Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Bobtrips on August 27, 2004, 01:36:43 am
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I'm about 24:24 with my shovel and the little Pacific Coast rattlers that come into my garden. I'm 1:1 with shotgun and the Prairie rattler that was longer than my shovel handle and 1:1 with my Toyota pickup and the timber rattler that kept me from walking to the mailbox.
But back to photography. That was a great shot, I don't care how many attempts it took. Hope he was using a long lens....[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Jonathan,
You don't have to press down the shutter continuously. Just when you need the shot. The Mark ll is so fast, just anticipate the shot and press the shutter, as often as you like. (Speaking not from experience, but others' comments :D )[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Perhaps one could tape the shutter button down on their 1D-Mark II and then throw the entire camera at their subject...
Sheldon
[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']The machine gun analogy is a good one because the best way to use a machine gun is to always continue to aim properly and make short controlled bursts instead of blindly spraying away.[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Exactly! I use my 1D-MkII exactly that way. 8 FPS is too slow to substitute for a video recording, and extended bursts will fill the buffer pretty quick even if shooting JPEGs and you have 35-40 frames before it fills. I frequently have the motor drive on, but only shoot 1-2 frames at a time (it's a bit of a challenge to shoot a single at 8 FPS). I try to catch the "decisive moment" in a controlled manner by shooting like I'm in single shot mode, and only use the motor drive when an interesting play is happening where the moment of peak interest is unknown.
As an example, I was shooting a baseball game today in 8FPS mode. The decisive moment of a pitch is fairly well-defined; it's usually when the bat makes contact with the ball. So I was shooting 1-2 frames on the pitch as the ball was crossing the plate. But on some of the pickoff plays and one hilarious moment when the catcher and first baseman collided while trying to catch a foul ball, I held down the trigger and shot a bunch of frames to ensure I got the entire sequence of events. The fact that I was customarily only shooting 1-2 frames at a time meant that I had plenty of buffer space for the plays where the decisive moment could not be known until the after the action was completed.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']That's nice for you, but some of us are trying to make a living doing this and the smell of the thunderstorm doesn't pay the mortgage or the car payment or equipment rental or paper & ink costs...[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Not my shot, but here is one answer to the folks who tend to raise their eyebrows skeptically when they hear of shooting 900 shots in 45 minutes.
http://www.photoblink.com/imageVi....&Value= (http://www.photoblink.com/imageView.asp?ImageID=121521&SortBy=&SortOrder=&GroupBy=&Value=)[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I've found that my 20 guage shotgun works on rattlers the first time.[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']I'm 1-1 using a .22LR revolver loaded with shot shells. (That's 1 shot, 1 kill.) I was house-sitting for a friend who had a rattler living in the tack barn where they kept their horse feed.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']900 shots in 45 minutes to take out a rattler doesn't sound like very good shooting. I suppose, though, it's not too bad with the high cyclic rate of a machine gun.
Still, I'm with those who think some kind of shot is better for that. A 12 guage loaded with birdshot is probably good. I've got some shot shells for my .45 auto, just for such contingencies.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']8 FPS is not necessarily an effective substitute for one well-times shot capturing the decisive moment. I've just recently had the opportunity to verify this for myself, having just acquired a 1D-MkII.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I suspect that we've created the myth of the decisive moment. It's quite likely that there is a string of decisive moments in each scene that we observe.
Who knows, maybe CB's man jumping the puddle would have been better balanced if the shot had been taken a moment sooner or later than it was. Maybe the best shot would have been with his foot just touching the water. Maybe the best shot would have been when he fell on his butt. ;o)
We long for cameras that take the image at the very instant that we decide to take it. But we still have to account for our decision time and our reaction time. By the time we get it together and push the button the moment that we observed has passed.
Perhaps to get the very best image that we can produce we need a tool that captures a series of 'moments' so that we can select the most decisive at our leisure.]
Maybe the best light was at 38.2 seconds....[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Okay, am I the only one who noticed that image is severely front-focused?
,
Jack[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Maybe we shouldn't get carried away with the machine gun analogy. In this case, it was perhaps the most convenient way to catch the snake's tongue in mid-action. I hear they're quick. The guy still had to plan the shot, go there, and wait.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']OK, really off topic remark:
My folks retired and moved out to S. California in the very early 70's (near Joshua Tree National Park). A favorite pastime was desert golf, where the entire course was laid out in the sand. They always made a point of swatting the sidewinders with golf clubs whenever they were encountered, thinking - correctly - that this would free the bipeds of any rattlesnake worries. Eventually the sidewinders were gone.
Several years later the local population of desert rats grew to alarming proportions, and bird feed, dog food, plus anything else remotely edible, had to be stored indoors or in steel containers. Now desert rats aren't brown rats, but just the same boys and girls, rodents are rodents.
There really is no free lunch,
Tom[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Ok first off, I would enjoy having the ability to shoot more frames per second than I currently can. There are many situations where that would be very useful. However, on the other hand, with a camera like the Mark II in conjunction with a high capacity memory card it can practically be used like a video camera. It's a legitimate way to use the camera but, jeesh, you sure have to sift through a ton of images to find the ones you like. It's a tool like any other and it all depends on how you use it but it just makes me wonder how much common sense and creativity is being removed in some people who end up blindly firing away. The machine gun analogy is a good one because the best way to use a machine gun is to always continue to aim properly and make short controlled bursts instead of blindly spraying away. I'm sure most pros know exactly what they are doing but sometimes I start to wonder when I here the continuous shooting from the photographers covering an event. At least it makes me glad I'm not the photo editor that has to look through the hundreds of shots.
