Film "Feel Good" Rant

[Mike M]

It is when you chimp that matters.

Really? Studio Film Photography using polaroids was/is a different methodical process with little to nothing left to chance ... days go into pre-production, designing the shots, dressing sets, and lighting ... then some polaroids pulled to confirm, tweak fine points, plus let clients see it come together if they are on set ... the back is then swapped out and the shoot progresses. No one pulled a 1:1 ratio of polaroids to every shot taken.

- Marc

I can totally relate. My experience is that shooting polaroids on productions in the film days was very similar to chimping in the digital era. Some of the most enlightening moments I had when first starting photography was as an assistant. When I was new and still impressed by productions, models, castings etc, there was a time that I was on a shoot with game show host and his "beautiful assistant." She was gorgeous. I was 21 and couldn't take my eyes off of her on the set. But the photographers and ad folks weren't even looking at her. They were just staring at the damn the polaroids! I was like...WTF is wrong with these people?!!!

Fast forward a couple of years and I was assisting on another shoot for a resort. There was a beautiful model (a ring-girl for the big Vegas boxing matches) floating on an intertube in a pool with the hotel tower in the background. The photographer and I were looking at the Hasselblad polaroids and the model looked too dry. She said, "go splash her a bit." So, I got the stylist and she took a spray bottle and started spraying down the model with glycerin or something (I can't remember). The model was immediatedly startled and seriously pissed off! We hadn't told her that she was going to get sprayed! The stylist and I had just treated her like an object as if she had no feelings or anything. That was the moment when I realized that I had become just like the photographers and ad people from the game show photo shoot. I was at such a distance from the moment that I had literally become an objective observer rather than a subjective participant.

Marc, that was decades ago. But I bet that you can easily relate considering all of your advertising experience. Anyhow, the reason for bringing it up is just to show that distance is something that photographers really have to struggle with and avoid especially on large productions.

 

[Shashin]

Yes, we already know you are a paragon of virtue and all photographers should be like you ... but alas, the majority are not ... they give in to their base curiosity and ... chimp.

I chimp ... I have a T-shirt that says that :ROTFL:

It is when you chimp that matters.

Really? Studio Film Photography using polaroids was/is a different methodical process with little to nothing left to chance ... days go into pre-production, designing the shots, dressing sets, and lighting ... then some polaroids pulled to confirm, tweak fine points, plus let clients see it come together if they are on set ... the back is then swapped out and the shoot progresses. No one pulled a 1:1 ratio of polaroids to every shot taken.

- Marc

Exactly where did I say photographers should be like me? I would really like to know, because that is not the point I am trying to make.

What I don't believe is holding up some idea of photography as right or true and then bashing photographers that don't fit that model. My argument is that folks are basically creating straw man fallacies to advance a narrow set of ideas that don't reflect reality as well as distorting reality to fit their model.

It is funny, before the world of Internet forums, the photographers and creative people I worked with were really comfortable that there were different ways of working and that everyone was on different points in their artistic development. This type of open environment seems to be a thing of the past. The world just seems to divide itself into small groups with entrenched positions.

Did you ever wonder why the second photographers in your wedding shoot had so little confidence? Do you even try to help them become better? Or are you just expecting them to be perfect and they can sink or swim?

You are right that photographer never had a 1:1 ratio of Polariods to shots. Mostly they used lots of 'roids. Then they would bracket the shot with film.

I know you will simply agree to disagree. It is a pity really. I have lots of young photographer coming through the center I work in that are looking for more than criticism. They are looking for ideas and skills. And like every photographer before them, they are looking to find photography on their own terms.

 

[Mike M]

To chimp or not to chimp? That is the question!

My experience is that there are basically two main types of chimping. The first is based on "form" (technique) and the second is based on "content" (subject matter.) I don't believe that there is any way to avoid chimping when it comes to form especially for people that are new to photography and learning the craft. Eventually over time, if they've done their homework then they won't need to do it anymore or at least do it in such trivial amounts that it doesn't effect the vibe of their workflow or get in the way of their original idea. On the other hand, when people are chimping in order to check the content or subject matter of the photograph then that usually means they haven't quite figured out what they're shooting in the first place. It's an indication that the idea behind the photo is half-baked to begin with and decisions are being made after-the-fact. This is a real problem on large productions because group efforts can often involve so many changes to the original idea that real monstrosities can emerge if everyone isn't careful.

