emraphoto
Veteran
Indeed. Answer is... Depends
BillBingham2
Registered User
Sadly it's more than just two directions. They have how they feel about what is the right thing to do. If your training and the bosses say shoot and you don't want to....
I haven't shot any sports in many years. Never had a motor drive, always anticipated the action, pre-focused when I could. Missed a lot of shots, got a few. I look at some of the shots I see today and wonder if it's a camera taking XX frames per second or if it's a single shot.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the spray approach, lots of competition out there. I'd be using it if I was looking to make a buck that way.
B2 (;->
Tim Murphy
Well-known
I photograph mostly birds and wildlife
I photograph mostly birds and wildlife
Dear Chip,
Based on what I choose to photograph I'd have to be an idiot not to use a camera with a motor drive, or even better yet, a digital camera.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA
I photograph mostly birds and wildlife
Dear Chip,
Based on what I choose to photograph I'd have to be an idiot not to use a camera with a motor drive, or even better yet, a digital camera.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA
That`s still not spraying and praying... spraying and praying is using a motor drive and then hoping later you got something instead of just waiting for the right moment. He`s waiting for the right moment clearly... he is just interested in everything he is shooting.
willie_901
Veteran
Absolutely nothing about a digital camera obliges us to be thoughtless.
Absolutely nothing about a digital camera obliges us to be thoughtless.
Yes, when there are no financial consequences from making large number of images and while keeping only a small percentage. This is the only film vs digital aspect.
In my view, it's difficult to develop any sort of style if you don't invest some thought in the process. In terms of deciding when to bring the camera to my eye and press the shutter button, I use my digital cameras as I used my 35mm film cameras.
The major difference involves exposure methods.
I usually auto-aperture bracket 3 raw files per scene. I only keep the one that retains the useful highlight regions. I consider the others to be underexposed. In candid situations occasionally one of the inferior exposures will have superior content (facial expressions, etc). Then I keep that one. After that, the image selection process (editing) begins. Finally the selected rendering for the candidates is optimized.
In dynamic situations I sometimes set the camera to its native ISO setting (200 in my case). This method assumes the relative camera noise levels (read noise) do not depend on the in-camera ISO setting. I manually select the appropriate shutter and aperture. I use an OVF and focus manually via focus and recompose by using rear button AF. In post-production a mouse click brightens each raw file rendering or simultaneously brightens groups of selected images. The editing and rendering work proceeds as before. This is a film-like workflow because often the in-camera JPEGs are too dark to review in real time! Obviously you have to understand how to set up the AF parameters to eliminate focus lock on unintended objects. The advantage is you never have to look at the light meter or change the camera ISO setting. You only have to think about the shutter and, or aperture when the ambient light changes. You can concentrate all your energy on composition and when to press the shutter. Outdoors you do have to avoid sensor over exposure.
An exception was when I did sports photography gigs. Then I sprayed and prayed JPEGs. My employer decided what to post for sale. I only edited out miss-focused images or images that could embarrass the subjects.
I did a handful of weddings and group events. While I really didn't just spay and pray, I did make more than images than I would have for personal projects. But I was purposeful. It's hard to describe exactly how I decided when a shot had potential. There isn't much time to think about it – but somehow you know. This is a very different process than pseudo-randomly pressing the shutter as a robot might.
Absolutely nothing about a digital camera obliges us to be thoughtless.
Yes, when there are no financial consequences from making large number of images and while keeping only a small percentage. This is the only film vs digital aspect.
In my view, it's difficult to develop any sort of style if you don't invest some thought in the process. In terms of deciding when to bring the camera to my eye and press the shutter button, I use my digital cameras as I used my 35mm film cameras.
The major difference involves exposure methods.
I usually auto-aperture bracket 3 raw files per scene. I only keep the one that retains the useful highlight regions. I consider the others to be underexposed. In candid situations occasionally one of the inferior exposures will have superior content (facial expressions, etc). Then I keep that one. After that, the image selection process (editing) begins. Finally the selected rendering for the candidates is optimized.
In dynamic situations I sometimes set the camera to its native ISO setting (200 in my case). This method assumes the relative camera noise levels (read noise) do not depend on the in-camera ISO setting. I manually select the appropriate shutter and aperture. I use an OVF and focus manually via focus and recompose by using rear button AF. In post-production a mouse click brightens each raw file rendering or simultaneously brightens groups of selected images. The editing and rendering work proceeds as before. This is a film-like workflow because often the in-camera JPEGs are too dark to review in real time! Obviously you have to understand how to set up the AF parameters to eliminate focus lock on unintended objects. The advantage is you never have to look at the light meter or change the camera ISO setting. You only have to think about the shutter and, or aperture when the ambient light changes. You can concentrate all your energy on composition and when to press the shutter. Outdoors you do have to avoid sensor over exposure.
An exception was when I did sports photography gigs. Then I sprayed and prayed JPEGs. My employer decided what to post for sale. I only edited out miss-focused images or images that could embarrass the subjects.
I did a handful of weddings and group events. While I really didn't just spay and pray, I did make more than images than I would have for personal projects. But I was purposeful. It's hard to describe exactly how I decided when a shot had potential. There isn't much time to think about it – but somehow you know. This is a very different process than pseudo-randomly pressing the shutter as a robot might.
chipgreenberg
Well-known
Agreed. I'm not talking about skilled action photography. I had a friend who used to shoot the US Open before auto focus. /did he burn a lot of film? Sure. Was he anticipating and waiting for the right moment. Absolutely
jvo
Established
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Rob,
Back in the day (1970's) the job that was more dangerous than being a cop was being a NYC cab driver. Very high probability of getting robbed.
The NYPD makes NYC likely one of if not the most safe large city on the planet. Not an easy job. Much respect.
Cal
Ambro51
Collector/Photographer
I shot wet plate tintypes and ambrotypes at Civil War reenactments, where essentially every image took 15-20 minutes to fully complete. This careful procedure usually (when the chems were in harmony) made every shot a keeper (or rather were sold @$40-75).