T[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']For me this is more about aesthetics than results. I take photos mainly because I enjoy the process of doing it. I love how it sharpens my senses. I don't machine gun and can probably count on one hand the number of times I've taken more than one frame in a second. I'm not shooting to someone else's brief and I'm not out for trophies. The photographs themselves are secondary...nice to have, sometimes very nice to have, at best capable of standing on their own as something more significant than snapshots. But they're mostly just records of experiences, and it's the experiences I treasure.
I once took photos of an approaching thunderstorm. Amazing sky, bright white to my left and churning coal black to my right. The black swept across and obliterated the white within minutes and then fat raindrops began coming down. I retreated to my car, watching and listening as the drops smacked against my windshield. And then it was all gone and the sky was white again. I was using an old Contax rangefinder that day, which I'd just acquired from a co-worker, and decided to rewind the film (HP5+ or so I thought) right then and head home to develop it. But when I turned the rewind knob there was no resistance. There'd been no film in the camera. :laugh: No matter...I can still remember how the air smelled and the damp wind gusted as the storm approached. And how much I loved being in the moment.
-Dave-[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I've found another use for 'machine gunning'. When traveling on a fast moving train or bus I can see an upcoming potential interesting image, but there's no opportunity to carefully compose and pan. So I use the widest lens setting, stick the camera out the window and blast.
I've gotten a few good images using this technique, images that I would have gotten no other way. And, hey!, doesn't cost me anything.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
There's places people revere poisonous snakes for their ability to protect foodstuffs from rodents. Even though the occasional person gets bitten by a snake and dies.
Which, HEY!...further protects the foodstuffs!
All hail the snake/saviour! ::[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I've found that my 20 guage shotgun works on rattlers the first time.
(Well the little ones I get with a shovel.)
No machine gun needed..... :D[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Well, let's not go overboard here. Setting your camera to 'continuous mode' can be useful. You can take one shot or several shots, depending on the circumstances. Depends on how long you hold your finger on the trigger. What's the problem?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
Not my shot, but here is one answer to the folks who tend to raise their eyebrows skeptically when they hear of shooting 900 shots in 45 minutes.
Just a general comment, not meant to reflect on Mr. Neal's skills (I have seen some great work from him in the past) but the argument seems to be about the merit of statistical probability (the monkeys/typewriters thing) as a photographic technique.
I guess to me a more deliberate workflow is the difference between getting *a* shot and getting *my* shot. Probably just semantics to most viewers but as I photograph mainly for my own satisfaction, the latter is a far more rewarding outcome.
Guy[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']There's places people revere poisonous snakes for their ability to protect foodstuffs from rodents. Even though the occasional person gets bitten by a snake and dies.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I also use "machine-gunning" as an emergency image stabilizer. Well, taking multiple pictures at 1fps no longer sounds like a machine gun, but you get the idea .[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I'll throw my vote in for that! Actually I've had numerous discussions with all types of photographers about this issue. Here's my reasoning in favor of using the full benefit of 8 frames per second:
We would all like to think that the very best professionals wait for that perfect instant with all systems thoroughly checked, exposure correct, shutter speed correct, aperture correct and all it takes is our vast experience and superior observation skills to press the shutter at that "perfect" time and "bingo" - the perfect frame!
Sounds great, but here are a few caveats. During that tiny instant between the time we press the shutter release and the mirror slaps open and the image is exposed the subject blinks. How many here shoot birds? How many have shots with the eye obliterated by the membrane because the bird blinked? How about the autofocus missed? Happens all the time with every SLR and dSLR I have (that includes the Canon D30, 10D, 1D, 1DS, 1D Mark II and Kodak DCS-760 currently). Folks, no matter how perfect you "think" the autofocus is on your new (choose the camera) - let me tell you if it hasn't failed you yet, you just haven't been shooting enough because it "will happen."
Hold that shutter down when you "think" you have the prefect frame and out of eight or ten frames you will likely have two which are outstanding, one which is total crapola and the rest so-so.
A couple days ago I was shooting elk and moose under less than ideal conditions. I used my 1DS, 10D and a new Panasonic fixed lens, five megapixel digicam (FZ20). The percentage of totally in focus images? About 80 percent. I was using the finest "L" glass and ostensibliy some of the best dSLR bodies around. The autofocus was much quicker on the 1DS and 10D than on the Panasonic (it uses iterative contrast differentiation) but the percentage of totally in focus locks was about the same on all cameras.
I'd like to think that after doing this professionally for over 40 years I've got a pretty good handle on setting things up right, but one just can't beat the statistical odds with automated equipment. If I had the vision I had when I was 18 or 20 years old, I would be much more inclined to use manual focus, but instead I have 62 year old vision and it just doesn't serve me well enough to get consistent focus. Because of this I depend on autofocus and still I have to play the odds to insure success.
Yep, I'm not about to give up my "machine gun" techniques - trying to do it the other way just hasn't worked well for me.
Best regards,
Lin[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']That's nice for you, but some of us are trying to make a living doing this...[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Like I said I'm not shooting to someone else's brief. I shoot for my own pleasure, and machine gunning is something I don't find pleasurable. I speak only for myself and make no claims otherwise.
-Dave-[/font]