Lesson Learned

[Mike Buckley]

The lesson learned should be [to] CONFIRM your shots, before you quit shooting. Make a habit of looking on screen , checking your histograms, and zooming in to check focus. After you get home, it's too late.

I agree that that is the lesson to be learned from this thread, much more so than thinking that using a tripod is the solution to the problem.

[Colin Southern]

The lesson learned should be CONFIRM your shots, before you quit shooting. Make a habit of looking on screen , checking your histograms, and zooming in to check focus. After you get home, it's too late.

It sounds like very sensible advice, but to be honest, I don't really do it a lot personally. Past a certain point I KNOW the focus was OK - I KNOW the exposure is OK - I KNOW what composition I setup in the first place. I'm not saying don't do it, but on some shoots you can easily miss more shots chimping than just getting on with it if you have self-confidence in what you're doing.

[tbob]

I'd like to have seen Ken make this 40 minute shot without a tripod ]

You enter a transcendental state where all neuromuscular activity is suspended , gravity and inertia cease to act and you become one with the essential tripodness of the metatripod.

[Colin Southern]

You enter a transcendental state where all neuromuscular activity is suspended , gravity and inertia cease to act and you become one with the essential tripodness of the metatripod.

Is that kinda like a cross between "The Matrix" and "Pacific Rim"?

[Mike Buckley]

It sounds like very sensible advice, but to be honest, I don't really do it a lot personally. Past a certain point I KNOW the focus was OK - I KNOW the exposure is OK - I KNOW what composition I setup in the first place. I'm not saying don't do it

I'm glad that you're not saying not to do it. Someone of your experience who has invested by your own recent acknowledgement $15,000 in the first year and $100,000 over a period of time, frankly, should know all of that without having to chimp afterwards. Otherwise, they have made a monumental waste of their investment.

However, the vast majority of people participating in this forum are not at your development of photographic skills, especially me. If they were, there would be no need for this web site in its current form and Shawn's investment in it would itself be a complete waste.

So, let's please get back to and emphasize the point for which you are dead right: Steve's advice is very sensible and the relatively very few people such as yourself to whom it doesn't apply know that without anyone telling them that.

[Colin Southern]

I'm glad that you're not saying not to do it. Someone of your experience who has invested by your own recent acknowledgement $15,000 in the first year and $100,000 over a period of time, frankly, should know all of that without having to chimp afterwards. Otherwise, they have made a monumental waste of their investment.

The $15,000 in the first year is RC Helicopters, not photography.

However, the vast majority of people participating in this forum are not at your development of photographic skills, especially me. If they were, there would be no need for this web site in its current form and Shawn's investment in it would itself be a complete waste.

As I say, I'm not saying "don't chimp" but on the flip side, I also don't think it's a good idea if folks get into the habit of shoot - chimp - change something - shoot again (repeat) without stopping to think "what is it that wasn't right with the shot" and "what do I need to do to fix it". I feel that to benefit it should be a journey of education, not just blindly changing things and hoping for the best.

So, let's please get back to and emphasize the point for which you are dead right: Steve's advice is very sensible and the relatively very few people such as yourself to whom it doesn't apply know that without anyone telling them that.

I'm nobody special when it comes to photography -- just encouraging people to learn. And when they do, it's OK IMO to do less chimping and have more faith in their abilities.

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you, Colin, for correcting me that you spent $15,000 in your first year relating to RC helicopters, not photography.

However, just a few days ago you did write in direct response to the first post in a thread about spending money on a hobby that you have spent $100,000 on photography and lighting equipment. You now have written that beyond a certain point you "KNOW" (you repeatedly screamed at us using upper case letters) about your focus, exposure and composition. I would certainly hope so after spending $100,000 except as noted below.

So, especially as a moderator, I encourage you to get back to what I understand the spirit of the forum is, which has nothing to do with how much money we have spent or what we absolutely know. I'm personally not at the level that I absolutely know upon releasing the shutter that I have got everything right and I very recently wrote that I doubt that I'll ever get to that point. Good for you if you have, but that information doesn't help anyone other than those who want to hold onto the firm belief that such a condition actually exists. I've read enough writings by master photographers to highly doubt that mere mortals could ever hope to achieve that level; they didn't, so how could we?

