Decisive Moments for the Small Sensor

[Arch]

We all know how Henri Cartier-Bresson tried his best to avoid being noticed while capturing his moments. He probably wouldn’t have attached the later introduced motor drive in his Leica, however silent it may have been for him.

Today, we have the option of taking several frames per second without a motor drive, and be even less noticed than HCB with our little pocket cameras. Yet, we can achieve the same technical quality as he did with his Leica. We don’t even have to think about saving film with the rapidly increasing capacities and decreasing prices of our memory cards. Instead of capturing the decisive moment, we can capture many with a single shutter release, and choose the most decisive one among them.

Easy? Too easy, I hear. Takes away all the thrill, fun, romanticism and professionality? The question is: would HCB have used the M8 and its 2 frames per second? A Ricoh GR/GX or any other pocket camera? Would you, have you?

Here’s an example. At the time of the shot I wanted to capture the motion, but it was impossible for me to know which one of the four would be moving exactly when. Among the few consecutive shots was this pleasant surprise, showing all but the baby as a joyful blur. (Canon G3, 1/8 sec. f/8)

 

[Player]

I can't get past the thought of HCB using an M8, with a 35 Summicron no less.

What a terrific photograph!

 

[Sean_Reid]

Hi Arch,

These are general comments that follow, they're not at all related to your picture.

Speaking generally, one could make 100 exposures at 5 FPS and still be dissappointed with every exposure. Machine gunning a camera is a bit like the 1000 monkeys working on 1000 typewriters.

I understand the mathematical appeal but I myself never work that way except when I'm doing commercial group pictures and want to be sure I have an exposure where no one is blinking.

Yes, I use the M8 as my primary camera and no, I've never shot it in continuous mode. That's not to say one shouldn't, or that any one approach reigns supreme, but,for what its worth, I, personally, only press the shutter when everything seems to be falling into place within the frame.

Machine gunning is a bit like shooting a movie the hard way. Which reminds me, if one really does want to work this way, there's something to be said for shooting video or movie film and then selecting individual frames from the results. In a sense, its a kind of two-stage photography.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[gero]

Hello,

I like the idea of two stage photography. Or even three, if you shoot under exposed, for example knowing that later you can adjust when developing.

If you think as photography being a continuous or fluent activity your results could be very interesting.

Playing with time in a different way than just video.

 

[gromitspapa]

I shoot in continuous mode with my DSLR, but only when there's motion involved. Like you said, with card memory being free, there's no harm in shooting extras. When things are moving, there's no anticipating the perfect moment. Better to cull through 5 times as many images and be more likely to find a gem. I almost always shoot color and RAW, so the GX100 doesn't allow continuous. I'll definitely think about trying this.

Awesome image, BTW. There's something very cool about it with only the baby in focus. Try putting more contrast in- it brings out the baby more, too.

 

[Terry]

Hi Arch,

These are general comments that follow, they're not at all related to your picture.

Speaking generally, one could make 100 exposures at 5 FPS and still be dissappointed with every exposure. Machine gunning a camera is a bit like the 1000 monkeys working on 1000 typewriters.

I understand the mathematical appeal but I myself never work that way except when I'm doing commercial group pictures and want to be sure I have an exposure where no one is blinking.

Yes, I use the M8 as my primary camera and no, I've never shot it in continuous mode. That's not to say one shouldn't, or that any one approach reigns supreme, but,for what its worth, I, personally, only press the shutter when everything seems to be falling into place within the frame.

Machine gunning is a bit like shooting a movie the hard way. Which reminds me, if one really does want to work this way, there's something to be said for shooting video or movie film and then selecting individual frames from the results. In a sense, its a kind of two-stage photography.

Cheers,

Sean

I can't find a link to the specific series on the internet but an artist by the name of Rob Craigie (represented by Haines Gallery in SF) worked in video and then did large prints of single video frames. I have a large (like 30x40) print by him. The exhibit was interesting because both the video and prints were shown.

 

[Sean_Reid]

There have been quite a few artist who've been pulling stills from film and video in the last couple of years, based on what I've been seeing in the Chelsea galleries. In fact Robert Frank has done it but, interestingly, those stills come from films that were intended to be films.

I really do think, though, that if one wants to choose his or her exposure moment in the computer (photography of the screen, sort of) then video or (movie) film makes sense as an initial medium. In a sense, with this approach, the monitor becomes the finder for the second stage of the photography. To be sure, one could cull strong still photographs from films by John Ford, Kurasawa, some Wim Wenders, and others. If I ever get tempted to work this way, Ill skip the half-measure of continuous FPS (in a still camera) and go straight to some kind of movie camera. Machine gunning a still camera creates a strange kind of pergatory between still photography and cinematography.

Shooting many FPS is something I don't do, with a few commercial exceptions, because it would ruin my concentration. But we all have our own ways of working.

Cheers,

 

[Arch]

When starting this thread, I was certain that this was a territory of strong beliefs and even religious vocabulary. I must admit that I, too, enjoy tremendously when a photo turns out to be just the way I saw it when I took it - pressing the shutter only once (or only shortly). This is how I take most of my photos, and I like it. It's very human to be proud of one's own skills.

