Machine gunning

Ulfric M Douglas said:
... on Saturday I was using plenty of burst on a group of six faces at a wedding : I got one where they all looked good.
Click to expand...
If I'm photographing a group if people I find that a burst gives a higher probability of getting a photo where everyone has their eyes open. Or at least more raw material to create a composite where everyone has their eyes open.
 
DemiLion said:
You see that's the type of elitism that I fundamentally disagree with, even for studio shooting.

The human face changes expression multiple times in one second - even with a fully trained professional model. With a 'personality', it'll vary wildly.
That's why fashion studios and editorial portrait photographers take so many shots.

You're absolutely spot on in the other genres, but please, as a teacher, drop the elitist 'proper photographer' BS and teach people how to get the best possible image.
Click to expand...


LOL... then stop looking at the people through the camera.... watch them... talk to them. and shoot when you see what you want instead of machine gunning and hoping you'll get it. Start machine gunning them and you'll probably not see the real person. Sorry, but I've shot so many editorial portrait shoots I can't even remember them all.


What you are suggesting is that now we have digital, people take better portraits? Patently, this is utter crap.

I do teach people to get the best image possible... what you are suggesting is a way to increase your chances of getting it serendipitously. What I suggest is a way of getting it. Once you've set everything up... forget photography... it's all bulls**t.... then it's about you and the person you're interacting with.. nothing more. If you think you can get teh b est portrait from behind a D4 rattling away like a machine gun, then you're an idiot who not only knows nothing about portraiture, but also nothing about people.
 
StewartR said:
If I'm photographing a group if people I find that a burst gives a higher probability of getting a photo where everyone has their eyes open. Or at least more raw material to create a composite where everyone has their eyes open.
Click to expand...


With large groups.... I agree... You're not trying to take a portrait here.... just getting everyone with their eyes open, looking at the camera, and not looking like a complete retard is usually good enough. Having said that, there are ways to get the attention of the whole group that increase chances dramatically. As usual when working with people, the most useful skills to increase your chances of success are nothing to do with photography at all.
 
Pookeyhead said:
If you think you can get teh b est portrait from behind a D4 rattling away like a machine gun, then you're an idiot who not only knows nothing about portraiture, but also nothing about people.
Click to expand...

This is a little harsh. You make some very good points in your full post about experience, interaction etc. It may be the person taking the photos does not have these skills in the same way you have, therefore for them machine gunning is the best way of achieving the result they want.

It may not be the best overall technique, but you shouldn't call them an idiot for them believing this is the best approach for them at the moment.
 
Paule23 said:
This is a little harsh. You make some very good points in your full post about experience, interaction etc. It may be the person taking the photos does not have these skills in the same way you have, therefore for them machine gunning is the best way of achieving the result they want.

It may not be the best overall technique, but you shouldn't call them an idiot for them believing this is the best approach for them at the moment.
Click to expand...

If he hadn't have opened his post by calling me elitist and dismissing quarter of a century of professional experience as both photographer and educator, I may well have reacted differently. He could, after all have just made his point and disagreed by positing an alternative view, but no, instead he calls me elitist, and then goes on to criticise my teaching methods as bull s**t and tries to tell me how to teach when he has no experience as a photographic educator worth mentioning. You probably didn't notice that though did you.... just me using the word idiot.

When it comes to portraits, photography is only half the story... most of it is how you interact with the person you are photographing. Yes, these are skills.. inter-personal skills. I can't help you with those.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
If he hadn't have opened his post by calling me elitist and dismissing quarter of a century of professional experience as both photographer and educator, I may well have reacted differently. He could, after all have just made his point and disagreed by positing an alternative view, but no, instead he calls me elitist, and then goes on to criticise my teaching methods as bull s**t and tries to tell me how to teach when he has no experience as a photographic educator worth mentioning. You probably didn't notice that though did you.... just me using the word idiot.

When it comes to portraits, photography is only half the story... most of it is how you interact with the person you are photographing. Yes, these are skills.. inter-personal skills. I can't help you with those.
Click to expand...


Your approach is/was elitist, in the old school version of film photography. And yup, I think that what is being achieved with digital is often superior to film product, principally because there is more choice.

I agree with the last line 100% though.
 
I was in a bird hide recently when a chap with the same kit as me (1Dxii + big L lens) rattled off at least 100 shots of an osprey in flight to my single shutter count. At the time, I thought it was fairly pointless, not because of a superiority complex, but because the bird was a fair distance away. If it had been a good bit closer, I'd have probably done something similar. I guess he'll be looking for a new shutter long before I will.