That's just one man's opinion. Hopefully it won't offend anybody too much.

 

[fotografz]

Exactly where did I say photographers should be like me? I would really like to know, because that is not the point I am trying to make.

What I don't believe is holding up some idea of photography as right or true and then bashing photographers that don't fit that model. My argument is that folks are basically creating straw man fallacies to advance a narrow set of ideas that don't reflect reality as well as distorting reality to fit their model.

It is funny, before the world of Internet forums, the photographers and creative people I worked with were really comfortable that there were different ways of working and that everyone was on different points in their artistic development. This type of open environment seems to be a thing of the past. The world just seems to divide itself into small groups with entrenched positions.

Did you ever wonder why the second photographers in your wedding shoot had so little confidence? Do you even try to help them become better? Or are you just expecting them to be perfect and they can sink or swim?

You are right that photographer never had a 1:1 ratio of Polariods to shots. Mostly they used lots of 'roids. Then they would bracket the shot with film.

I know you will simply agree to disagree. It is a pity really. I have lots of young photographer coming through the center I work in that are looking for more than criticism. They are looking for ideas and skills. And like every photographer before them, they are looking to find photography on their own terms.

Okay I'll play.


"Maybe for you, but I shoot my digital cameras just as fluidly as my film cameras. I don't chimp when I am working, I photograph when I am working. There is plenty of time to look at pictures later."


"Maybe for you" ... Thinly veiled superiority, I'm better than you are. In reality, you don't have a clue how I work, you just assume you do and extrapolate from that.

You also take something out of context and then proceed to an insulting insinuation that I just criticize or expect photographers working with me to sink or swim ... and do not address ways to help them improve their perceptual skills and methods of exploring different ways to work ... while informing me of your way of working with young photographers looking for more than criticism.

In reality, I am known amongst photographers that work with me for that very reason, and it is why they want to come with me on jobs in the first place. The ongoing success of my former second shooters is all the testimony I need to continue on the same way. Hell, I just spent days helping a wedding photographer prepare to move into commercial life-style work.

What I DO NOT do is address such things in front of clients or subjects even if the photographer's inattention drive me batty sometimes. ... I always share some thoughts for them to consider after the shoot when we look at the images together, where it is the appropriate time and place. Then it is up to them to deal with it on their own terms ... or not.

You also dismissively assume their inattention is due to "lack of confidence" ... when it is simply inattention at the wrong time. I don't eschew chimping, it can signal if something is technically going wrong, or something isn't set right, or what ever ... just chimp the LCD after the scenario set you are shooting is done, not while it is happening. It has nothing to do with confidence, mostly it is just premature enthusiasm. BTW, my second shooters are not young nor inexperienced. I hire fresh and inexperienced young photographers to be assistants, not shoot someone's wedding/portrait/commercial job when the client has paid for an experienced pro.

Personally, I find your comments the most solidified and entrenched of anyone on this forum ... most people are here to have some fun and exchange a bit of banter, perhaps escape from the serious parts of their lives, and maybe even let off some steam ... but you make into some sort of sad soapbox to lecture everyone on the error of their ways. Obviously, you can tout any philosophy you want here ... just stop assuming it's better, and continually assuming things about other people. You don't know me at all. Actually, I find your POV valid and food for thought, but when wrapped in thinly veiled insults it is lessened.

BTW, to lament about the creative interaction before the world of internet forms, on an internet forum, is pretty ironic I think. :ROTFL:

I may learn something here, or other web places I visit, and hopefully share some knowledge in return ... but for really serious creative interaction I prefer face to face and always have. I have a nice network of creative people from all sorts of disciplines, all at different stages of their trek. Writers, designers, photographers, advertising people, editors, illustrators, painters, film makers, and so on ... we exchange ideas and opinions with mutual respect. What we do not do is assume the worse of people if we happen to disagree or do not understand fully ... like this:

"Marc, when those second shooters drive you nutty, how do you handle it?"

Well, (insert friend's name), I discuss it with them later and sometimes show them shots I took after the actual event image we were expected to get ... demonstrating that paying attention, keeping tuned into their surroundings, can pay off with images more delightful that the original.

Other than that I agree to disagree.

- Marc

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Marc is more eloquent than myself but I wanted to share my opinion perhaps more succinctly. Who gives a *bleep* whether I chimp or use this, that or the other. It's the end result and the artistic determination behind it that counts. Everything else is just forum elitist bull.

