shooting, you get paid for delivering something the editor (or sometimes writer or art diretor or marketing director etc etc) likes. No matter what the photographer thinks is great, the person who is going to use the photo is going to have a different idea. As a result, you deliver as much as you can (and this used to be true with film) so as to maximize the possibility of having something you are going to get paid for.<p>

 

I learned this a long time ago on a shoot for Drum! magazine. I gave contact sheets although I thought of either cutting them up or giving prints. The magazine picked what I considered one of the worst shots of the night. What I thought was a money shot, they didn't even consider.<p>

 

Ever since then, when I know I have to deliver, and this even includes portraits, I shoot as much as I can. With sports and music, this sometimes means fairly rapid-fire constant shooting. I don't want to have some great shots that nobody wants - I won't get the pass or the work the next time.<p>

 

 

Kelly said <i>The darn exposure has been the same for 5 years at many of these rinks; the same darn lights. A simple cheatsheet for each rink is only what is required.</i> This is worth noting. Anyone shooting indoor sports has standard and unchanging lighting. You can take one reading at the beginning, check the histogram, and leave it on manual for the whole event. There's no great advantage to any specific type of camera if you're just going to set it once.<p>

 

One thing I'll say about rapid-fire shooting - you learn real fast to adjust everything instinctively - it doesn't take ten minutes to evaluate the light. If you watch experienced shooters in pj or documentary or sports or (really) anything, you'll see this - no need to stand around fiddling with dials, it just happens. It's the occasional shooter who has to spend all the time, they just haven't learned enough.

[vuk_vuksanovic]

<i>"no matter what the photographer thinks is great, the person who is going to use the photo is going to have a different idea. As a result, you deliver as much as you can (and this used to be true with film) so as to maximize the possibility of having something you are going to get paid for ... I don't want to have some great shots that nobody wants - I won't get the pass or the work the next time."</i>--jeff

<br><br>

this reply shows you've missed the point completely. i am also appalled that you whore out your "contact sheets" this way. obviously, you must deal with some fairly vulgar/repulsive clients to ever be placed in such a position.

[Spearhead]

Obviously you haven't done this type of work. Editors want to choose. This isn't a trade secret, it's the way it works.

 

I didn't miss the point, this guy trolls on film/digital and gets standard ignorant responses like the one Brad pointed out. Better to give people some real information than waste time on the trolling.

[Spearhead]

BTW, if you shoot for SI, which is not considered "vulgar" or "repulsive" by photographers, you can shoot in situations in which you don't even see your shots until after they've been picked. And NG photographers, and I don't think NG is considered "vulgar" or "repulsive" by photographers, often ship film back unprocessed. Which makes the whole "whoring" reference, a childish attempt to make some sort of ridiculous statement, absurd. Photographers know how it works, dilettantes can criticize it all day, but photographers know how it works.

[vuk_vuksanovic]

if you are willing to be a "yes man" to an ignorant client who you aknowledge is selecting shoddy work, then you have little integrity. it's laughable how you're implying this makes you a genuine photographer.

[mike dixon]

<i>it's laughable how you're implying this makes you a genuine photographer.</i><P>

I think the implication is that it makes you an active, working photographer. It does sadden me to think of all the truly spectacular work that isn't being created because some photographers are bound by their integrity to sit on their asses feeling superior while the dirty whores are out shooting and getting published.

[mike dixon]

<i>ya can't beat an SLR FOR selective focusing - Leica ( presumably you mean M ) doesn't 'excel' in ANY of these scenarios by comparison to any slr - DIGI or FILM.</i><P>

Unless it's dark! I suppose really good autofocus and projected focusing target could make the difference, but I can focus an M3 much more quickly and accurately than an SLR when the lighting is dim.

[lb-]

I have to admit, I sort of like being thought of as a whore :)

 

While I recongize that the comment was directed at jeff, I only hope I can be included as

well.

