|
Forums >
General Industry >
the term "Chimping"??
I was at a concert shoot recently and there were 3 photographers including myself in attendance. Well, during the setup of the headliners, i snapped a few shots at the lighting before curtains were drawn and looked at my viewfinder to see how lighting was.... well, this "uber-professional" photographer came up to me and told me to quit "Chimping" because i was "showing my true colors" .... i didn't get his comment at all, and asked him what chimping meant, and he told me that "chimping" is when amateurs and GWCs take a picture and fumble through their cameras looking at their photos because they don't have an idea of what they're doing. After the shock wore off from his comment, i thought "do other photographers look down upon viewfinder gazing?? Other photographers tell me it's the old timers stuck in the film mentality... I dunno....im ranting cuz i found it a bit offensive... and yes, he was an old guy  Aug 07 06 11:45 am Link Did he actually use the term GWC? Aug 07 06 11:48 am Link well be a chimp then.... who cares what others think... your work shows your work... if you need to llok through the camera, you are doing it for a reason.. as so to get the best pictures you think are possible... why not reply "hey dinosaur, your depends are leaking" that will shut him up... Aug 07 06 11:52 am Link Chimping is a term I would relate to a person who looks at the back of their camera after every shot and OOHs and AAHs over them. Yes I do look at the back of my camera from time to time to check light and setup. The problem with constant looking is that you might miss a shot while you are looking at the back of your camera. And yes, some of this does come from my film days (btw I still shoot a lot of film) when you trust yourself and trust your equipment enough to know that you got the shot without looking. Because with film, you had no proof that you got the shot until you were in the darkroom. And to be honest, that still holds a certain fascination with me, kind of like a scantily clad woman, it leaves a little to the imagination. Aug 07 06 11:54 am Link Well tell you what -- I'd rather make sure I got the shot than go home feeling all pro and find that I had something somewhere set wrong, whether it was lights, white balance, ISO, whatever. Someone told me a wedding horror story where this photographer ran out of film and continued pretending to shoot. Later he got more film and shot up the reception to "make up for it". LOL. Obviously not a pro, but still. I think its better to confirm your shot. If only amateurs used it, why is this complex and expensive feature included in top pro cameras? Aug 07 06 11:54 am Link You should have called him an Aardvark... Aug 07 06 11:55 am Link Man that would have gotten be pretty angry...I mean who is this dude to call you an amateur!?! Some nerve people have...I get it tough sometimes though, because people are always tentative to shoot with me because of my age and im just like okay be quite and look at my portfolio...because in reality thats what speaks for you. I mean I dunno thats my opinion, there should be no judgement until you see the port.. EDIT: Yes I glance over the screen after taking some shots, but like everybody else here its only to make sure that my exposure is accurate. Once I went to a work shop where they blocked the screen in the back and I was so conditioned to take a picture and then take a quick glance to see what the set up looked like before I moved on, and everyone would tsk tsk because I knew that it didn't work but I would still sometimes check out of conditioning. Aug 07 06 11:55 am Link There was a video posted some time ago showing professional sports photographers "chimping" and talking to those who chimped and those who didn't. So it seems that there are pros who do it just as much as amateurs. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with reviewing shots to check your histogram or to make sure you've gotten a particular shot. It's a useful feature, why not take advantage of it. Here's a link to the video Aug 07 06 11:59 am Link And, yes, "chimping" IS frowned on... but in your case you should have said that you were just setting up the camera and the WB... both valid reasons to chimp the test shots. I was out shooting the Liverpool [UK] Carnival on Saturday with all the usual suspects in the local and regional press pack [employed and freelance], and over a 4 hour period, not a chimp in the bunch. Us old film shooters usually KNOW what we have got when the trigger is pulled... and yes I shot 10 rolls of 35 on the trot that afternoon so I, personally, can't chimp... but I never saw any of the digi shooters chimping or I would have ragged them just as he did you. In a heartbeat! LOL Studio36 Aug 07 06 12:01 pm Link Well, a couple photographers who I really respect and admire chimp occasionally to keep track of lighting and exposure and so on, so I don't see a thing wrong with it. When I am shooting in the studio, it's fun to chimp with the model. After a series of shots, it's fun to go over them with the model so she can see that we are indeed getting some good shots! Personally, I hope I never get so complacent or over confident that I don't use all of the tools available to me to do the best I can for my art. Aug 07 06 12:04 pm Link Chimping has already gone the way of misunderstanding. It was initially referring to checking the digital screen and showing others to elicit oohs and aahs (the sound of chimps) or just to hear grunts and groans of appreciation. IT IS NOT JUST LOKING AT YOUR DIGITAL FINDER. I check mine very, very often because I might adjust the lighting, f-stops or shutter speeds after EACH shot to get