Let's Talk About Chimping....

[Paul Amyes]

Chimping IS the modern day equivalent of shooting a Polaroid, and boy did I go through a lot of those in the studio when shooting 5x4. However I don't trust the LCD at all for judging the exposure, I am more interested in the histogram. I think that any approach which helps you learn is valid, but remind me to check the cockpit for gaffer tape next time I fly !!!

 

[Diane B]

By the way.. note the new signature... one link to my sites:
http://www.boxedlight.com

glad you did that. I occasionally point someone to your site and having them all under one URL will be easier. I also like to browse your new 'stuff'. smile

--
Diane
-----------------------
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic

 

[MarkD53487]

When a photo editor of a a magazine, web site, etc. is choosing pictures or a family member is picking favorites, I doubt they are worrying if the person who made the picture chimped or not. All that matters is the final product unless it is a photo contest for pinhole cameras or some special criteria.

Use the tools that gets the job done for the situation and what works for you.

To sooth the non-chimpers, could we please have the next challenge for photos that were not chimped?

Mark

 

[Grogly]

and personally, I am against doing it. When I first went digital, I noticed that I spent too much time looking at the shot I just took (I think it was the novelty of digital that kept me amazed). So I turned off the display and have been happy ever after (Saves batterty life too). I shot film for 35 years, so I have a pretty good idea what I got and what I didn't get. I view the shot only when there is a break in the action or if I am using an unfamiliar technique.

Two years ago, I gave photo lessons to a teenager and I told her when she got her camera to eschew chimping; to think first before shooting and then have the confidence to know you got what you wanted. I view post-processing as my time to learn what I did right and wrong (and from my images you can see most it wrong); to me THAT is the instant feedback the digital provides.

My 2 cents...
--
Rod,
Photographic hack since 1969.

Samples of my favorite images can be found here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grogley/collections/72157600201558641/

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

and personally, I am against doing it. When I first went digital, I
noticed that I spent too much time looking at the shot I just took (I
think it was the novelty of digital that kept me amazed).

Grogly, you fell into the same trap that many do and it all falls to discipline.

So I turned
off the display and have been happy ever after (Saves batterty life
too). I shot film for 35 years, so I have a pretty good idea what I
got and what I didn't get. I view the shot only when there is a break
in the action or if I am using an unfamiliar technique.

I do not chimp after every shot but under certain lighting situations it is better to chimp a bit and get it right than to walk away thinking I got the shot when I did not.

Two years ago, I gave photo lessons to a teenager and I told her when
she got her camera to eschew chimping; to think first before shooting
and then have the confidence to know you got what you wanted. I view
post-processing as my time to learn what I did right and wrong (and
from my images you can see most it wrong); to me THAT is the instant
feedback the digital provides.

The advice you gave the teenager is correct. Everyone should think about the shot, compose, frame, etc... but there are times when your method will result in dissappointment when you get the photos into post and you discover that what you captured was not the best it could have been. If that has never happened to you then you, sir, are a Master Photographer and I envy your abilities.

I would prefer to chimp a bit because, as you know, you can not always revisit. The light is not always the same. The subject may no longer be available and finding out that one did not get the shot in post is akin to never taking the shot in the first place. It's not ALL about learning.. sometimes it's making sure you did, in fact, get the shot which you will never have an opprotunity to get again.

--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
http://www.oceona.com

The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear.... and remember, a camera is a tool, not a religion.

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

This post pretty much sums it all up, well said.
And anyway, it's a personal choice and depends on the circumstances.

Exactly.. and why should anyone deride a photographer for using his tools in the manner that works best for him? Chimping is not a bad thing.. the photo review on the LCD is simply another tool that digital offers a photographer.

I can remember when shooting film I often wondered if I had gotten the shot. Sometimes I did, sometimes I did not and on those occasions when I did not I would have benefitted from the ability to see what I did wrong... we learn from our mistakes. Today that learning process is sped up thanks to digital.
--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
http://www.oceona.com

The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear.... and remember, a camera is a tool, not a religion.

 

[Bo Lorentzen]

Stovall,

LOL...mine taped my two fingers together so I could only fly with two fingers, he felt I had too firm a grip on the stick. he was also into the taping of the instruments thing... really puts the pilot in touch with the sound and feelings of the airframe.

That said, I used to use Polaroid in studio and on location, even though I both own and use a great lightmeter. I think using a couple of frames to get a idea of a light setup or simply how the light in the church photographs, is a good idea.

However I also firmly believe that checking each exposure is a big distraction and should be avoided.. hey we have plenty of time to delete bad frames when the music stops.

