Camera operators

[John Camp]

This is a follow-up on the "New Behemoth" thread. There was some discontent expressed toward the end of that thread, about the harshness of some of the opinions, and if that came through from me, I apologize.

In any case, I *was* a bit bothered by the new Canon, and after thinking about it, came up with a reason why. As a rangefinder shooter and even as an SLR shooter, I sort of thought of myself as a "photographer," amateur and sometimes semi-pro, but basically involved in an art form or a documentary form or a reportorial form, in which I had to make a lot of decisions and show some skill.

So on the second page of the Behemoth thread, there's a photo of a bunch of guys with huge DSLRs and even huger lenses, with big heavy monopods, all restricted to a photography pen, all pretty much dressed the same way, and most of whom couldn't move much if they wanted to, not only because of race-track restrictions (I think they were shooting at a track) but because they were carrying so much weight that they couldn't move, even if they had a chance.

So you have somebody who stands next to a whole bunch of other people with the same cameras and lenses and point of view doing...what?

It seems to me that this is much closer to what a TV cameraman does than what we usually think a "photographer" does. Given the conditions and the distances and the lenses, you don't even have much choice of exposure: you just point the thing and bang away. So I see why you need ten frames per second for a hundred frames -- you can shoot everything, and pick later.

Or, somebody else can pick later -- and eliminate even that photographic function. With a cell phone connection, the photogapher might not even get to see the shots that he makes -- they could simply be shipped to an editing desk, and when you get a good enough shot from one point of view, the editor could move the camerman to another permitted point of view to operate the camera from there,, like a chessman, or a robot.

In fact, somebody was pleased by all the remote capabilities eof the Canon -- so why not just mount one camera on a post, pointed at the track, operated from a remote editing terminal at the AP desk? Get rid of that expensive photographer altogether, replacing him with a gopher "camera mounter."

Couldn't do that with film, of course. You have to trust the photographer to get it right. Can't do it with a more limited camera like the M8, either.

I guess what I'm saying is that a camera like the new Canon takes us another step closer to the elimination of the skilled photographer, and moves the once-valued professional photographer more into the role of "camera operator."

JC

 

[tedwhite]

I shoot digital for clients (business) and reportage (free-lance) and film for myself. I have a studio and a darkroom, so film is easy and cheap. When I shoot people in studio I try and talk them into b/w film with my Rolleiflex. Most go for it.

 

[Kin Lau]

In fact, somebody was pleased by all the remote capabilities eof the Canon -- so why not just mount one camera on a post, pointed at the track, operated from a remote editing terminal at the AP desk? Get rid of that expensive photographer altogether, replacing him with a gopher "camera mounter."

Couldn't do that with film, of course. You have to trust the photographer to get it right. Can't do it with a more limited camera like the M8, either.

I guess what I'm saying is that a camera like the new Canon takes us another step closer to the elimination of the skilled photographer, and moves the once-valued professional photographer more into the role of "camera operator."

JC

Go check over on SI.com (Sports Illustrated) and read some of the articles from some of the photographers. They've been using remote cameras for _years_ already, including film cameras, even Hassy's. There are many places where you're simply _not_allowed_ to be, but remote cameras are allowed.

The other problem I have with some of the assumptions being made, is that sports and wildlife photography is "easy", Just point and fire and let the 10fps take care of it.

Anticipation and reaction time is very important with sports and wildlife/bird shooting. You need your system to be able to keep up with you, not slow you down. With a pro level camera + fast tele lens (this 2nd part is very important), you can AF 100x to 1000x times faster than what would be possible with manual focus.

At the wide to normal focal lengths, it's harder to notice the difference. At 200mm and greater, you need the speed to be able to handle an event that occurs in less than a 1/2 sec.

I have numerous shots of birds where the action happened and was gone in about 1 second total.

Even with a whole line of photogs at a sporting event, the action might be in more than 1place, or move _very_ quickly. There are actions and reactions from other players on and off the court/field, before and after the play. In a race, you have _all_ of the participants to watch, and anything can happen anytime.

Just think of how fast things happen in an American football game, the snap, pass and reception are all in a matter of seconds. What exactly is the decisive moment? The snap? fumble? throw? tackle? catch? interception? dodging the defense? the late hit? It's not that simple. Most of us would fail miserably if we were put in that situation. What was the pivotal play of the game, perhaps the winning field goal, the interception, the fumble, the missed touchdown? You won't know till the end, and if you missed it, you failed. It wouldn't matter how many other "great shots" you got. That wouldn't be a very good time for a "buffer full" message would it? It's not hard to see why SI has a whole team shooting an important game.

ps. don't let one of the TV guys get a hold of you with that "camera operator" remark.

 

[MadMan2k]

Good point. There isn't much creative control when it comes to shooting (professional field) sports, it's all about getting a well-timed and composed picture to illustrate an article.

Action sports like BMX and skateboarding allow a lot more control, and most of those photographers bring whole sets of portable lighting to light up the subject and the location and create a good photo even when there's no natural light.

Cameras like that Canon can be useful in action sports. Usually they will just get one shot, but sometimes they shoot sequences with motor drives and then print all of the shots in the sequence in the magazine so that you can see the whole trick the rider did, almost like a video clip. Fast framerates help with that, since there's less gaps in the motion, and most video cameras don't have the resolution and quality for print. They usually use the best-timed photo as a full page and the rest on the opposing page. With a pretty beefy flash system, I think you can still sync at 10fps, and it's probably more portable than a set of continous lights and a generator (which video guys do use on location when they need to...)

I like the idea of the remote capabilites, but I found out that the transmitter device costs an extra grand, so I doubt I'd spring for that unless I had a real need for it.

