Sniper or Spray and Pray

C

chipgreenberg

Well-known
Local time
7:16 PM
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
448
I was able to knock off work early yesterday afternoon and walk around Albuquerque NM Old Town with the goal of finishing a roll of film I have in my Minolta Autocord. It was a gorgeous afternoon and I did finish my roll!

I'm a sniper. As an ex still life photographer I don't shoot a lot of film. I use a tripod, compose carefully. If I don't think the image is going to give me a big smile I don't push the button. In fact I framed up twice as many images as I ended up exposing yesterday. I tried some stuff, I worked it, but ended up saying eh, and just moving on.

I had seen this guy shooting his digital Canon and ended up sitting next to him and his wife at dinner. Obviously we talked photography a bit. They were from Ohio touring the Southwest. I asked him if he got anything good.

He said, I took thousands of images and won't know until I go edit the stuff. (I really know how good my take is when I push the button)

We talked a little about our different shooting styles. What I found REALLY interesting is he told me a friend of his that teaches photography supported Pray and Spray because you never know if you have a jewel in there.

For me at east this isn't a film vs digital thing. Though digital makes Pray and Spray more viable. I have a style of work I do with my iPhone and I'm just as picky about the shots I take with that.

I didn't now shoot the images I passed on yesterday because of the fe bucks of material cost, it was more "Why bother?"
 
I got totally fed up spraying. I recall one evening returning from a classic car hill climb with 600 raw images to process. I'd spent most of the afternoon 100 yards from the start line trying to get motion blur, and frankly autofocus and the continuous shooting mode of the D700 did all the work. I couldn't load all the images as my Macbook ran out of memory and at the end of it there were 5 images in total that I liked. A month later I returned to film with a Rolleicord (no hurrying there) and totally slowed down. I still take too many, but the ratio of miss to hit is declining. I find colour film with motor drive and autofocus brings out the sprayer, whereas old cameras and black and white the sniper.
 
If a good picture is the goal then editing whatever you end up with has to happen. Sometimes having a bigger sample helps and sometimes it doesn't. How much time do you have?



Eggelston made a print of every shot he ever took. Someone else did the editing...
The last time I was in New York a couple of guys were doing street photography in the lovely early evening light. Their shutters were moving so much I think a video camera may have been a better choice. I did not envy how much editing would have to happen!


Did they get "the" shot or just "a" shot? Does it matter?
 
I've been shooting digital exclusively since 2008 but I shoot it just like I shot film. I've never filled up a card, even when I used something like a 2GB. There have been vacation trips from which I've returned with only a hundred or so images on two cameras and of those I might delete 75-80. To my thinking, I go for quality over quantity.

I've never understood the philosophy of shooting a thousand images at an event and spending hours reviewing, editing and processing them later. Too much like the old adage "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS."
 
KM-25 said:
Really poor metaphors folks, you make photographs, not "shoot" them.
Click to expand...

From my newspaper days, we photographers were called "shooters". It was a term that indicated the photographer was dedicated to his work and usually quite good at it.
 
I generally walk around and look at stuff and think to myself either no, yes or maybe; if its no I just move along if it's yes I may 1-2, or 10 frames trying different angles or compositions. If its maybe than I generally snap 1 frame and from that I can usually tell if there's something there or if I should just move on. During a short outing say 1-2 hours I may shoot between 5 and 30 frames while on an all day outing it maybe 5-100 frames it just depends. Generally I feel that I'm very selective during the initial review/edit and usually delete about 50-60% of the images that I shoot. Personally I don't think there's a right or wrong approach instead everyone just needs to find what works for them.
 
I'm much like you, Chip. Most of my successful pictures, film or digital are well composed. I consider and frame up many more potential images than I ever actually take. Even when I'm in an urban street environment where a "snapshot" aesthetic is considered correct, I don't bother pushing the shutter most of the time. Still, I'm a huge fan of Gary Winogrand who seemed to make images as he breathed - millions of images on tens of thousands of rolls of film. He edited them meticulously, picking the perfect one from a dozen rolls on any given day, but a major part of his brilliance is in the spontaneity of his image making. We see his personality and soul in those pictures. That's something my more careful approach may never have. Lately, I've been trying to make more pictures with less fuss.
 
I tend to also shoot digital like I shoot film in the sense that I think about my shot, take whatever time I have to set it up (i.e., street shots may be 50 ms, landscape scenes seconds to minutes), compose, get the exposure I like (with visual feedback is nice), then shoot it. The difference with digital is I might take an extra shot or two more often, and I may be more open to taking a shot that with film, I may have let go. So with digital my volume of images is higher, but not by huge multiples, maybe 1.5-4 times what I would get with film for a given outing.

I do remember the big bulk film backs in the 1970s and 80s. That was the film version of pray and spray! I think for sports photographers and photojournalists (who wanted to get that one special expression on a hated politician for instance) this made sense.
 
Am keeping my cameras on continuous shooting, at their slowest pace (which is still more than plentiful). Am usually shooting one shot per scene but if situation warrants, sometimes burst of 5-6 max. Agony am trying avoid is going through all those near identical shots and delete most of them.
 
I kinda shoot like a hitman: three round bursts whether film or digital.

I studied Diane Arbus's contact sheet, the one of the little boy playing in Central Park with a grenade. She shot 12 shots in a Rollieflex for this image.

First off no duplicate shots. Both she and the subject were moving and interacting like they were sparing or dancing. The shot that made the edit was not in the beginning nor the end.

In editing of three shots generally one is better or more interesting than the other two. Three shots are not a lot, and I like the process.