There's another side of this attitude, however. "One shot", "hole in one", "bull's eye" and what have you, they all belong to the hunter-soldier-samurai kind of pride-driven world, which is usually considered extremely masculine - macho if you wish. The gatherer (feminine?) kind of attitude could be just what the continuous mode offers: collect a few alternatives, compare, and choose the best one. For the same reason I don't like the machine gun analogy (or the word "shoot"), especially not with the quiet pocket cameras, which you can easily take to the church. For me, the most natural and creative approach is to feel at home with both of these territories (the simplified masculine-feminine attitudes).

Nor do I really buy the monkey/typewriter analogy that Sean was suggesting. The most decisive moment for a photograph is the realisation of an opportunity. This makes us grab the tool from our pockets, and use whichever method suits best for the picture which is developing in our minds. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that monkeys don't really realise these opportunities.

The "two-stage photography" is a nice concept, and as Gero suggested, allows us to play with time. Photography becomes some kind of rapid archaeology, where findings can offer similar feelings of pleasure than the one shot principle. I simply cannot see this as a moral question. Chance and coincidence can help us achieve the results we want.

I have used the video frame capture, too. On one occasion I could not use the camcorder and the still camera at the same time, but I needed a print from that occasion. A simple screen capture of a paused video (the good old Cmnd-shift-4 /mac) gave me a decent image for the small print, with some interpolation and added grain, of course.

One thread of camera technology is the hybrid camera, which benefits greatly of the growing capacities and speeds of flash memory. They are becoming smaller all the time. Probably, in near future, the small vest pocket camera becomes a high quality, high definition camcorder with just a longer press of the shutter. We somehow circle to the starting point of the Leica, which was developed around the idea of using the film of motion picture cameras. A radical idea, which was not accepted unanimously for serious photography when it was first presented. Maybe these consumer-oriented pocket miracles will offer new kinds of creative potential for serious photography?

 

[tt113]

I want to add to this discussion that if one is not considering the end result of their photographs to be in print but in multimedia slideshow. Then, a pocket camera with a zoom lens which can take picture and video at the same time, can adds a lot to the possibilities of photography. Since I had not seen any discussion about multimedia slideshow, like those seen in www.magnuminmotion.com, I really want to see what is your folks thought on the subjects.

 

[Sean_Reid]

The realization of an opportunity does not make a picture. As Winogrand once wrote, and I paraphrase, "If dramatic content equalled a dramatic picture then every close play at home base would be a masterpiece." Cartier Bresson, who always seems to be over-represented in these kinds of discussions, defined the "decisive moment" as the moment at which the visual elements of the picture came together - came together, of course, to his eye. We know that he also often made several intentional variations of pictures in series and later chose the strongest.

As for the whole hunter/macho etc. theory, I've never been interested in Sontag or Barth's books on photography. The analogy has nothing to do with making pictures (nor do their books, but that's a topic for another discussion). Post-modernism is another kettle of fish.

There is a difference between machine gunning (which is an old term in photography) and making intentional sequential variations that one later chooses among. Thinking of Winogrand again, consider the several versions he made of that young woman eating an ice cream cone on a NYC street. Looking at the contact sheet, we can see that he made several variations and later chose the one he felt was strongest. I think a lot of us do that. That's not the same as having the camera fire a sequence of exposures in the hopes that one will work out. But if that latter approach works out, then so be it. There's no hierarchy of photographic method, or there shouldn't be.

There are no rules in photography and if one is making strong pictures by machine gunning then that's that. But, again, it's a really just an intermediate step between still photography and cinematography. And the photographer is, essentially, photographing in two stages. There's nothing wrong with that either - its just a different process. I know an exceptional artist who, right now, is making pictures from screen captures of a computer monitor.

If you're troubled by the monkeys on typewriters analogy, I'll withdraw that lest we get sidetracked into a discussion that is no longer about pictures. And when I say that machine gunning is not the way that I work, I mean *I* not *one*. Each of us should work as we see fit.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Sean_Reid]

I want to add to this discussion that if one is not considering the end result of their photographs to be in print but in multimedia slideshow. Then, a pocket camera with a zoom lens which can take picture and video at the same time, can adds a lot to the possibilities of photography. Since I had not seen any discussion about multimedia slideshow, like those seen in www.magnuminmotion.com, I really want to see what is your folks thought on the subjects.

Sure, one has a still camera and a little movie camera in hand. I filmed the hour after my second daughter was born with a little Digilux 1. Why not use these camera's abilities when and if one is so inclined? Sometimes we want our pictures to move.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[gero]

I want to add to this discussion that if one is not considering the end result of their photographs to be in print but in multimedia slideshow.

The grate thing about photography is that one can be more selective in the sequence of time.

Other possibilities could be an interactive documentary or game where the viewer could choose different paths in a city for the same moment or different seasons of the same place.

