[Leica] OT: world press winners 2006 (long rant)

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)]

Douglas Herr offered.
>>>[RANT MODE ON]<<<<

Hi Doug,
No need to go rant mode as I understand your frustration only too well.
Particularly when we see the amazing photographs you produce without the
"motor drive" used by many of the technique challenged.

> IMHO there are many parallels between sports photography and wildlife
> photography, and that as the equipment technology has evolved it has
> become far easier for the average photographer, or I should say a team of
> average photographers, to capture the "action" that is prized by
> editors;<<<

Well that goes without saying, along with autofocus that many rely on for
anything to be sharp. And the "average shooter" with next to nothing with
skill can look like a master shooter. But take away their toys and they
can't take sharp pictures of their feet.

Editors are editors, today, yesterday and long ago, they want the impossible
and never ask how. Nor do they care how you get it, while those who have no
idea how scenes are captured are the worse, simply because they
don't care and accept no excuse for not delivering sharp and great action
pictures.

And if your competition has a picture and you don't have a better one or
equal to the competitor, you're in deep doo-do to your ears! They accept no
excuses, particularly today because all they know is... " Cameras have auto
everything so why don't you have it?" And say that without any thought of 
human skills or experience. Nor do they care!

What hasn't been advanced with the equipment is the intelligence and
training in how to use it relying only on the auto everything
ability of the camera. It still requires the technique of "one frame at a
time" shutter release to make a motor drive work efficiently, unfortunately
there are a great number of "set to auto, shoot away and everything will be
fine" people out in the cold cruel world of photography.

What's worse is, there are photography schools who teach this method.

>>or I should say a team of average photographers, to capture the "action"
>>that >>is prized by editors;<<<

Well whether it's one photographer blazing away or a few dozen at the same
action, what sorts out the "auto" boys from the good ones still comes down
to those who know the sport, are prepared for the action, mentally alert and
not distracted by the dozen or two hundred squeezed into the designated
photo position.  Those who have real photographer skills, usually learned
before motor drives or they've shot lots of "one frame at a time"
photography.

A scalpel in the hands of a finely skilled surgeon can in some cases hardly
leave a trace of the incision, but there are others who supposedly as well
trained who leave a map of the Mississippi river! :-(

> it used to be that skill and timing were crucial but when you see at major
> sporting events a 'shooting gallery' of several dozen big white lenses >
> operated by remote-controlled high frame rate camera bodies tethered to
> central editing rooms one has to wonder how much skill is involved aside
> from knowing where to point the camera.<<<<

Aaahhh the locked down camera positions without anyone looking through it at 
the time of exposure? Well that goes with the technology of the day, neither 
does it guarantee successful pictures. But they do cover your ass and give 
you a better opportunity to beat the competition. That also is a driving 
force for more cameras... beat the competitor at all costs!

The life of profit and loss margin in communications whether we like it or 
not.!

Even though the cameras are all hooked to one switch by the photographer 
who's also shooting with a camera in hand. Old style, actually ancient way 
compared to today. ;-)  Or he may have it wired so when he trips the shutter 
on his camera in hand, all... some times 5-6 or more cameras with various 
focal length lenses all go at exactly the same time.

And if he's off one mille-second on tripping the shutter... right at the 
first frame, he can miss the peak action! How about on 6 cameras all at the 
same time! Then try explaining your way out of that one! :-( It happens.

By the same token in the days of film, a stock photo agency supplying multi 
magazines around the world required slides for dozens of publications so 
another reason for so many locked down cameras.

Today of course a digital photographer can be shooting in Turin, Italy as we 
speak and as he shoots a frame, it automatically shows up on a screen in New 
York, London, Tokyo or wherever his home base is.

No matter how many you see at any event in one photo position, they may not 
all be shooting the same scene, happens all the time given the super long 
lenses we have available these days.

Add to that, not everyone one of them are blessed with equal re-action 
reflexes. I'm not defending the motor shooter who blazes away figuring he's 
getting something because he's burning film or cards. They're just stupid!