 

[Mike M]

Who gives a *bleep* whether I chimp or use this, that or the other.

Yeah, who cares? I sure don't care what you do...and I haven't read any posts from anyone else that cares about what you do either.

So, do whatever you want. Nobody cares. Really. Nobody cares.

 

[alajuela]

Marc is more eloquent than myself but I wanted to share my opinion perhaps more succinctly. Who gives a *bleep* whether I chimp or use this, that or the other. It's the end result and the artistic determination behind it that counts. Everything else is just forum elitist bull.

+1

I think I will go chimp and take 5,000 64 gig (that's about 10 a minute on a union scale day) digital shots today and tomorrow go take my old Nikon F and shoot 10 rolls of Acros and tri-X.

Then I will not chimp again for a week - go figure. Also I might wear a t-shirt or a button down shirt.

I thinking jeans - any opinions?

Hey guys lets get into substance not superficial style. Who are we trying to sell and satisfy?

 

[fotografz]

Yeah, who cares? I sure don't care what you do...and I haven't read any posts from anyone else that cares about what you do either.

So, do whatever you want. Nobody cares. Really. Nobody cares.

Actually, I care what Ben does. He's someone that I've learn many things from because of his dedicated, thoughtful and even lyrical approach to photography, and his forthright but compassionate methods of teaching ... (without insulting individuals with whom he disagrees BTW).

So there is at least one post from someone that cares what someone else does.

In fact, I find a number of people who have something of substance to share that is relevant ... from Guy's enthusiastic "reports from the front", to the OP's waxing nostalgic on this thread.

But hey, maybe it is just the nature of the web where we can't see each other's face and read body language ... or perhaps even a language issue? Which is why I prefer face-to-face encounters when digging deep into dicey philosophical entanglements ... even dodging them on the web by agreeing to disagree and leaving it at that.

The very nature of the web is anonymity and superficialness ... some can handle it, some can't. Few people can do both all of the time.

- Marc

 

[fotografz]

+1

I think I will go chimp and take 5,000 64 gig (that's about 10 a minute on a union scale day) digital shots today and tomorrow go take my old Nikon F and shoot 10 rolls of Acros and tri-X.

Then I will not chimp again for a week - go figure. Also I might wear a t-shirt or a button down shirt.

I thinking jeans - any opinions?

Hey guys lets get into substance not superficial style. Who are we trying to sell and satisfy?

What brand of Jeans?

:ROTFL:

- Marc

 

[alajuela]

What brand of Jeans?

:ROTFL:

- Marc

Lol

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

I've not worn jeans in 11 years. Goes with the 40" waistline

 

[alajuela]

I've not worn jeans in 11 years. Goes with the 40" waistline

Lol but I have an advantage - I am hiding in Shanghai ;-)

 

[Mike M]

Actually, I care what Ben does.

- Marc

Do you really care if he chimps or not?

All of your thoughts about face-to-face meetings and stuff is great. But that is a response to something other than the content of my post.

 

[D&A]

I've long known an individual who occasionally would shoot film during the film-only era, but when the original Nikon D1 DSLR hit the streets (and virtually every Pro model after that), he'd take his camera out each day, and fire random multi shot bursts all day long.....out moving car widows, train windows, walking down streets, at well known performing art centers, pro sports arenas, heck if he could spin around and photograph everyone in a darkened theater he would.

Each day he's come back with hundreds if not thousands of pictures (especially when memory cards became plentiful and cheap). He had the time to buy the latest and greatest lenses, especially those that would be considered for specific limited/creative uses like all sorts of fisheye lenses, lens babies, you name it and often use them in unorthodox ways. If it moved, or he was moving, it was photographed. He chimped all the time, both for his own pleasure and to share with those around him after firing his bursts. Rarely was there interest in another's critique of his work. Believe it or not, he even had time to even download and quickly look through all his daily images at the end of each day.

Slowly but surely his images got accepted in quite well known regional publications, sometimes for pay, sometimes not. This led to all sorts of gigs, some of which began to surprise well seasoned photographers who could only shake their head in amazement. Reminds me of that world of spray can street art (of which I know little of)....to simply thrown it all out there and see what sticks.

My point in relaying all this.... if he did this in environments where he wasn't intruding on peoples time or space, no one really cared and he got the more than occasional shot that earned a cover photo, 2 page spread or some degree of notoriety. Yet, when it was done in a well controlled event such as a wedding, performing art venue or private or public event, not only was his intrusive methods and machine gun firing style often a nuisance, it could sometimes become a spectacle for off handed comments and simply disdain...more often from any pro photographer who happened to be nearby than from the general public at large who were the targets of his photographic blasts.