Just my opinion.

EDIT: I should add that I won't be participating in this discussion with you any more unless it is to apologize to you for something that I have gotten wrong. That's because I can't imagine having anything else constructive to add.

[Colin Southern]

Thank you, Colin, for correcting me that you spent $15,000 in your first year relating to RC helicopters, not photography.

You're very welcome.

However, just a few days ago you did write in direct response to the first post in a thread about spending money on a hobby that you have spent $100,000 on photography and lighting equipment. You now have written that beyond a certain point you "KNOW" (you repeatedly screamed at us using upper case letters) about your focus, exposure and composition. I would certainly hope so after spending $100,000 except as noted below.

Not screaming at anybody - just using capitals to emphasise the word. I would have also meant the same thing by using a underline, italics, or bold.

So, especially as a moderator,

Administrator (different pay scale, and my own key to the executive bathroom) (which, unfortunately, is still outside)

I encourage you to get back to what I understand the spirit of the forum is, which has nothing to do with how much money we have spent or what we absolutely know. I'm personally not at the level that I absolutely know upon releasing the shutter that I have got everything right and I very recently wrote that I doubt that I'll ever get to that point. Good for you if you have, but that information doesn't help anyone other than those who want to hold onto the firm belief that such a condition actually exists. I've read enough writings by master photographers to highly doubt that mere mortals could ever hope to achieve that level; they didn't, so how could we?

Just my opinion.

Not sure why you appear to be so irritated by my post; if you feel the need to chimp shots then by all means go ahead and chimp them. If you feel you're better served by keeping your eye to the viewfinder and clicking away at the action then by all means do just that. In my case if my camera tells me that the focus was acquired prior to releasing the shutter then I'm more than happy to give it the benefit of the doubt. If I've dialed in an aperture and it's given me a shutterspeed and I know from experience that there are no proverbial black cats on black rugs or polar bears in the snow to upset the metering then I'm also more than happy to give the camera the benefit of the doubt there too. In such cases I don't believes that one needs to acquire the title of "Master Photographer" to not have to 2nd guess the job my camera and I are doing -- all that's needed is a little knowledge of the fundmentals and a bit of practice putting it into practice. But again, I stress -- if one wants to chimp then that's fine. if one doesn't want to chimp then that's fine. I'm not saying one should chimp. I'm not saying one shouldn't chimp. What I AM (<- emphasised, not shouted) is that IMO a blanket statement that everybody should always chimp is unbalanced. Do I chimp all of my shots? -- good heavens no. Do I chimp some of my shots? -- of course I do.

Really not sure what we're arguing about.

[verysimplejason]

To Dank,

I think we've got a little misunderstanding. I've suggested AFMA because I don't think the OP is just talking of landscape photography. And yes, even for landscape photography, AFMA sometimes is very important. Landscape most often use a good amount of DOF however, there are times when it can work also with thin DOF. Here's a sample.

http://www.photographyblogger.net/cr...the-landscape/

[jcuknz]

I'd like to have seen Ken make this 40 minute shot without a tripod ...

As he said in the article he would look for a support which could be better than most tripods. [ Not your monsters ]
Unfortunately KR mixes good common sense of an experienced and competant photographer with some outrageous statements which should not be followed by the tyro.

[AB26]

There are so many situations when neither will work. You're fortunate that your styles of photography allow either a flash or a tripod.

I adapt my style to suit the equipment available to me, not the other way round.
I have not yet encountered a situation where I cannot use neither nor. Remember, a bean bag does the same job as a tripod.

[jcuknz]

I suspect the problems that Dr. Bob sees in his photos would not be particularly obvious in the field short of taking a laptop to review ... hardly practicable on a holiday trip. I have my live view cameras set to give me a one or two second review of the shot just taken with the purpose of confirming that when using long lens hand held I actually did get the 'thing' in frame and also so the camera can warn me of possible over -exposure with its blinkies but I can see little good from chimping, waste of battery power on a extended occasion. That the DSLRs do not have live view without taking the eye from the viewfinder is one of their faults which I have rarely suffered with except for occasional shoots taken with my DSLR when I used it, rarely.