a different effect. I design from the video readout. If you like to call that chimping--so be it! BTW--I guess the people who criticize chimping dont use a light meter cause they already KNOW what f-stop and shutter speed to use from just viewing a scene! Hell--they don't even need a camera at all--they can just describe what they see!! Aug 07 06 12:05 pm Link IMHO, it's better to chimp occasionally and not screw an entire shoot because you were too full of hubris to check and make sure you had it all together. Aug 07 06 12:07 pm Link studio36uk wrote: (Trot and ragged)...why do they sound so interesting...I am on the trot you bloody bloke!..what he just ragged me..the sod..I tried to tell me I was not bloody well chimping.. Aug 07 06 12:11 pm Link Synthetic Shadows wrote: I'm a "double chimper". Not only do I "chimp" to check white balance on each unique set up, but I also "chimp" to make sure that my histograms are generally coming out the way that I expect them to come out. Aug 07 06 12:16 pm Link studio36uk wrote: I'm an old film shooter from way the hell back too. Still, I check my viewfinder every few shots with my DSLR for the simple fact that is is a seriously complex electronic device that is far easier to get accidentally out of whack or have an unknown internal electronic fubar than a film camera which usually only had a mechanical shutter and aperture. The film ISO ring was for the match needle exposure meter in the viewfinder. If you used a handheld spot meter like I did, it didn't much matter where the ISO was set on the camera. There was no electronic white balance, no auto focus, no electronic ISO, etc. etc, etc. I knew my equipment and I knew my film and I understood exposure. I could see through the viewfinder if I was in focus. I was fairly confident of what I would get when I pressed the shutter. Aug 07 06 12:16 pm Link Ok, I understand the entomology of chimping now ("oh" "Oh" "oooo") but I still call it chimping when a photographer at an event and misses shots because they're looking at the back of their camera. As a person stuck in the old school, I have my preview completely shut of since my first digital camera (saves a heck of a lot of battery power)... I do however understand that when setting up, pre shoot, that you may want to check the display for proper exposure and white balance. That's cool. Just don't miss shots because you're checking your preview after every click of the damned shutter. I was at an event in Philly a few weeks ago, and saw not one, but two photographers with nice rigs looking at the back of their camera after every exposure, and they each missed more shots than they took. Aug 07 06 12:16 pm Link Studio Yeah-Yeah wrote: Anyone who actually squeezes the trigger is a chimp. Aug 07 06 12:21 pm Link Hey that's fun! & heres a edit into English ;-) 'I had to hurry, I was on the trot you ghastly bloke!' 'What! he just ragged on me..the bloody sod..' 'I tried to tell them I was not 'chimping', they just bloody well didn't listen..' 'Now do go and get me a cuppa dear & dont forget me fags as well...' ps ''chop to it'' lass - is different - very Northern but my Dad used to say it, for a luagh!! don't know WHAT ''afore my nubs fall off..'' is lol although 'afore' is kinda PIRATES! **Sorry just practising my (uk) accent..** Aug 07 06 12:21 pm Link I mostly just 'chimp' when shooting with insanely pale people, with it set on the hotspot finder. Aug 07 06 12:24 pm Link Yeah, i was setting up my lighting for the main act. He also seemed to be a bit of a Diva in the press section... informing the other photographers where he was going to be at what time so they could move  Thanks for the reply. I also think it looks unprofessional to look down at your viewfinder after EVERY shot, but i also think we should embrace the technology we have.... It saves time and you'll get a better idea of what you'll have to work with in post.... and he didn't say GWC, he just said "some schmuck with a camera"..... im still surprised he said that lol.... Aug 07 06 12:25 pm Link Actually the term refers to taking position of high office while being grossly underqualified. Aug 07 06 12:25 pm Link Aug 07 06 12:28 pm Link I had never heard that term before and I got a chuckle from it.. I never look until the shoot is over.. I shoot my digital stuff the same way i shoot my film, so I cant look with film so I dont look with digital.. I meter my shots and shoot everything in manual mode.. just like with film.. I still dont like the autofocus feature on my camera but these new ones are hard to focus manually unlike my 30 year old Olympus OMG that I still shoot alot of my B&W film projects with.. But i wouldnt look down on anyone who did it.. I just dont see how that little screen helps.. or maybe my eyes are just bad.. LMAO What may look in focus on that viewer may be out of foucus when it is shown on a monitor.. but maybe that is just with Nikons..?? I know the few times I have looked at it, it didnt tell me much.. it never looks the same on my computer.. Aug 07 06 12:28 pm Link Anjel Britt wrote: LMAO..you got it down pat!..I need to go to the UK so I can get a real feel for the lingo...all I have is some books..not the same at all..the real deal is way better. Aug 07 06 12:29 pm Link Joe, As a model I think I'd rather shoot with a guy who cares about what he is shooting enough to check on it every so often, versus a guy who thinks he's so good he doesn't need to take a look until the shoot is over. Just my opinion. Aug 07 06 12:29 pm Link Thanks Bev I thought that too! I check every so often (usually after I change lighitng setup)... I guess im happy being a Chimp Aug 07 06 12:33 pm Link Bev wrote: So you never shoot with guys who shoot