There are occasions when machine gunning can probably acheive the desired image. The trick is to know when to let it rip and when to use some discretion.
 
FourRingCircus said:
The trick is to know when to let it rip and when to use some discretion.
Click to expand...
I go along with that.

I do equine photography for much of my work and the two people I work with have convinced - and encouraged - me to take single shots. When the riders have a show jumping round I tend only to take one per jump, or sometimes two. The horse has to be fractions of a second into take off and then halfway over the jump or a little more. In the air is what we look for as a hoof on the ground won't sell. With a working hunter pony round (similar to show jumping) I normally take one per jump but usually machine gun/take 3-4 of the bullfinch, then delete as necessary. The bullfinch is the last jump where they jump through some dead birch leaves and this jump usually sells better than the others.

With flat work (trotting/cantering/galloping) they've taught me which leg to look for and when to press the shutter button. Ironically, machine gunning just doesn't work as if you start at the wrong place you won't find a saleable shot in the machine gunned sequence - but single clicks work. I know it's odd but that's the way the cookie crumbles!

Does take practice though - and LOTS of it!! It took them a good two years to get it right and I'm finishing my second year. Think I need a third year though till I start improving ...

In fairness, at the last show I'd deleted loads of shots in camera but they did use most of the remainder.
 
Interesting topic.

I love motorsport panning and like to think I've go fairly proficient at it. I've always argued (politely!) that if you want to get really good at it it makes a whole lot more sense to concentrate on one clean attempt per pan, as you actually begin to get a feel for the movement required, the technique and the appropriate speed for your subject. Sure, it will be frustrating and you might come back from some events with few keepers, but give it a few years and you can almost forget the technique of it all and really focus on the stuff that really matters (light, composition etc).

It would be a bit like taking 100 golf swings and just picking the ball nearest to the target, but never stopping to figure out why that swing was better than the other 99.
 
Do you mean you have figured out why that swing was better? Most amateur golfers never work it out!
 
I mostly do motorsport photography, and as a rule I generally don't machine gun, preferring to take one or two well timed shots as a car passes, exits a corner etc., otherwise you end up filling your memory cards quickly with near identical shots and selecting and editing when you get home takes many times longer.

There are some exceptions though, such as if someone goes off through the gravel and you catch e whole sequence. I've twice been asked by a driver to take a sequence of shots at a particular corner so they can see how the suspension and tyres are behaving (view on a laptop at the end of the session).

If I do take a few in quick succession, I will generally go through them in camera before the cars come round on the next lap, pick the best one from the bunch and delete the rest.

At the recent BTCC round at Knockhill, I got an earful of abuse from a spectator for standing about 15 feet in front of him for about 20 seconds on the 24th of 26 laps. When I turned round, he had his camera mounted on a fixed position on a tripod and was taking hundreds of exactly the same shot on every lap of the race by holding his finger on the shutter release button :D he was still mumbling abuse at me as he continued to machine gun the same shot as the cars came round on the next lap.
 
I too shoot a lot of motorsport and I burst shoot loads, why not? I'm often there to make money and the more photos (especially when panning at lower speeds) increases the chances of getting good shots = better chance of more money. It's mostly the same with the football or other action based events I shoot.
 
DemiLion said:
Your approach is/was elitist, in the old school version of film photography. And yup, I think that what is being achieved with digital is often superior to film product, principally because there is more choice.

I agree with the last line 100% though.
Click to expand...


So you agree with my sentiments of knowing, interacting with, and watching the person... but still want to machine gun them from behind the camera?

Errr.. OK.

Whatever mate... you'd argue black is white if it was me you were arguing with any way... so (shrug).
 
EdwardL said:
I suppose machine gunning a sunrise or sunset might seem a little excessive ...
Click to expand...

Or stationary cars at a car meet..... I'm often finding a good angle or less distracting background, concentrating on accurate manual focus for a shot I know will be the best in the situation and someone stops next to me, rattles off a continuous half a dozen shots, paces to the next car, same again..... So there's probably 100 cars there on average which means they must always want something to edit all Sunday afternoon with a fake hdr preset ;)
 
Like with almost everything related to taking photographs, it boils down to what is best for a given situation and knowing when to use what method/settings. I 'machine gun' some of the stage work where the musicians are being energetic rather than just standing there for example, and It also helps to catch changing expressions when there is a lot going on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top