Bo

DOWNLOAD template for handcoding M lenses

http://bophoto.typepad.com/bophoto/2009/01/m8-coder-simple-manual-handcoding-of-m-lenses.html

Random d-lux4 images - http://bophoto.zenfolio.com/p978526368
Experimental blog - http://www.bophoto.typepad.com
http://www.bophoto.com/panos

 

[WC Wood]

--Be honest, anti-chimpers. Those of us who shot film for years would have loved to view our shots right after taking them if we somehow could.

BTW - I'm guessing that, after making his point, Stovall's flight instructor removed the tape so his student could view the instruments to get the greatest advantage in flying his aircraft.

W.C.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29320396@N05/show/
Digilux 2
FZ18
'I want the frim fram sauce, with the ossenfay, and sha fa-fa on the side.'

• Frim Fram Sauce', recorded by Nat King Cole

 

[Grogly]

Jim,

The advice you gave the teenager is correct. Everyone should think
about the shot, compose, frame, etc... but there are times when your
method will result in dissappointment when you get the photos into
post and you discover that what you captured was not the best it
could have been. If that has never happened to you then you, sir, are
a Master Photographer and I envy your abilities.

Master photographer??? Hahaha! I don't even consider myself a photographer but merely a shooter of what I see. I may have other enviable abilities but photography is not one of them. My method more often than not leads to disappointment but I use those lessons to learn. Since I shoot for my own pleasure, there is nothing riding on the result other than more bad snapshots to add to my collection.

Note, I always shoot RAW and fix what I can later, levels, noise, saturation and cropping are my tools to correct my mistakes.

Thanks for the good laugh Jim!

--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
http://www.oceona.com

The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear.... and
remember, a camera is a tool, not a religion.

--
Rod,
Photographic hack since 1969.

Samples of my favorite images can be found here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grogley/collections/72157600201558641/

 

[Grogly]

Yes, I would probably do more if I was just learning. But I also know my sloppy technique can be fixed after the fact, and my shoot style is more about the moment and thus, I tolerate photographic anomalies that most of the others in these forums abhor, like out-of-focus or blurred, ill composed, poorly exposed, blown highlights; all of which I am guilty of doing.

When I am in the moment, I just don't want to be bothered with chimping.
--
Rod,
Photographic hack since 1969.

Samples of my favorite images can be found here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grogley/collections/72157600201558641/

 

[ljclark]

If you go back to the origin of the term, there was no live view. All you could see was what you already shot.

The term was especially prevalent among sports shooters, who would chimp away on the sidelines between plays (for those who shot events that had more set action intervals).

News and sports photographers started shooting digital with cameras that had no display...So the later advent of cameras that DID have LCDs was quite something. Thus they would either cluster around someone who was chimping, or the "chimper" would furtively chimp. Amongst sport shooters, it was not uncommon to post a picture of a fellow shooter caught in the act of chimping.

Hardly being pedantic... If you had been shooting pro sports earlier in this century you would have seen this up close, or even participated in it directly.

ljclark, sounds a bit pedantic to me: the word "chimping", as much as
I hate it, comes from the image of a chimp holding up a camera in
front of him, which is the action used whether framing and reviewing
a picture. And the idea of "compulsive" has nothing to do with it.

 

[markE59102]

Exactly.. and why should anyone deride a photographer for using his
tools in the manner that works best for him? Chimping is not a bad
thing..

Jim, you obviously use chimping in a construtctive way. Don't worry so much about it!

--

• markE

http://www.pbase.com/marke

'Good street/wildlife photography is a controlled accident,
a vision of preparation and surrender materialized.'

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

Exactly.. and why should anyone deride a photographer for using his
tools in the manner that works best for him? Chimping is not a bad
thing..

Jim, you obviously use chimping in a construtctive way. Don't worry
so much about it!

I don't worry about it at all.. but there is no need for those new to the forum or new to digital to get the impression from some died-in-the-wool film guys that it is a bad thing and serves no purpose.

Nothing said on this or any other forum "worries" me. I just don't like bad information beeing posted.

--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
http://www.oceona.com

The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear.... and remember, a camera is a tool, not a religion.

 

[markE59102]

there is no need for those new to
the forum or new to digital to get the impression from some
died-in-the-wool film guys that it is a bad thing and serves no
purpose.

You're right about that. There's no doubt about it that the ability to chimp is probably one of digital's biggest advantages. My first digital camera didn't even have an LCD, and I remember shooting while in an awkward squatting position, precariously balancing on some river rocks to get a water-level macro shot. Oh, to have a swivel LCD back then!

As important as it is to encourage others to realize how useful chimping can be, I think it's just as important to offer HOW to use chimping effectively and not allow one to become sloppy. And I have to say that when I've read through this thread, you have offered a healthy perspective on it's use.