 

[ywenz]

John Camp: You have a flawed assesment in my opinon. There are way more intangible photographic skills possesed by the good sports shooters than you give them credit for. Check out some amazing photos on this

http://www.sportsshooter.com/2006_contest_winners/index.html

http://www.sportsshooter.com/contest/clip/index.html

In fact, I would go as far as saying that it takes a much more skilled/creative photographer to capture an amazing sport image than it takes for a street photographer to capture an amazing image, simply because of the limited possibilities of actions that take place on the field.

As a matter of fact, most of the "shoot from the hip" street shooters all capture the same type of repetitive shots so what is the point of them? Should one value their decision making in capturing a crappy street shot more than the 5th (out of 10) "superb" image captured by the Canon 1DMKIII when the sport shooter pressed the shutter for 1 second? My vote is for the better image.

The new Canon allows skilled photographers more ease in capturig that "decisive moment" (RFers should understand this right?). A camera like the M8 will not capture the same type of moment nearly as well due to limitations unique to that camera. After all, the goal of photography is simply to capture a moment in time.

 

[John Camp]

John Camp: You have a flawed assesment in my opinon. There are way more intangible photographic skills possesed by the good sports shooters than you give them credit for. Check out some amazing photos on this site: http://www.sportsshooter.com/special_feature/index.html

In fact, I would go as far as saying that it takes a much more skilled/creative photographer to capture an amazing sport image than it takes for a street photographer to capture an amazing image, simply because of the limited possibilities of actions that take place on the field.

As a matter of fact, most of the "shoot from the hip" street shooters all capture the same type of repetitive shots what is the point of them?

There'll always be premium photographers who shoot better photos than their competitors, and there'll always be some circumstances in which the better photogapher wins out. But if you look particularly at those guys in the photo pen, all with the same equipment and the same restricted point of view, what is one going to get that the others won't, that isn't purely a matter of chance? If the photogaphers wre allowed to roam anywhere on the track, it'd be a different situation; but they're not. I say those guys are essentially human robots, there to push a button; that you could train a guy to do that job in an hour or so. You have auto-focus, you have auto-expsoure, you have one lens, you have one point of view.

If you're documenting a free-form sport like skating, where you're actually moving with the skaters, that's different. But look at the sidelines in pro or major-college football, or the photo area in basketball or hockey -- one of the reasons you see all those guys bunched together with their long Canon lenses is because...they're all bunched together. The reason that they don't have different lenses is because one lens is the right one for the distance they're shooting. Look at the sport shots that get printed in the papers. They're all the same. When was the last time you saw a sports shot in the newspaper and said, "Gee, that's really art"?

Essentially, I'm arguing that the features that make the new Canon a hot camera are the features that an artist most likely wouldn't use; they are the features used by people who know how to push a button.

JC

 

[ywenz]

Essentially, I'm arguing that the features that make the new Canon a hot camera are the features that an artist most likely wouldn't use; they are the features used by people who know how to push a button.

Incorrect, once again. You are giving "artist" the definition that you see fit. Check out the work from a "button pusher" as you would call him:

http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=341

I see the elitist RF users movement is alive and well.

 

[Kin Lau]

Essentially, I'm arguing that the features that make the new Canon a hot camera are the features that an artist most likely wouldn't use; they are the features used by people who know how to push a button.

In other words, you can't tell the difference. Doesn't mean others cannot.

Not everyone "gets" street photography or still-life or landscapes or abstracts or sports or wildlife.

Within those specialties, many are very skilled in the nuances of those types of photography. In the wildlife and nature photography community, many of the best are very eager for this new tool, because it will make it easier to get the shot that they are seeking.

I know that many features and characteristics of some of the best nature shots are not noticed by most people... it's just a "nice pic". Those who are familiar with that genre will look at it and their jaws will drop because they appreciate all the factors that need to come together to make that photo.

 

[John Camp]

Incorrect, once again. You are giving "artist" the definition that you see fit. Check out the work from a "button pusher" as you would call him:

http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=341

I see the elitist RF users movement is alive and well.

Nevermind.

JC

 

[tedwhite]

I watched Tom Vezo, the noted bird photographer, work one day at the San Pedro House (I occasionally manage the place). He had come that day because he heard of a particularly rare bird that had been sighted in the area. He had a huge Canon DSLR with an equally huge white lens. Sat in a folding chair, camera on tripod, and waited several hours, lens pointed at a tree near our bird feeder. The bird eventually came to the tree and he filled up a 1 gig card shooting RAW.

I was quite impressed at his patience. When later I saw the images I realized I had been watching a true pro at work. I asked him why he chose a Canon and he said, simply, "It does what I want it to do."

When I asked him how much the lens cost and he told me, I had to sit down. I can't recall the price, but it was in the thousands of dollars. Having said that, when many of the best-selling bird books have a Tom Vezo photograph on their covers, one can see how the price is justified.

I know nothing about Canon cameras and have never owned anything Canon, with the exception of a 50/1.8 LTM lens I got recently from Frank S, so I'm not proselitizing for Canon.

As for me, I'm sticking with my Pentax DSLR and my Pentax SLR film cameras, because they do what I want them to do, and I'm too old to learn another system.

 

[RayPA]

Why do this again? If you're "bothered" by the new Canon DSLR then deal with it. If you're looking for reinforcement or a consensus to justify being bothered by a camera, then that quest is just gonna replicate the other threads "discontent."

it's__just__a__camera.

if you feel more artistic or creative by not using it then fine, but to say that someone is less of a photographer, or less creative, because of the tool in their hands is absurd and a totally ignorant point-of-view. A lot of folks here use and own both RFs and DSLRs, all you're going to end up doing is offend people. Ywenz is right this is all coming off as RF/Film elitist snobbery.



.