Don't be a "Machine Gunner"

[Derrel]

Well, the first three songs are likely to mean 12 minutes or less, whereas a 150-minute "talking event" is much longer. Three- and four-second bursts of people talking, or people clapping, are unlikely to yield much that is truly exceptional. On mostly-static events, like people talking at podiums, or audience members clapping, the "action" is not going to change all that much over three or four seconds.

If a flight full of hurdlers in the 110 meter hurdles is approaching a photographer stationed 10 yards behind the finish line, then YES, in three to four seconds there will be multiple types of shots...in-between hurdles, going over, in-between, hurdling, in between, and then going over hurdles. In pole vaulting, you'll get approach, plant,pull,approaching the top of the vault,crossing the bar, pushing the pole away,clean vault or bar knocked off, descent, and impact on the landing pad, and triumph or despair, all in a little more than three seconds. Sometimes shooting across the span of three or four or even five or ten seconds of real,actual,dynamic action makes total sense. If there is a LOT of rapidly-changing action that can make a decent image if the framing is right and the focus is good, burst away and work it as best as you can with your skill set. In other situations, the peak of action exists for only a fraction of a second, and neither the before nor the after are really worth seeing. In baseball, the ball-on-bat is an example. Six FPS is wayyyy too slow to capture anything like ball on bat just by mashing down on the trigger; it is all about the timing the shooter has. At least until you move into the realllllly fast-firing cameras at 20 to 60 FPS.

There is a big difference between being able to actually time a shot and blindly mashing on the shutter for three to four seconds and HOPING that somehow, something interesting occurs. There are also plenty of situations where extended sequential action is best shot using a deep buffer and shooting things "as they unfold". There is composing and firing and working the action while shooting genuine sequential action, and there is zombie-like, blind, ignorant holding down of shutter buttons on basically static scenes.

 

[Overread]

And we are agreeing with you in so much that many of us will use burst mode - or will use a controlled short series of shots at the key moment. What we are disagreeing with is the extreme view of when a person is gunning every shot into the extreme as their primary method of shooting.

 

[Tegan Payton]

You know, it's funny that you posted about this. I'm a pretty novice photographer-- that is, maybe one day I'll photograph for money, or not. Just a nice hobby for me.

I bought a digital camera to take on a trip (since mine is still packed up at Ft. Hood), and figured I'd take some photos. I recall many, many novice photographers (like my self), spraying and praying. But, with my son and my sister, I decidedly just took my time. I did "feel like" I wasn't doing it right since I wasn't shooting quickly..
But after reading this, I do feel a bit better for focusing on what I wanted, rather than running and gunning it.
I took 21 of my sister..was able to quickly whittle down to 11.

 

[hamlet]

I only use continues burst mode when i cannot predict my subjects movement. Otherwise if it is on burst mode, it is probably by accident.

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

There is a big difference between being able to actually time a shot and blindly mashing on the shutter for three to four seconds and HOPING that somehow, something interesting occurs.

Obviously. I can't say I know anyone who would shoot someone speaking at a lectern and blaze away in burst mode for 20 seconds at a time. That seems insane to me and, evidently, to you, as well.

But if someone "mashes the shutter" and gets "the" shot they need, well, then a strong argument can be made that mashing the shutter works. It doesn't work for you or me, but if it works for someone else, we're really in no position to take exception to how they shoot.

If they need a shot which is realized with that method, more power to them.

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

What we are disagreeing with is the extreme view of when a person is gunning every shot into the extreme as their primary method of shooting.

What matters are the results.

I think it's crazy for someone to shoot 1,000 photos of the Foo Fighters in just three songs. To me, that's absolutely insane. But, if someone does that, and one of those 1,000 photos lands on the cover of Rolling Stone, well, I'm really in no position to criticize.

 

[Overread]

What matters are the results.

Yes and No.

From one perspective the control over the camera doesn't matter - that you got THE shot is what counts.


From another perspective using a method and promoting a method that is not practical nor necessarily reliable isn't good practice. That you're on a forum that focuses greatly around education and the sharing and furthering of members knowledge within the field of photography means that you're going to get people who will totally agree that if you got the shot that's fantastic - but still there are better and more effective ways to shoot such an event.

Heck with several thousand shots its very easy that THE shot could simply get lost in the sea of other shots.

 

[imagemaker46]

There are always reasons for shooting more than one frame, I don't consider anyone shooting 4-5 frames in a burst as overshooting. I consider someone that is shooting 20-30 frames in a burst as overshooting, however there will always be circumstances when it makes a difference. Using a mid range camera that allows less than 5fps will help keep the numbers down for the sprayers, the same person using a high end 12fps camera is going to spent a lot of time deleting useless images in front of the computer.

When shooting sports, understanding the sport, and timing is the key to the best images. Then you can factor in luck, which shouldn't be overlooked.

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

What matters are the results.

Yes and No.

For all practical purposes, photography is about the image. With regards to that, the results are, in fact, what matters more than anything else.

From another perspective using a method and promoting a method that is not practical nor necessarily reliable isn't good practice.

This would matter, I suppose, to a photography professor. It's simply a nice thought in the real world. In fact, if someone is trying to get a particular shot while paying an over-abundance of time and care to composition and timing, and still is unable to get the shot, I would say it's time to put it in burst and fire away. Hell, the other way isn't working, and it's, according to some, the "right" way to shoot.

You do what works for you. If you're not doing that, you're going about it wrong.

That you're on a forum that focuses greatly around education and the sharing and furthering of members knowledge within the field of photography means that you're going to get people who will totally agree that if you got the shot that's fantastic - but still there are better and more effective ways to shoot such an event.

As I said, I agree with regards to someone speaking on a stage in a static position. But for a musician, or a motorcycle, or a race boat, or a Blue Angel, well, the rules mean less when following rules keeps you from getting the shot.

Heck with several thousand shots its very easy that THE shot could simply get lost in the sea of other shots.

And that means exactly nothing if the photo isn't lost.

Again, I'm not promoting it as the thing to do all the time. But it absolutely has its time and place.

 

[imagemaker46]

My comments come from a background of shooting film, getting what was required in 30 frames and not having time to change rolls was the difference between success and fail. Now with digital and working for Reuters or Canadian Press wire services where the best and first image that goes out gets used, having to sift through hundreds of images, or having a photo editor going through them, you have to produce great images in a very short time, and in the least amount of frames. It doesn't matter if it's someone standing at a podium speaking, motorcycle racing, football or a royal wedding, fewer images is better and if it takes hundreds to get one, find a new job, this is fact.

The photographers that overshoot, don't work.

Working an event where there was no pressure or stress and you have all kinds of time, then sure spray away.

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

The photographers that overshoot, don't work.

And yet, oddly, the woman spoken of in the OP; the one who was overshooting, was working.

 

[imagemaker46]

You have not understood anything that I said in my last post. I seriously doubt she was working for a wire service where turning out a high quality image as quick as possible in as few frames possible is necessary. If she was blasting out as many frames as was stated she would not be working for a wire service. As I clearly said, I have based what I have said from my experience working for a wire service.

 

[tirediron]

Fin...