Question for pro news photographers

[russianbare1977]

Hi all,

Long first post but i hope I can get some insight and answers here as I have no clue who to ask.
I am a professional airline pilot by trade but a hobbyist photographer. My main subjects are my family
however I want to improve my skills so after reading too many books i know the only way to improve
is to practice practice practice so I bring my gear everywhere I go.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to be at a press conference and product demo for my airline and there
were at least 20 professional photographers and videographers, tv camera crews etc. Although I was only
there to take the plane from point A to B I was really stoked to check out all the pros, their gear and their
techniques. Unfortunately all the pros were so busy trying to get the right shot that I couldn't really talk
to them about anything at all. (i understand since if I were landing in bad weather I wouldn't have time to
talk to a hobbyist flyer either) I could see they were all under a lot of stress to get the right images for
their "bosses".

As the press conference went on I noticed they were all shooting high speed sounded to be around 8fps.
This made sense since there were several people on stage and considering how unflattering talking shots
can be going for high speed and max image capture made sense to me.

Later on the whole media crew headed out to the plane for shots on board. We had several pros come up
to the cockpit for photos and I was really surprised to see (and hear) they were all still shooting high speed
bursts. Especially since the cockpit photos were all poses. Some said they were bracketing exposures, but
even after I checked the specs on the 1Ds it said it can only bracket 3 shots at a time. I tried my 7d on a
high speed bracket but it was pretty slow, nothing like what these guys were doing.

So my question if anyone can answer is why were all these guys shooting with highspeed bursts? I used
high speed a bit when I got my 7D but my workflow just got insane sorting through all the bursts with no
"keeper" images.

Maybe on the pro newsgathering side is it just something they always do so there is no way they will "miss"
the moment even though they are coming away from a day shoot with thousands of images.

sorry to be so long here but any insight would be appreciated on the use of high speed shooting with pro
newsgathering photographers.

Thanks

 

[Big Mike]

Welcome to the forum.

I don't think we have many professional newsies but I can think of one, Hooligan Dan (or something like that). He doesn't come around everyday, but he's here from time to time.

It would be my guess that they are shooting in bursts just as insurance. Obviously, when they are covering an event, they have little control or influence over the subject, so by shooting off hundreds of frames, they increase their chances of getting the expression that their editor is looking for. But also, something like missed focus can ruin a shot, or maybe another photographer's flash went off at the exact moment of their exposure. By taking as many shots as they can, they are increasing the odds that they get their shot...with very little cost to them.
Sure, there is the time & effort it takes to sort through the images to find the best one, but I'm not sure that they are the ones doing that. There might be some underling at the paper who's job it is to pick the best 5 photos for the editor to choose from.
Or even if the photographer is the one doing it, this is something that you can train yourself to be rather fast at. I know several wedding photographers who use specific programs just for the initial sorting & culling of their images. Those who are less trained and less critical, tend to take a lot more time picking through their images...partially because they aren't hard enough critics of their own photos.

 

[tirediron]

Spray & pray.

 

[DiskoJoe]

I use this technique at weddings to get nice facial expressions. Often I will take the first shot and they might blink or turn their head and pic will lok like crap but the second or third burst might capture a bit of a smile.

But your right on point with your assumptions here.

 

[TimGilbertson]

It's always good to run on burst, especially when people are talking. You can always find a flattering (or un-flattering) expression. It's good too when the focus is hunting, because you're a lot more likely to hit it in at least one frame. To me 5+ fps for things other than sports is too much. I hate sifting through 15 identical frames.

 

[Big Mike]

I learned with film, so I tend to find that I shoot more slowly that those who 'grew up' shooting digital. But as I said before...the only thing it costs, to shoot all those frames, is time (and maybe more memory cards). Sometimes, I wish I had fired off a few more frames.

But the thing that usually dictates my shooting speed, is my lighting. I'm usually shooting with some form of flash/strobe, and I can't shoot in bursts because the lights can't keep up.