How many times have I shot my Fashion Blogger girl and I catch her with eyes closed or some other defect that ruins the shot? Also know that generally these shots involve movement and sometimes magic happens. Realize that I am moving as well as the model in most cases.

In real life if you suffer a gunshot and are not hit in a vital organ you basically have two hours before you bleed out, and you have about an 80% chance of surviving.

The inverse is true: if you get shot twice in non vital areas you only have about a 20% chance of surviving.

In my shooting I increase the odds of a "kill" by using three-round bursts.

In gunshots multiple shots increase the chance of death.

Hitman tend to ensure a kill by three shots: Chest, stomach, and lastly a head shot.

Cal
 
I make a lot of photos... but I walk around a lot and photograph many different things. Sometimes, something happens so quickly that I`m making a few photos in a row and then praying...and most of the time I am in control waiting for the right moment. BUT I never use continuous frames... I`m always in single shot mode. But I`ve mashed the shutter button on occasion. For me, compelling framing, nice light, and something compelling within the frame are the most important parts of photography. If I had to mash the button to get a great shot, I`m ok with it on occasion. I prefer not to. However, you cannot always be in complete control... that would be boring.
 
I forgot some of my video training where I "Martini Glass."

In grad school you first get the wide "cover shot;" than you move closer and get tighter; and lastly a detailed close-up.

In street photography this also applies. The above training I got doing ENG (Electronic News Gathering) making "packages" to tell a news story that would be assembled into a 1 1/2 minute story broadcast on Long Island Cable.

Motion picture film crews also work this way.

Wide, closer, then detailed close-up.

Again three different shots.

Cal
 
There are times when spray and pray works and times when waiting for a single shot is best. Almost all my work is digital now and I tend to shoot, as said above, in three shot bursts. Film work is slower, but if I'm not careful, I can quickly run through a roll with a motorized F3. For the ultimate slowdown, a Leica IIIa. Usually, I get more keepers when I shoot slowly, but at a basketball game, I take a lot of shots.
 
I'm another one that shoots digital the same as film. There are no winders on my film cameras, although the use of one is good for sports. Also I'm not fond of spending a lot of time at the computer pouring over hundreds of images looking for keepers. I know whats on the film or card before getting home to process them.

It is different for some pros. I recall in the eighties my Father and Stepmother were models for hotel ads. The photographer took hundreds of chromes to get the two or three for the ad. That's lots of time over the light table with a loupe.
 
Greg Maslak said:
I'm much like you, Chip. Most of my successful pictures, film or digital are well composed. I consider and frame up many more potential images than I ever actually take. Even when I'm in an urban street environment where a "snapshot" aesthetic is considered correct, I don't bother pushing the shutter most of the time. Still, I'm a huge fan of Gary Winogrand who seemed to make images as he breathed - millions of images on tens of thousands of rolls of film. He edited them meticulously, picking the perfect one from a dozen rolls on any given day, but a major part of his brilliance is in the spontaneity of his image making. We see his personality and soul in those pictures. That's something my more careful approach may never have. Lately, I've been trying to make more pictures with less fuss.
Click to expand...

I like Winogrand too. He took tons of pictures but he was in a category where I don't think "spray" is applicable. I have a book that shows a couple of his contact sheets, and pretty much every picture on the contact sheet is good, composed (his seemingly spontaneous snapshot compositions are actually very tough to do in an interesting way, and he talked of learning about composition from Robert Frank), and shows acute observational genius, even if only a tiny fraction was published. You can pretty much close your eyes, do a random blind selection, and get a viable gallery show. I would pay good money for a book consisting of any random sprinkling of Winogrand's contact sheets, if someone ever were to publish one.

I know Szarkowski accused him of spraying in his later work. However, from what I have seen of it his later work was just as good or even better, simply different (in a less exuberant mood than Szarkowski might have liked, I think).
 
olifaunt said:
I like Winogrand too. He took tons of pictures but he was in a category where I don't think "spray" is applicable. I have a book that shows a couple of his contact sheets, and pretty much every picture on the contact sheet is good, composed (his seemingly spontaneous snapshot compositions are actually very tough to do in an interesting way, and he talked of learning about composition from Robert Frank), and shows acute observational genius, even if only a tiny fraction was published. You can pretty much close your eyes, do a random blind selection, and get a viable gallery show. I would pay good money for a book consisting of any random sprinkling of Winogrand's contact sheets, if someone ever were to publish one.

I know Szarkowski accused him of spraying in his later work. However, from what I have seen of it his later work was just as good or even better, simply different (in a less exuberant mood than Szarkowski might have liked, I think).
Click to expand...

You might know this book already but "Garry Winogrand/edited by Leo Rubinfien for SF MOMA" is comprehensive with photos from the contact sheets Winogrand never saw. It demonstrates your insights well. Also, check out Jeff Wall talking about Winogrand. He explores the idea of being in the event or "happening" of the photograph as what Winogrand was doing especially later in his life.

https://davidcampany.com/the-domain-of-occurrence-in-conversation-with-jeff-wall/
 
Dogman said:
From my newspaper days, we photographers were called "shooters". It was a term that indicated the photographer was dedicated to his work and usually quite good at it.
Click to expand...

I remember covering a Clinton speech in Wichita KS for regional AP. We were setup on the back riser with long glass, secret service all around and this young buck blurts out, "I can't believe I get to shoot the president!". Secret service then motioned for him to come over so they could have a chat.

It's time to lose the term "Shooter", it has never been a good one. I still make photographs for the New York Times by the way...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom