Buffers, and fast lenses and dual SD cards, Oh My

[BillBingham2]

So this morning on the way into Ulpan class I saw a picture in Apple News from the Indiana Football game over the weekend that got me wondering if I was alone in my observation/thought. The picture was an amazing shot by Carmen Mandato / Getty of #15 midair with the ball. There is so much that goes into capturing a shot like this, lens selection, field position, understanding the flow of the game, be it luck, skill, or a combination of both Carmen knocked it out of the park with this one.

Way back when 4x5 SLRs ruled the house that the Babe build, Wrigley Field, Camden Yard, places where you would find the likes of the Green Monster (Fenway Park) and ball players who would become household names. Then 35mm cameras started to replace the behemoths, shorter time to the next frame, eventually motor drives, some as fast as seven frames per second and sharper faster and longer lenses. DSLRs replaced the analog cameras with buffers and memory cards allowing for even faster capture of images dozens per second. Now Mirrorless cameras with ultra-fast buffers, ever improving autofocus are starting to replace DSLRs.

These capabilities and more has increased the diversity of subjects and quality of many nature photographers professional and amateur alike. Rather than review a role of 36, now you may be editing hundred of images of the same moment in time be it an Osprey, a Gymnast, or a three year old. The ever improving imaging technology has allowed more people to take what some might say are better pictures. Does the removal of this barrier to entry make being a professional photographer make harder for seasoned professionals to stand out in what appears to be shrinking markets?

Have I become a curmudgeon like the ones who used to lament 4x5 film packs becoming harder to get? It’s wonderful for those of us for whom photography is a hobby, but is it just another deathblow for professional in several categories? Having arm wrestled with earning a living with photography decades ago, I look at it now and wonder about the impact of computing technology spilling over into photography has had.

Thoughts?

B2 (;->

 

[Cascadilla]

The history of photography has always been that the technical aspects get easier, which encourages more people to become photographers. But as we know, perfect technique doesn't always result in interesting photographs. The photographers who excel in things like sports or wildlife photography will always be those who intimately know their subjects. The old photography joke: How did you take the Pulitzer Prize winning shot? f/8 and be there. Knowing how to "be there" will always count for more than the gear.

 

[BillBingham2]

…. The old photography joke: How did you take the Pulitzer Prize winning shot? f/8 and be there. Knowing how to "be there" will always count for more than the gear.

That would explain so much. I’m a f/4 sort of guy. /s

 

[Coldkennels]

In my sport (skateboarding), it's not even that there's too many photographers, it's that there's too few outlets.

Print magazines used to pay well for good photos. Now things are all on Instagram, and "good photography" has given way to "just get it done and on Instagram quickly".

There's a few niche outlets out there which still publish and promote "good work"; my last paid gig was for a ten-photo "photo essay" covering a downhill race event in Wales. The guy who ran that magazine specifically asked me to do it on film, too - he liked the aesthetic and was always amused by the fact that I default to old screwmount Leicas instead of even using anything more modern.

But for most people at all parts of the process - the photographer, the publisher/company, and the viewer - "fast" and "good enough" take priority. There's fewer "iconic" photos that you'd want on your wall as a result - nothing like J. Grant Brittain's photo of Tod Swank that made the cover of Transworld back in 1987 - but that doesn't seem to be the goal any more. It's just content to be swiped past in a feed.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going outside to shout at the clouds.

 

[Archiver]

These capabilities and more has increased the diversity of subjects and quality of many nature photographers professional and amateur alike. Rather than review a role of 36, now you may be editing hundred of images of the same moment in time be it an Osprey, a Gymnast, or a three year old. The ever improving imaging technology has allowed more people to take what some might say are better pictures. Does the removal of this barrier to entry make being a professional photographer make harder for seasoned professionals to stand out in what appears to be shrinking markets?

Have I become a curmudgeon like the ones who used to lament 4x5 film packs becoming harder to get? It’s wonderful for those of us for whom photography is a hobby, but is it just another deathblow for professional in several categories? Having arm wrestled with earning a living with photography decades ago, I look at it now and wonder about the impact of computing technology spilling over into photography has had.