So I am simply asking this as a rhetorical question....who were the ones who really cared and were bothered whether he chimped incessantly, showed anyone and everyone his rear LCD images most of the time and thus blasted his way into a personal photographic nirvana?

Personally I often think it was sometimes from those who were bothered by the whole process of creating images in a way far removed from what they considered conventional or normal and certainly not done in a accomplished manner using well accepted norms of composing an image....namely other photographers. It was just an observation I had over many years experiencing his brand of image capture.

Dave (D&A)

 

[fotografz]

I've long known an individual who occasionally would shoot film during the film-only era, but when the original Nikon D1 DSLR hit the streets (and virtually every Pro model after that), he'd take his camera out each day, and fire random multi shot bursts all day long.....out moving car widows, train windows, walking down streets, at well known performing art centers, pro sports arenas, heck if he could spin around and photograph everyone in a darkened theater he would.

Each day he's come back with hundreds if not thousands of pictures (especially when memory cards became plentiful and cheap). He had the time to buy the latest and greatest lenses, especially those that would be considered for specific limited/creative uses like all sorts of fisheye lenses, lens babies, you name it and often use them in unorthodox ways. If it moved, or he was moving, it was photographed. He chimped all the time, both for his own pleasure and to share with those around him after firing his bursts. Rarely was there interest in another's critique of his work. Believe it or not, he even had time to even download and quickly look through all his daily images at the end of each day.

Slowly but surely his images got accepted in quite well known regional publications, sometimes for pay, sometimes not. This led to all sorts of gigs, some of which began to surprise well seasoned photographers who could only shake their head in amazement. Reminds me of that world of spray can street art (of which I know little of)....to simply thrown it all out there and see what sticks.

My point in relaying all this.... if he did this in environments where he wasn't intruding on peoples time or space, no one really cared and he got the more than occasional shot that earned a cover photo, 2 page spread or some degree of notoriety. Yet, when it was done in a well controlled event such as a wedding, performing art venue or private or public event, not only was his intrusive methods and machine gun firing style often a nuisance, it could sometime become a spectacle for off handed comments and simply disdain...more often from any pro photographer who happened to be nearby than from the general public at large who were the targets of his photographic blasts.

So I am simply asking this as a rhetorical question....who were the ones who really cared and were bothered whether he chimped incessantly, showed anyone and everyone his rear LCD images most of the time and thus blasted his was into a personal photographic nirvana?

Personally I often think it was sometimes from those who were bothered by the whole process of creating images in a way far removed from what they considered conventional or normal and certainly not done in a accomplished manner using well accepted norms of composing an image....namely other photographers. It was just an observation I had over many years experiencing his brand of image capture.

Dave (D&A)

A Winogrand wannabe perhaps? Sounds like this guy needs a movie camera ... maybe he's a closet motion picture DP For sure he's a great editor.


I'll go you one better ... the most prolific, long lasting commercial lifestyle shooter in our area was worse than an amateur behind the camera ... he hired other people to take the photographs, and every Art Director winced when he did the shooting himself because it was more likely than not that the shots would be out of focus. He just had the magic touch of orchestrating the whole thing superbly and directing talent for convincing shots. Question is, if you don't touch the camera, are you a photographer? ... Frankly, no one cared, they got the shots they wanted because of him.


- Marc

 

[D&A]

Frankly, no one cared, they got the shots they wanted because of him.


- Marc

Exactly my point Marc! With the photographer I described above, no one but possibly other Pro photographers really cared how he achieved his images. He knew how to smooze, share his images immediately with those he just shot and often time out of shear luck came up with a photograph that was clearly different than anyone elses. Looking through the camera's viewfinder when shooting was completely optional for him.

As you said, no one cared becuase they got the shots they wanted because of him. I think he tried shooting video for all of 15 minutes, but that was boring and all too easy...LOL!

Dave (D&A)

 

[Mike M]

So I am simply asking this as a rhetorical question....who were the ones who really cared and were bothered whether he chimped incessantly, showed anyone and everyone his rear LCD images most of the time and thus blasted his way into a personal photographic nirvana?