I was watching a wedding photographer at work last year and every few shots he seemed to review when he could and should have been watching the action if he had been using a live view camera properly set up and knew what he was doing. I was not terribly impressed with what I saw either in the field or in the results but it was the bride's choice and I kept my mouth shut on the subject. Wedding photography is very different today from what I did decades ago but certain things stay the same IMO. Though I wish I were fitter so I could justifiably accept the responsibility of a job instead of being an "Uncle Joe".

[ajohnw]

I suspect the problems that Dr. Bob sees in his photos would not be particularly obvious in the field short of taking a laptop to review ... hardly practicable on a holiday trip. I have my live view cameras set to give me a one or two second review of the shot just taken with the purpose of confirming that when using long lens hand held I actually did get the 'thing' in frame and also so the camera can warn me of possible over -exposure with its blinkies but I can see little good from chimping, waste of battery power on a extended occasion. That the DSLRs do not have live view without taking the eye from the viewfinder is one of their faults which I have rarely suffered with except for occasional shoots taken with my DSLR when I used it, rarely.

I was watching a wedding photographer at work last year and every few shots he seemed to review when he could and should have been watching the action if he had been using a live view camera properly set up and knew what he was doing. I was not terribly impressed with what I saw either in the field or in the results but it was the bride's choice and I kept my mouth shut on the subject. Wedding photography is very different today from what I did decades ago but certain things stay the same IMO. Though I wish I were fitter so I could justifiably accept the responsibility of a job instead of being an "Uncle Joe".

My preview goes up to 14x which is big enough to gauge sharpness. The wedding man might have been doing his job and checking his whites were well exposed in various light situations. When ever I see that going on I'm glad - real wedding photographer. Some sell shots with no detail in the wedding dress and even loose any black suits that might be around too.

John
-

[PhotomanJohn]

I don't tend to use tripods as much as I used to when I was shooting medium format film but still think they are valuable pieces of gear. But I have found that simply putting the camera on a tripod doesn't always make a better picture. Early in my DSLR days I became pretty unhappy with my longest telephoto zoom I had because the photos taken seemed to be much softer than I thought they should be. I was using the tripod I had then (Manfrotto 055) and a good RRS ball head and brackets and had the VR turned off. I finally tried a test where I compared the same shots with the camera on the tripod VR off to hand-help with VR on. The hand-held shots were tack sharp. The problem was not the lens it was the tripod and improper technique. The mirror slap was creating significant vibration in the springy, poorly damped tripod causing the image softness.

So my lesson was to do what I always knew should be done when one wants the sharpest images possible. That is to use the best tripod (today carbon fiber) one can afford, load it down with sand bags or the like and use mirror-up. Big surprise - right?

John

[jcuknz]

My preview goes up to 14x which is big enough to gauge sharpness. The wedding man might have been doing his job and checking his whites were well exposed in various light situations. When ever I see that going on I'm glad - real wedding photographer. Some sell shots with no detail in the wedding dress and even loose any black suits that might be around too.

John
-

And while he might have got his whites right and his blacks too the photos were dreadful and inelegant captures which is what the job is all about ... flattering the customers.
But for somebody obsessed with the technicalities I guess endless checking the whites is important. Photography means different things to different people.
As Colin put it ... he knows he has got it right before he presses the trigger. The mark of a competant photographer.