Improved technology does indeed lower the barrier to entry, but it doesn't make up for a lack of experience, work ethic, and luck. I'm always working to improve what I do, which means learning where to be, what angle to hit, what to look for in the flow of gameplay, and what shots to select after the match. The skills of learning where, when and how are transferrable to other areas of photography, so experience with sports intersects with the skills required for events and weddings, and vice versa. After a while, you just ask yourself, 'what do I want to shoot, where do I need to be to shoot it, and what gear/settings are required to do that?' and everything flows from that.

Standing out means doing what others aren't, which means better/different gear, better technique, better positioning, better shot selection in post, better postprocessing, etc. I sometimes look at what other pros are doing to see where I am in terms of quality, and adjust myself accordingly. On occasion I'll be surprised by someone's work and put in extra effort to improve my game. There are adjacent skills for standing out, like being professional, delivering in a timely manner, being agreeable and friendly, knowing when to direct and when to observe, all the professional skills and qualities that one needs to succeed in a service/creative business.

I also look at what I'm already doing that others aren't, and work on improving that, too. The other day, one of the athletes I work with said how much he loved that I capture things that no one else thinks of, particularly the backstage and behind the scenes moments. This comes from my love of classic reportage photography from the Magnum era, so I can't claim any special originality there. But in a sea of technically 'perfect' images, the way to stand out is do what others aren't, and do it way better than the competition. Still working on it.

 

[ellisson]

The technical improvements in photography gear have made several areas of photography easier and more informative. Digital cameras with faster and "stickier" autofocus and high burst rates along with improvements in video have benefitted wedding photographers, sports photographers, and photojournalists. Criminal investigative work, military, and medical applications have benefitted from improved resolution and image quality. For hobbyists and non-professionals, improvements in digital cameras and lens design may not be as impactful, but still useful in making photos for pleasure, art, or family gatherings and milestones: film is still preferred by many for these goals and for the pleasure of working with the analog process of making photos. So I view the technical advances as impactful to various degrees depending on the type of photography, application, and need for speed and highest possible resolution.

 

[BillBingham2]

......... But in a sea of technically 'perfect' images, the way to stand out is do what others aren't, and do it way better than the competition. Still working on it.

As am I!

 

[Leon C]

But for most people at all parts of the process - the photographer, the publisher/company, and the viewer - "fast" and "good enough" take priority. There's fewer "iconic" photos that you'd want on your wall as a result - nothing like J. Grant Brittain's photo of Tod Swank that made the cover of Transworld back in 1987 - but that doesn't seem to be the goal any more. It's just content to be swiped past in a feed.

What a fantastic picture....

Yeah technology makes it easier but not always better, there's more to photography than gear.

When I took this I was only thinking of the movement but realised after I left it was bad because I was in a rush and it wasn't as good as it should have been and that was through inexperience with skateboarders and taking a breath at the time, some people like it but not for the reasons they should, I will go back as they skate there on a regular basis and next time I'll get on the floor where I should have been in the first place. One never stops learning.

 

[Coldkennels]

Yeah, J. Grant Brittain was one of the best; I have his photobook, Push, and it's fantastic. He took some of the most iconic photos of the 1980s, and he did it with equipment a lot of people - including people here! - would consider "unusable" for sports photography now.

I'm also lucky enough to be good friends with Jim Goodrich, former editor of Transworld magazine in the 80s and staff photographer for Skateboarder in the 1970s. Some of his photos from the late 70s are still being licensed by Vans and the like to this day.

Part of the thing that made these guys so good is that they lived and breathed the culture they were photographing. It's easy to see when someone who doesn't skate or doesn't understand skateboarding is behind the camera - they've got the wrong angle, wrong timing, wrong everything. Autofocus and autoexposure can only get you so far.

 

[Leon C]

It's easy to see when someone who doesn't skate or doesn't understand skateboarding is behind the camera - they've got the wrong angle, wrong timing, wrong everything. Autofocus and autoexposure can only get you so far.