 

[Railphotog]

Maybe this answers something I've been wondering about too - when wedding photographers say they take thousands of shots at a wedding, what are they shooting? Maybe taking a machine gun approach will mean they might get some really great ones out of all the hundreds of shots? Way back when I did part time weddings on film, my offer was for 100 prints. I'd shoot three rolls of 36 and once in a while an extra roll of 24 if there was a lot going on. So someone taking 10-20 times as many digital shots may be just spraying and praying?

 

[Overread]

It will depend I think - some will be spraying and praying, other times many of those shots might well be more grabshots or shots that they wanted choice upon (eg with the film you might have only taken 2 or 3 photos of the cake, the digital might take 10 or more and then choose from the results). Some of those shots are ones that, with film, you might have overlooked because you couldn't guarantee that it would come out good and because you were limited with what you could shoot. So you shot the ones that you knew would be keepers - digital frees more people up since they are not so limited so they can snap more of the risky shots (and sometimes they'll get a killer shot out of doing that)

 

[DiskoJoe]

Maybe this answers something I've been wondering about too - when wedding photographers say they take thousands of shots at a wedding, what are they shooting? Maybe taking a machine gun approach will mean they might get some really great ones out of all the hundreds of shots? Way back when I did part time weddings on film, my offer was for 100 prints. I'd shoot three rolls of 36 and once in a while an extra roll of 24 if there was a lot going on. So someone taking 10-20 times as many digital shots may be just spraying and praying?

Exactly.

 

[Big Mike]

Yes, there is a lot of spraying and praying going on...that's for sure.

For some parts of a wedding, it's just insurance. Like during the ceremony or during a speech, there scene is usually pretty static...so you take several to make sure that you get at least one good one. Most (should) get trashed. Same deal with formal group shots...take plenty so that you've got everyone with eyes open etc.

But when it comes to reception shots (the party) every shot may be different...especially if it's a fun party. Sometimes I take 50 shots of the B&G sitting at their table, doing nothing (boring)...just waiting for something to happen.

What gets me, is that some photographers hand over 700 images, or something silly like that. I don't take as many as most, but I cut the number way down, only delivering the best of the best. Exception being when I do a lot of coverage of the party, as every shot may have different guests etc.

 

[tirediron]

Some time ago, I was privileged to attend a lecture by Dr. Ted Grant and one of the things that he was adamant about when discussing technique was that "spray & pray" was almost always a bad approach. He used as an example, his iconic image of Ben Johnson at the '88 Olympics in Seoul. He was one of a number of press photographers in the coveted 'finish line' spot and while all of his colleagues had their motor-drives turning at full capacity, he followed Ben through his lens, and took the one photograph that became famous around the world.

Like Mike, I "grew up" in film, and as a young high-school student, and those 100' rolls of FP4 were expensive and I learned to make each frame count. I'm a lot more liberal now, but I still compose almost all of my shots. The times might change, but I'm not!

 

[russianbare1977]

Thanks for all of your input and insight onto my original question. Big Mike you brought
up a good point that the photographers may not even be the ones sifting through the photos.
I hadn't noticed but now that you mention it, even in my short time of hobbyist photography
my workflow and sorting has really sped up.

I guess once again it goes back to practice practice practice especially using different
techniques. Next time I am out with my kids and a bunch of others playing together I am
going to turn on the highspeed again and see how it goes. Maybe I will be able to grab
a few more shots that will justify the added workflow. And if it doesn't work out at least
I will have it in the back of my mind to try in another spot if I feel like I am missing shots.
(which I am missing a lot of!)
Thanks again all.

 

[Tony S]

Part time news shooter here. Using the high fps is not a technique I use very often, even though 11fps is available, that's just too many shots to cull through later. And very seldom does it catch the shot as well as good timing or planning.
A lot of times they are bracketing shots. But they are also hedging their bets against the blinking eye, mis-focusing, or trying to get that one shot that's slightly different than the guy next to them. Often times they are not even the ones selecting the shots, it's their editors looking at them all on the screen and picking one from the bunch that catches their eye. I often wonder what my editor what thinking when he selects certain shots that I feel aren't the best of the bunch I sent him.