[jcuknz]

.... load it down with sand bags or the like and use mirror-up. Big surprise - right?

the masochist's guide to holiday photography

[rtbaum]

For myself the lesson to be learned is that I need to recognize the technique necessary to capture "The Shot". When shooting macro - I find using a tripod, mirror up, small aperture, reflectors or diffusers yield the larger quantity of keepers. Shooting birds with my f/5.6 telephoto, the rules change. A tripod has been overly restrictive and I resort to a monopod, all shots are wide open to attain as fast of a shutter speed possible, Iso is usually as high as I dare without a lot of noise. I am finding that I must do a fair amount of preplanning to achieve acceptable results with the long lens, I need to employ a hide and wait for the birds come to me, the shutter speed is generally predetermined at around 1/1000 sec. Unfortunately, often the best laid plans run awry. I recently spotted a bald eagle on a crag sitting in the middle of a swamp. I hiked through thick brush to get close enough to get the shot. Once in position, I found the eagle had flown the coop. In the effort to make lemonade from lemons, I found a nice comfortable log at the proper height to sit comfortably and shoot some of the numerous small birds migrating through. The next thing that I know the Bald eagle sails majestically overhead and lands 30 feet away........180 degrees behind me!! I challenge any one to gracefully rotate around a 3' diameter log with a 400 mm lens on a monopod. I believe that I heard the damn bird chuckle as it flew off.

[Rita]

Randy, after reading your post it isn't just the bird having a chuckle

[Green Mountain Girl]

I don't tend to use tripods as much as I used to when I was shooting medium format film but still think they are valuable pieces of gear. But I have found that simply putting the camera on a tripod doesn't always make a better picture.

This is an interesting point. I have found it difficult to hold the camera steady, so tend to use a tripod most of the time. I may not be using a fast enough shutter speed when hand-holding.

I was using the tripod I had then (Manfrotto 055) and a good RRS ball head and brackets and had the VR turned off. I finally tried a test where I compared the same shots with the camera on the tripod VR off to hand-help with VR on. The hand-held shots were tack sharp. The problem was not the lens it was the tripod and improper technique. The mirror slap was creating significant vibration in the springy, poorly damped tripod causing the image softness.

Although my tripod appears to be fairly steady, it is not completely (aluminum), and I do not have the advantage of a good ball head like the RRS. This is something I have been planning to correct, but in the meantime I am trying to get better at hand-holding.

Not sure I want to go the sandbag route, but mirror-up is a good idea - I do use it for macro, did not realize it might help with other kinds of shots.

[Colin Southern]

As Colin put it ... he knows he has got it right before he presses the trigger. The mark of a competant photographer.

Kinda yes, but there's a bit more too it. Someone once said "an amateur practices until they get it right -- but a professional practices until they never get it wrong". I'm not saying that I never get it wrong, but past a certain point you don't get many of the things wrong that others are still getting wrong.

Case in point - if I'm doing a studio shoot then I'll have metered the subject and setup the camera and lights accordingly -- thus, I never get the exposure wrong. A colour and white-balance reference will have been shot for the camera / lens / lighting combination -- thus I'll never get the white balance nor colour wrong (I generate a separate camera profile for each shoot). I know how to setup the camera and how/where to focus as I'm shooting, and use a camera with a lethal AF -- thus I'll (almost) never have an issue with focus.

So if I'm comparing a studio shoot with a similar shoot conducted by someone who isn't as comfortable in these areas then I'd suggest that it's not hard to see that if I can rattle off 400 to 800 frames and have a 99% keeper rate in terms of the above parameters, then it's a great place to start making initial selects from. In contrast, if someone's exposures, white balance, colour correction, and focusing are a bit of a lottery, then right off the bat they're behind the curve.

If one then starts adding in other variables like blinkers, and the random "hit and miss" nature of things like fans and inexperienced models posing, having the basics "down pat" makes a huge difference (it's a great feeling when the customer is struggling to choose between 35 or so keepers out of a set of 60 to 80), whereas it's a different story if a frame can be disqualified on the basis of exposure, focus, colour correction, WB etc in addition to the uncontrollable factors like blinkers, gawky looks, awkward poses etc.

It's all too easy to disqualify frames -- so the more of the correctable things we can eliminate right off the bat, the better.

Past a certain point you don't pay a lot of attention to things that you know are right; focus and exposure are two prime examples. If you're sure you're nailing these then the more time you spend chimping, the more time you're wasting when you could be shooting the shots that you're missing.