As my pictures reveals, for a skateboarding pic, although some don't know he's on a skateboard and I'll be the first to admit it, IIRC it was on AF but Manual Exp so I could slow the speed down, and looking at it after, the comp was off, it should have been better, but next time....🛹

 

[Archiver]

Yeah, J. Grant Brittain was one of the best; I have his photobook, Push, and it's fantastic. He took some of the most iconic photos of the 1980s, and he did it with equipment a lot of people - including people here! - would consider "unusable" for sports photography now.

Okay, gearhead activated. What kind of gear did he use back then?

I'm also lucky enough to be good friends with Jim Goodrich, former editor of Transworld magazine in the 80s and staff photographer for Skateboarder in the 1970s. Some of his photos from the late 70s are still being licensed by Vans and the like to this day.

Part of the thing that made these guys so good is that they lived and breathed the culture they were photographing. It's easy to see when someone who doesn't skate or doesn't understand skateboarding is behind the camera - they've got the wrong angle, wrong timing, wrong everything. Autofocus and autoexposure can only get you so far.

I feel that if you're a sports photographer, you've got to become a kind of cultural anthropologist to get the 'good stuff'. Anthropology has a style of information gathering called participant observation, where the anthropologist enters the target community and embeds themselves in it, participating in its ways, rituals and traditions. It leads to a deep understanding (hopefully) of the community and therefore accurate data. While I don't directly participate in the sports of my subjects, I'm with them often enough to form friendships as well as understanding of their sports. This leads to a lot of trust, where they can feel free to just do what they do while I capture their moments. Sometimes they playfully mug for the camera, but most times they just work as if I'm not even there.

 

[phofseth]

Despite being a confirmed neoluddist. I do not miss the many times I exposed on the steel shutter blade in front of the film sheet of my Linhof. But i still do resent the buttonry and automatisms of my currrent Nikon Z that keep sabotaging my efforts to focus and expose correctly. The shutter- time and focus helix controls of the mechanical Leitz products never tried to override my decisions. Admittedly auto lightmetering governing exposure time is a welcome advance as long as the spotmetering point stays in a predictable place and shake reduction is an adittional bonus. With digital snaps for free, inveterate multieposures when pressing wrong buttons is not as annoying as with film. As one might infer, I do not snap moving subjects nor utilize autofocus and the snaps are just for enjoying , not for sale.

p.

 

[Coldkennels]

Okay, gearhead activated. What kind of gear did he use back then?

J. Grant Brittain was a Nikon man, quite often using wide lenses, pre-focused at a set distance, and an off-camera flash held in the other hand (a bit Gilden-esque, only sat on the deck of a pool in a skatepark).

Here's a short blog where he talks about how the FM2 was a game-changer for him: How the Nikon FM2 Changed My Skate Photography

He's now usually found with a Leica of some kind - there's a lot of sightings of him out and about involve him carrying an M6 (like this one from back in 2014: The Interview ＃006 J.Grant Brittain（Photographer） | Mastered), and he's used an M240 recently, but he appears to be using a Q2 for digital work right now.

Jim Goodrich still uses Nikons - I don't know what model he preferred back in the day, but he was still using Nikon's DSLRs last time I saw him in person back in 2019. He refused to go to a mirrorless body at the time, but I don't know if the Z1 has finally won him over. Probably not. He's pretty stubborn.

 

[Leon C]

While I don't directly participate in the sports of my subjects, I'm with them often enough to form friendships as well as understanding of their sports. This leads to a lot of trust, where they can feel free to just do what they do while I capture their moments. Sometimes they playfully mug for the camera, but most times they just work as if I'm not even there.

True that, when I was with a local band in the mid 90s for 2 yrs, going everywhere with them, in the end they never even noticed I was taking pics.

 

[BillBingham2]

.......and he's used an M240 recently, but he appears to be using a Q2 for digital work right now.

.......

Not a surprise, leaf shutters sync electronic flash at all speeds (Leica Q2 top Leaf Shutter speed is 1/2,000 of a second). This silly little thing with major creativity implications (at least for me) keeps making me wonder if a Q is in my future.

B2 (;->