this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Photography
24 readers
1 users here now
A place to politely discuss the tools, technique and culture of photography.
This is not a good place to simply share cool photos/videos or promote your own work and projects, but rather a place to discuss photography as an art and post things that would be of interest to other photographers.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I know that’s a common technique now with modern cameras and obsession with some “perfect moment,” but to me this isn’t taking pictures, it’s just transporting your camera, pointing it in a direction, letting the camera do the “thinking,” and relying on luck. That’s all it is, luck.
I do mostly wildlife photography, most digital, these days (started with film decades ago, and worked as photojournalist for a time), but I still don’t do this. I’m not sure I’ve ever even used my burst mode. I don’t remember ever doing it for an actual photo.
I’m not trying to say that’s better, or worse, or anything, but I just can’t even fathom the burst mode mindset. Everybody seems to think there is some objective perfect moment, and that the job of a photographer is to manage to catch it somehow - because it exists, and you can only either catch it or miss it. Modern tools increase the chance of not missing it. This isn’t being a photographer, it’s gambling. Gambling while holding a camera. I fully can’t understand the attraction.
I consider it using modern tools to NOT gamble.
If I can take 3 shots verse 1 of a bird I've been tracking for hours to insure I get it singing with its head towards me... Why not?
Gambling was going out for hours, clicking the shutter button once... And having a photo that was slightly off when you get to the darkroom because the bird jumped at the last second.
Sometimes you only get one chance when you are trying to get the shot. Technology has made it easier to get that one shot.
I've worked for companies like Nat Geo and Discovery throughout my career (not taking still but behind the film cameras) you spend weeks getting shots.
The fact that you (and lots of others) think there IS only one shot is the problem. This is the mindset created when high quality cameras gave people with no real appreciation or understanding of photography the ability to take apparently pro-level photos.
Unless somebody ELSE’S money is paying for you being there, and you naturally need to work under their limitations/requirements, you should be practicing photography, not trying to luck into the elusive “perfect” shot.
Everybody is now taking the “perfect” shot. It’s no big deal anymore. Anybody can sit there for 10 minutes talking 150 pictures of the same bird at high burst speed and come up with the “perfect” one. It takes no talent or ability at all. None. Especially since only your camera is doing any work. Is that the kind of lucktographer you want to be?
Damn. I figured the gate keeping mentality would have died with the darkroom.
Last I checked my camera could not climb a mountain on its own, frame up, and rapidly follow a fast moving bird through branches without me.
But fuck it, that's all luck I guess.
If people want to take 150 photos to get one they enjoy, so be it. It doesn't cost any more money anymore (outside of hard drive space if you offload them all)... Just time.
People will learn how much time they have for editing and sorting if/ when the take a 1000 photos... But if that's what they want to do. So be it.
Get over yourself.
Lol. The old “don’t gatekeep me” defense!
You got into photography a year ago and have no training in it. That’s fine. There is nothing wrong with that and every photographer was once there.
No, you camera cannot climbs mountain, etc. on its own, but what are you actually contributing other than aiming the lens at something? Seriously? What? The answer is not very much, and you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. I suspect if someone handed you a manual SLR and 20 rolls of film, you’d not come up with much.
I don’t care what you, or anybody else, wants to do to entertain yourself, but don’t kid yourself into thinking you are practicing photography when you point a fully automated camera, that is doing all of the work other than aiming, and taking 150 burst shots of a bird, so that can later dig out the one “perfect” one from the camera’s work. That’s lucktography. Accompanied by a walk, if you prefer, but you aren’t doing much more.
If you ever want to actually learn and get better, you have to leave this mindset behind, at least temporarily. Repeat after me: “There is no perfect shot out there waiting for me. Only the shots I take.” Practice mindful, thoughtful photography, and you will learn to take actual pictures that you can be proud of. Lucktography teaches you nothing useful.
I'm 20+ years deep with credits of Nat Geo, discovery, etc
I'm in unions and guilds... But fuck it. Some random dude on the Internet says I don't know what I'm doing because I use tech to my advantage.
Guess it's time to hang up my hat and retire.
You're 100% gate keeping.
People should learn from the discipline of film, but if burst mode or high speed photography helps them get more enjoyable shots that play to a wider audience... Then so be it.
Get over yourself.
I'm a lot further in than you are. If you actually need certain technology to get a particular shot, go for it.
But if you are just taking 50 near identical pictures of the same bird, fully automatic in every way, hoping that one pic in the 50 will be "perfect," then don't kid yourself. You are counting on the luck backed by technology, not your abilities as a photographer. You are practicing lucktography. I don't care how many guilds think you are the cat's pajamas. You are getting great shots by luck and tech, not your skills.
Nat Geo cares about the shot. Not how you get it. They want that 1 in 50 perfect shot. That's what they pay you for. But they publish photos, they don't practice photography.
K