 

all the whores I've know have been pretty straight forward no nonsense people.

 

and they get paid.

 

I can live with that.

 

honestly I get a kick out of this discussion if only becuase I'm just like anyone else in that I

love to have my preconcieved notions reinforced rather than try to understand where

someone else is coming from.

 

I imagine a bunch of camera collectors sitting around talking about the artistic intent

behind a few snapshots they took with their "investments" in between taking pictures of

the camereas themselves or arguing about whether or not to take the plastic off the

bottom plate

 

but.............

 

I'll be the first to admit that I sometimes miss shooting purely for personal pleasure and

sometimes, like a proper whore, I don't even see all the pictures I take. when we shoot

weddings 99% of the time we hand over a bag of undevoloped film to the B+G. Lots of

real estate work goes that way too.

 

if I come across as a bit agressive I can only imagine is must come from some deep

seated sense of jelousy or loss and I hope that those here who I have offended can forgive

me.

 

that or I'm just a dirty old whore.

 

love that.

 

cheers

 

lucas

[anthony_brookes5]

When you shoot digital you can have a multitude of decisive moments from outside taking the picture to inside manipulating it.

[al_kaplan1]

Lucas, nothing wrong with handing over a bag of wedding film to the bride and groom, no more so than what many free lance wedding shooters do when working for a studio. And there's not a hell of a lot of difference between letting the editors of a glossy magazine pick the images they want to use from a shoot and having the final selection made by a bride and groom. If anything the editor and/or art director might make a selection based on considerations besides how nice Aunt Emma's hair-do looks.

 

I've never liked the pressure and hassles of wedding photography, but I've done enough of them over the years because I needed the money at

the time, a photographer friend got sick and needed somebody to cover for him, a commercial client insisted I shoot it, any number of reasons. What I discovered I liked least about weddings was the follow up. Handing over a bag of film was easiest. Second best is getting the proofs (excuse me, "previews") made up and numbered to hand over when the bride and groom return from the honeymoon. Include the name and phone number of a quality local lab or two and the 800 number and/or website of an album company. They save a few hundred bucks, I save a lot of agravation, everybody is happy.

[c4-contemporary-art]

A good friend of mine from Canada had an opportunity to pore over some

of Atget's contact sheets via one of Atget's best friends - what did he find

but myriad versions of the same decisive moment on each sheet...! You just

have to laugh. Well, I use a 4x5 so it's not really option for me to shoot a

pile of images and be all editorial about it. But it sure is fun watching you

guys go at it.

[jtdnyc]

Atget...contact sheets...decisive moments?

 

Didn't Atget use 8x10 glass plates?

[c4-contemporary-art]

I apologize - for being mildly inebriated when I posted that...

 

I meant Cartier-Bresson... duh!

[nesrani]

Of course CB shot lots of film to get a single snap, that is what anyone who is really working a subject does (at least in 35 mm). All of my stories took about 30 to 100 snaps out of anywhere from 100 to 250 rolls of film. That's how all of the 35 mm snappers we admire work, and digital must just make it much easier for them.

 

I'm totally with Lucas - just wish I'd had more opportunities to be a whore myself, unfortunately I'm no good at selling myself.

[c4-contemporary-art]

Except for the fact that this sort of flies completely in the face of everything

he preached.

[jtdnyc]

How so?

 

HCB said -- and here I paraphrase from memory, not having the necessary reference handy -- that the skill needed for his kind of photography was the ability to recognize the moment at which all the pictures elements came together in a composition that was both balanced and meaningful.

 

I have never seen his contact sheets, but I can't imagine how they could possibly contradict that point. If all of his shots met his criteria, this would just go to show that he was a very good shooter. If few of them did so, it would confirm that even the best marksmen don't hit the bull's-eye every time.

 

In any event, I'd hesitate to describe his rare pronouncements as preaching.

 

Not trying to be argumentative here; just seeking a clarification of your point.