Dave (D&A)

Dave, your story is a really good example of a certain kind of shooter that most of us should already be familiar with or may actually be ourselves! As a content producer, I learned that shooting double the images meant making double the money. So, the choice to "spray and pray" was not a difficult one to to make for me when it came to the bottom line of earning a profit.

My guess is that if any photographers are bothered by those that chimp then it is a matter of professional jealousy. Chimping is just forum-speak for what advertising shooters used to call "hacking." A hack is a guy that has no idea what he's doing and is just making it up as he goes along. In business, folks like that usually have lots of personal charisma and are really good at smoozing and bluffing etc. Hacks can be incredibly threatening to competing photography business owners because they simultaneously lower standards (making the barrier for entry more accessible) while driving down prices. Unfortunately, in a lot of markets the only way to really fight a hack is to be a bigger hack. In other words, if you can't beat 'em...join 'em.

Hacks may be a problem for professional photographers but they are no threat at all to artist photographers. Any artist that deserves the name must be able to personally express himself through a given medium. The spray-and-pray shooters and chimpers don't have control over the medium of photography yet or are just cynically using it for monetary profit, so they can't possibly use it as a tool for self-expression.

Ultimately, chimping or anything else that puts distance between a photographer and the decisive moment is a form of "self-harm." It's a sign that a photographer is alienated from himself and isn't living up to or achieving his personal potential in the medium. All of my previous posts in this thread were an attempt to help photographers better understand (through my experience) the importance of eliminating distance so that their own work could be improved. But, that doesn't mean that I give a damn whether they listen to me or not. As far as I'm concerned, they can chimp all they want!

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Chimping is just forum-speak for what advertising shooters used to call "hacking." A hack is a guy that has no idea what he's doing and is just making it up as he goes along.

I find your comments more and more insulting. Oh and clueless.

 

[fotografz]

Dave, your story is a really good example of a certain kind of shooter that most of us should already be familiar with or may actually be ourselves! As a content producer, I learned that shooting double the images meant making double the money. So, the choice to "spray and pray" was not a difficult one to to make for me when it came to the bottom line of earning a profit.

My guess is that if any photographers are bothered by those that chimp then it is a matter of professional jealousy. Chimping is just forum-speak for what advertising shooters used to call "hacking." A hack is a guy that has no idea what he's doing and is just making it up as he goes along. In business, folks like that usually have lots of personal charisma and are really good at smoozing and bluffing etc. Hacks can be incredibly threatening to competing photography business owners because they simultaneously lower standards (making the barrier for entry more accessible) while driving down prices. Unfortunately, in a lot of markets the only way to really fight a hack is to be a bigger hack. In other words, if you can't beat 'em...join 'em.

Hacks may be a problem for professional photographers but they are no threat at all to artist photographers. Any artist that deserves the name must be able to personally express himself through a given medium. The spray-and-pray shooters and chimpers don't have control over the medium of photography yet or are just cynically using it for monetary profit, so they can't possibly use it as a tool for self-expression.

Ultimately, chimping or anything else that puts distance between a photographer and the decisive moment is a form of "self-harm." It's a sign that a photographer is alienated from himself and isn't living up to or achieving his personal potential in the medium. All of my previous posts in this thread were an attempt to help photographers better understand (through my experience) the importance of eliminating distance so that their own work could be improved. But, that doesn't mean that I give a damn whether they listen to me or not. As far as I'm concerned, they can chimp all they want!

FYI: :ROTFL:

Actually, that isn't quite the meaning of "Hack". A Hack (noun) is someone that does know what they are doing, but exploits their creative ability by shoveling out work they hope will cater to the tastes of the masses and provide greater financial reward ... as in: Thomas Kinkade,"painter of light" was a successful Hack.

It can also mean someone who works doing dull routine tasks in the literary world for pay ... and was derived from the English equestrian term for horses that did drudgery duty and repetitious tasks ... a shortened slang version of Hackney ... as in Hackney Carriage ... all the way to "Hack" currently meaning a Taxi or cab driver.

It has nothing to do with whether one looks at the LCD on a digital camera or not. BTW, there are oodles of non-professional artistic oriented photographers that are Hacks.

God, language is interesting

- Marc

 

[Bob]

Tough to check a histogram without chimping.
If film cameras had that ability I would have surely used it, but since it is lacking I use a spotmeter or a partially educated guess.
Please remember folks that we expect folks to be courteous.
Violators will be banned at our whim for a cooling-off period or permanently.
-bob