--

• markE

http://www.pbase.com/marke

'Good street/wildlife photography is a controlled accident,
a vision of preparation and surrender materialized.'

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

there is no need for those new to
the forum or new to digital to get the impression from some
died-in-the-wool film guys that it is a bad thing and serves no
purpose.

You're right about that. There's no doubt about it that the ability
to chimp is probably one of digital's biggest advantages. My first
digital camera didn't even have an LCD, and I remember shooting while
in an awkward squatting position, precariously balancing on some
river rocks to get a water-level macro shot. Oh, to have a swivel LCD
back then!

As important as it is to encourage others to realize how useful
chimping can be, I think it's just as important to offer HOW to use
chimping effectively and not allow one to become sloppy. And I have
to say that when I've read through this thread, you have offered a
healthy perspective on it's use.

I always have an issue when someone says no to such a useful and informative option... most people, when they get their first digital camera, will look at every shot but this soon stops. And if they are a serious hobbyist or amateur, they then begin to use that shot review as a learning tool... and as they get better there is less and less need to chimp.. but it's always there if you need it... a great digital tool for amateur and pro alike.

I learned more in the first three months of using my Canon D30 than I did in all my previous years of using film.. and that was a lot. So for someone to say to tape up the LCD... they might as well say.. Tape up your eyes and shoot blind.

This ain't Star Wars and you will NOT feel the Force, young Skywalker.

--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
http://www.oceona.com

The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear.... and remember, a camera is a tool, not a religion.

 

[Dan Nikon]

First, let me qualify what I am about to write by saying that I have used digital professionally for over 14 years and I love what it has finally become....but...

I find only one thing more liberating than not being distracted by the LCD screen when I shoot Kodachrome. One thing is more powerful than making the image in full confidence of ability and moving on in life...

And that one thing is getting the film back and having my confidence in ability fully validated in what I see on the light table..
--

'Digital is like shaved legs on a man - very smooth and clean but there is something
acutely disconcerting about it.'

 

[Dan Nikon]

I learned more in the first three months of using my Canon D30 than I
did in all my previous years of using film.. and that was a lot.

Interesting, I learned more in my 34 years of shooting film than I ever did in shooting 14 years of digital..

This ain't Star Wars and you will NOT feel the Force, young Skywalker.

I use it everyday, can nail the exposure of a scene within a 1/2 stop without a meter. I just don't need the LCD to become a better photographer, I can really read light.

--

'Digital is like shaved legs on a man - very smooth and clean but there is something
acutely disconcerting about it.'

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

I learned more in the first three months of using my Canon D30 than I
did in all my previous years of using film.. and that was a lot.

Interesting, I learned more in my 34 years of shooting film than I
ever did in shooting 14 years of digital..

This ain't Star Wars and you will NOT feel the Force, young Skywalker.

I use it everyday, can nail the exposure of a scene within a 1/2 stop
without a meter. I just don't need the LCD to become a better
photographer, I can really read light.

Then you must be a Jedi Knight... congratulations... most here do not have 34 years of experience shooting film... and frankly, after shooting for 34 years you should not have much to learn.. so I am not surprised by your statements and they make sense...

Let's face it, if you didn't learn how to read the light in 34 years.. you chose the wrong profession.. and of course this means your 17 years with digital has no real bearing at all on the subject because you do not need to chimp and there is no benefit to you. Those who are learning are another case.

--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
http://www.oceona.com

The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear.... and remember, a camera is a tool, not a religion.

 

[MarkD53487]

You've really done it starting this thread Jim. To sum up those against:

LCD, I don't need no stinkin' LCD.

and

Real men and tuff women only shoot film.

Look at the motorcycle picture at the bottom of this page:

http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2009/archives/3510

If I was the photographer, I would be looking at the LCD right after I shot this unless the AD grabbed the camera out of my hand.

Mark

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

You've really done it starting this thread Jim. To sum up those
against:

LCD, I don't need no stinkin' LCD.

and

Real men and tuff women only shoot film.

I know, it was predictable and somewhat pathetic...kind of like the old school business guys having to deal with new fangled computers and software..

It doesn't matter if you chimp or not is the real point... the fact that one individual finds chimping to be a negative and the mark of a newbie only affects that individual, not those using the tools and learning from them.

Most of these old school guys would have you believe they use no AF, no metering, etc.. they just grind everything by hand.... You see, I can remember when many cameras had no meter at all... then they added meters and well.. some thought that was cheating.. the mark of newbie. Other accepted it for what it was, a blessing and technology that allowed for proper exposure.

There will always be the few who reject progress and believe that their way is the only way.

What's that line from the Rolling Stones, Satisfaction? He can't be a man because he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me.....
--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
http://www.oceona.com

The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear.... and remember, a camera is a tool, not a religion.