I liked those mulimedia examples

 

[tt113]

I don't mean to highjack this thread, but I think once we consider multimedia as an alternative format other print, the meaning of decisive moment changes a little. Plus, because picture are now view through a LCD instead of print, output quality is not as critical as in print, I feel that it is more forgiven to small sensor camera, and the video capability of the small sensor camera is in fact an advantage. As a format to tell a story, multimedia, being able to mix picture with sound and allowing one to control how long a frame is being viewed, gives more flexibility for story telling.
Here is one example of multimedia slideshow that I really like:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/11/24/world/asia/choking_on_growth_5.html#story2
and the music is specifically composed for this slideshow.

 

[stnami]

The pivotal role held by the still image is long gone ..........

Here in Australia the Bulletin magazine just got the flick, the only ones that lament are some that used to read it in the past, not many present readers existed. Once again another still image outlet disappears, small hand held devices inform where the call for traditional aesthetics and thinking are limited.......
The so called decisive moment these days is about the moving pictures partly truth and partly fiction and that only matters when it affects you the individual........................... too many of us as photographers divorce ourselves from society, the snappy P&S crew are probably at the game a lot better than us so called serious lot

Forums are another isolated form, continually inverting into themselves......... most of the public don't give a shit about cameras, image quality.................they just want a picture to glance at and then get on with whatever they are doing

 

[jonoslack]

What an INTERESTING discussion - I think it might be pivotal to my particular problem with small sensor cameras.
Thank you Arch for starting it (and what a lovely photo) and thank you also to Sean for your interesting answers.
I remember talking to an elderly (but still working) sports photographer about 'machine gunning' and he said that he never shot more than 1 shot at a time, because his reaction times were better than the 1/5th second between shots in continuous mode.
I never shoot in continuous, although I sometimes shoot a lot of pictures close together - like the old sports photographer I feel that my reaction is better than the gap between the photos.
My problem with smaller cameras is focus lag; not so much the actual time as the unpredictability of it - and also the tiny, but significant time lapse involved in looking at an EVF or an LCD, one is already viewing history.
I'm not a great advocate of chance in the making of good photos, which means that I do have to decide when I'm going to press the shutter (wouldn't it be nice to get it right more often!).

 

[Sean_Reid]

Hi Imants,

As more and more news is delivered via the web, to say nothing of television, and as the average person comes to have access to higher and higher levels of bandwidth, I imagine that video will increasingly compete with still photography. I don't think the latter will go away as a medium for journalism, for example, but I think you're right that the trend is towards wider use of video.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Sean_Reid]

What an INTERESTING discussion - I think it might be pivotal to my particular problem with small sensor cameras.
Thank you Arch for starting it (and what a lovely photo) and thank you also to Sean for your interesting answers.
I remember talking to an elderly (but still working) sports photographer about 'machine gunning' and he said that he never shot more than 1 shot at a time, because his reaction times were better than the 1/5th second between shots in continuous mode.
I never shoot in continuous, although I sometimes shoot a lot of pictures close together - like the old sports photographer I feel that my reaction is better than the gap between the photos.
My problem with smaller cameras is focus lag; not so much the actual time as the unpredictability of it - and also the tiny, but significant time lapse involved in looking at an EVF or an LCD, one is already viewing history.
I'm not a great advocate of chance in the making of good photos, which means that I do have to decide when I'm going to press the shutter (wouldn't it be nice to get it right more often!).

Hi Jono,

The only way to work quickly with the current small sensor cameras, frame after frame, is to abandon AF all together. Some of them respond almost instantly to the shutter when in MF and some don't. I myself have no interest in the latter. If I can't lift the camera to my eye and immediately trip the shutter, I don't want it. Others, of course, may not need that kind of responsiveness.

Similarly, using an accessory optical finder rather than an LCD or EVF removes another obstacle to responsiveness.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[stnami]

My problem with smaller cameras is focus lag; not so much the actual time as the unpredictability of it - and also the tiny, but significant time lapse involved in looking at an EVF or an LCD, one is already viewing history

this means that you can get that other moment you never considered

 

[Sean_Reid]

Indeed....imagine combining ample use of the continuous mode with ample auto-focus lag.....random moments of exposure combined with random focus....I suppose if one really wanted to let go of the reins to see what the horse will do when given its head, that combination might do the trick.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Sean, how about AF on a likely spot followed by holding the half press until the shot develops as you foresee it? I know the GR-family has tools for this, but I find I can hold a half-press quite a long time. I'm also starting to get some reasonable results during a basketball game with the Leica by prefocusing on the floor, and that doesn't feel any different.

As for the inevitable changes in the journalism profession (I was a print journalist for a while, never did photography), consider the positive response that Dirck Halstead has gotten to his Platypus courses. A Platypus is a print still photo-journalist taking an accelerated course in video production. Planning, shooting, editing, and producing a short segment with equipment that used to be Canon GL-2's and is now hand-held HDTV gear and quality sound -- all in a week. He now gives the course twice a year, on both coasts. His assumption that agencies and networks will expect their people to handle both modes (or only care about the video) seems to be accepted.

scott