real film..?? Aug 07 06 12:34 pm Link My opinion: Chimping (which to me is looking at EVERY SINGLE PHOTO YOU TAKE AND THEN SHOW IT TO THE MODEL) is bad. However, digital technology has enabled us to do things we could not with film. Just like film has its positive and negative elements, so does digital. One of the good elements of digital photography is that you ARE able to check the lighting and occasionally show the model how to pose better by showing her the photo. The viewscreen will never replace the negative or print, but it is good for basic correction. By this I mean lighting, white balance, model pose, etc. Like anything else, if used properly it is a great tool. BTW, even though I am not an 'old guy' I did get my BFA during the film era and do have a love of b&w film prints. I think color is better in digital, but b&w is generally best if you are using film. This being said, I use my camera (30D) in manual and raw modes, and even with the light meter, etc, I do check the lighting to see if it is how I want it. I generally underexpose digital film by a stop, since it seems to work better that way, more detail, etc, especially with raw. And, I do not look at every single photo. In fact, I still have the film aesthetic of only taking about 50 pics when I do artistic work. When I do documentary work, I shoot a lot more and look at the photos a lot less, since it gets in my way. So, I think that his view on 'chimping' is somewhat but not totally valid. We need to accept the advantages that new technology has to offer, but I am still very very happy I learned on film. I feel that it makes my digital work much better. Aug 07 06 12:41 pm Link Welcome to the world of R'n'R photography. I don't shoot digital, and if I did, it's 3 songs and out of the pit. Some artist even less. Sooo, I shoot and depend on my experience to know if everyting is right. Once in awhile, it bites me in the ass. But it's close enough for R'n'R! A couple of good images is all I ask. I'm happy when I get out without be pissed or puked on, broken drumstick in the forehead, spit on, or yes, even set on fire.  Aug 07 06 12:46 pm Link UIPHOTOS wrote: I haven't yet...but I'd like to someday! Aug 07 06 12:59 pm Link So is it fair to say anyone that sets the custom white balance is chimping??? Afterall, you take a shot, then fumble around looking at the back of the camera, ect... This reminds me of the old days working in the Car studios, As students we would assist and late at night when the shoot was over we could have our own sessions. Sometime the pros would observe student lighting ideas and tell us that we were doing stuff that was 'barely addiquite' And onetime, within 2 to 3 weeks, that same lighting idea was used to illuminate door panels...crazy shit! When someone feels threatened--the first thing they do is critize and make you question your judgement. Go with what feels right, or what is right...F#ck the oppinions. Aug 07 06 01:04 pm Link I was a guest at a wedding in which the photographer looked at his digital display after every picture he took. I felt sorry for him. I saw the term chimping used for the first time on a pbs documentary about some famous sports photographer. He was taking pictures of other famous sports photographers looking at their lcd viewers and he referred to it as chimping and claimed that anyone that did this was a hack amatuer. The videographer caught him doing it several times during the shoot. You just can't help it, it's fun. Aug 07 06 01:14 pm Link I check from time to time, usually after changing locations or setups. When I do, I am checking the histogram to see how even the lighting is. If you want to call that chimping, go ahead, I'm just gonna laugh and call you a dinosaur for your effort! Aug 07 06 01:15 pm Link You have to consider the source, he probably goes right home and puts them on the computer to post on MySpace. You might sell them or post them on MySPace also, who knows. If you get the shot you want, who cares. There are a few things you could have said like names some a Fstop you were thinking of using and you wanted to check how it looked.....BUT......say a Fstop you know is wrong or would give a real crappy photo. He will either say something about the Fstop and you will be able to tell from that is he is a professional or not. He just may walk away thinking...."Cool i have the Fstop now" .....and use it, but since he dont chimp he will find out later that none of the photos came out. The other thing you can do is ask him his name and then whip out your card and hand it to him and say "Well you seem knowledgable, i am doing photos for (name some famous music mag here), and say "If you get any good quality shots, send them too me." Then walk away Aug 07 06 01:25 pm Link Peter Dattolo wrote: Don't try to fight ego with ego... Aug 07 06 01:29 pm Link Still curious if he actually used the phrase GWC.. Unless Google is failing me.. That pretty much identifies him as an MM local.. And as we all know.. No pros here..  Aug 07 06 01:31 pm Link Captured Live wrote: Yea your probably right.....reading that now, it is pretty forward. Just something i thought of when writing it. Aug 07 06 01:34 pm Link WG Rowland wrote: Hey, hey, hey! I'm a pro! I'm just not sure what it is that I do yet... Aug 07 06 01:35 pm Link SPI Glamour wrote: Over confident? Chimping is a sure sign of under-confidence. Compose in the viewfinder... by the time you can see the image on that scrappy little screen at the back of the camera it's already too late. LOL Aug 07 06 01:39 pm Link Peter Dattolo wrote: I wish I could say it through wisdom. I did something like that years ago. I was shot to Hell by a gunslinger in the R'n'R photo biz. Aug 07 06 01:39 pm Link |
