Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/02/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Well said. Not a rant. Ric On Feb 12, 2006, at 1:49 PM, Douglas Herr wrote: > on 2/12/06 6:40 AM, Douglas Herr at telyt@earthlink.net wrote: > >> on 2/11/06 10:08 PM, Ted Grant at tedgrant@shaw.ca wrote: >> >>>> Ted, my experience with sports mirrors yours with birds ;-) but for >>>> wildlife >>>> at least digital capture with fast frame rates has turned >>>> technique upside >>>> down from where it was just a few years ago. Standard practice >>>> is indeed >>>> to >>>> shoot a burst and pick a good one from the sequence later.<<< >>> >>> Surely Doug these guys shooting at 8 frames a second aren't >>> getting the >>> quality you do? While shooting one frame at a time? The first frame. >> >> bingo! >> > > Let me expand on this quickie running-out-the-door response. > > [RANT MODE ON] > > IMHO there are many parallels between sports photography and wildlife > photography, and that as the equipment technology has evolved it > has become > far easier for the average photographer, or I should say a team of > average > photographers, to capture the "action" that is prized by editors; > it used to > be that skill and timing were crucial but when you see at major > sporting > events a 'shooting gallery' of several dozen big white lenses > operated by > remote-controlled high frame rate camera bodies tethered to central > editing > rooms one has to wonder how much skill is involved aside from > knowing where > to point the camera. > > Regarding the photo that started this discussion (diver stiking her > head on > the diving platform), we don't know whether there was a 'shooting > gallery' > or if this was the work of an individual. If there was a shooting > gallery > as described above, the odds are that one photo among the dozens > made of > this particular dive would have captured the moment of impact. If > you were > to ask me what the chances are of any one photographer (or, any > particular > camera) capturing that moment I'd tell you the odds were very low. > However, > in the aggregate the odds that the moment of impact would show up > in the > editing room were pretty good. It's almost like supplying an infinite > number of monkeys with an equally infinite number of word > processors except > you've improved the odds by adding spell-check software to the word > processor. > > Shooting galleries are found in wildlife photography too. There are > numerous 'hot spots' and events that draw photographers shoulder to > shoulder > with their big white lenses: La Jolla Cove about this time of year, a > roadside badger's den I saw in Yelowstone, Bosque del Apache National > Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico late in the year, Palo Alto Baylands or > Arrowhead Marsh during the winter new moon high tide. Technically the > photos that result are good, but when you see the 'take' from the > gallery > there's a 'same-ness' to them. No one photo, or no single > photographer's > photos, stand out from the rest. > > Years ago wildlife photographers' holy grail was photographing > birds in > flight. AF, Better Beamers, Matrix-metered fill flash, fast frame > rates and > vibration-reduction technologies have changed all that. Now, nature > photography websites are abolutely full of these pictures, and > after a while > they all look the same aside from the color or shape of the bird: a > large > bird (easy to track, easy for the AF system to lock onto) centered > on the AF > sensors, overhead with a plain blue sky (don't want to confuse the > AF system > with a real background), evenly lit from beneath by the flash > system (no > icky shadows) with a twinkle in the eye supplied by the flash. The > first > one was fantastic, the second and third and fourth were kewl but > when you've > been inundeated by hundreds they're all BORING. It's mass-production > photography just as interesting and challenging as the output from the > shooting galleries at sporting events. The challenge has become > acquiring > and programming the equipment. > > Now before anyone gets his or her shorts in a knot about the 'big > white > lens' remarks I'm not implying that automaton photography is all > they're > good for. There are plenty of reasons to choose any particular > piece of > hardware but it seems like if you're going to do the shooting > gallery thing, > the auto-everything camera is the one you use to get your pictures > into the > editing room, and the more picures you supply, the better the odds > are that > some of your photos will make it out of the editing computers. > > [RANT MODE OFF] > > So Ted what I've tried to say in a roundabout way is that in the > past a > photo like the diver striking her head probably would have been the > result > of a skilled and knowledgable photographer relying on instinct and > timing > instead of fast frame rates, the game for the majority of sports > photography > has changed: the odds of any one phographer capturing the moment of > impact > were slim, but because of the huge number of photos being made of > the event > the odds of someone getting the picture are pretty good. > > Doug Herr > Birdman of Sacramento > http://www.wildlightphoto.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information