But when you look at a photo position mob scene, there are some of the most 
talented sport photographers in the world mixed in there. What's surprising 
is, after the Games are over and you look at the main sport magazines of the 
world, you never cease to be surprised at what they've shot when they were 
standing right beside you!

Let me assure you I've on many occasions said later... "damn how the hell 
did he get that and I was within 3 feet of him?" Trust me it may look like 
they're all shooting the identical images, but they really aren't. Look a 
likes? Yep, but never identical no matter how good they are, because there's 
always one or two guys who'd shoot your ass off even with out film in their 
cameras! ;-)

> Regarding the photo that started this discussion (diver striking her head
> on the diving platform), we don't know whether there was a 'shooting 
> gallery'
> or if this was the work of an individual.  If there was a shooting gallery
> as described above, the odds are that one photo among the dozens made of
> this particular dive would have captured the moment of impact.<<<

I think I may have answered this in my above comments. But these 
photographers are not all shooting for the same agency, they are pretty well 
all competing against each other, wire service to wire service or magazine 
to magazine. Therefore all the film doesn't go to the same editing area.

> If you were to ask me what the chances are of any one photographer (or, 
> any > particular camera) capturing that moment I'd tell you the odds were 
> very
> low.<

Quite true, but that's what sorts out the good guys from the so-so guys! 
There's always one or two a head of the others, they concentrate, know the 
sport, you're prepared for this kind of thing to happen and you never take 
your eye off the athlete from the second they begin to twitch a muscle! 
"BANG!" her head hit and somebody got it simply because they were totally 
concentrating on the possibility of something like that happening. And 
knowing it's always a possibility, you're prepared and waiting.

Seoul '88 Summer Olympics and my picture of Ben Johnson winning the 100 
meter final. I checked out the shooting position I wanted the day before 
during heats, I was in position at 6.30 a.m and the race was at 1.30 p.m. 
And I never left my spot! All over in 9.79 seconds! Its concentration, 
preparation and mentally sharp for any eventuality!

If you were to see the photograph you could ask the identical question to 
the head hit. With greater meaning because there were several hundred 
photographers in the stadium at designated photo positions. Most shot the 
finish line crossing, but nobody got it from my angle and that's what made 
it a prize winning photograph while shot "one frame at a time on the first 
frame!";-)

> However, in the aggregate the odds that the moment of impact would show
> up in the editing room were pretty good.  It's almost like supplying an 
> infinite
> number of monkeys with an equally infinite number of word processors
> except you've improved the odds by adding spell-check software to the word
> processor.<<<<

Not quite that simple because the mass of photographers as I explained above 
are shooting for different agencies, so it's likely the frame we see is the 
only one! Mind you all the competitors would be wetting their pants because 
their guys didn't have the exact same frame.

> Shooting galleries are found in wildlife photography too.  There are
> numerous 'hot spots' and events that draw photographers shoulder to
> shoulder with their big white lenses: La Jolla Cove about this time of 
> year, a
> roadside badger's den I saw in Yellowstone, Bosque del Apache National
> Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico late in the year, Palo Alto Baylands or
> Arrowhead Marsh during the winter new moon high tide.  Technically the
> photos that result are good, but when you see the 'take' from the gallery
> there's a 'same-ness' to them.  No one photo, or no single photographer's
> photos, stand out from the rest.<<<

That's a shame as I thought bird / wildlife photography was such a highly 
skilled profession that using a motor drive would spook the bird before one 
got more than one frame once the motor started to hammer away..

> Years ago wildlife photographers' holy grail was photographing birds in
> flight.  AF, Better Beamers, Matrix-metered fill flash, fast frame rates
> and vibration-reduction technologies have changed all that.  Now, nature
> photography websites are absolutely full of these pictures, and after a
> while they all look the same aside from the color or shape of the bird: a 
> large
> bird (easy to track, easy for the AF system to lock onto) centered on the
> AF
> sensors, overhead with a plain blue sky (don't want to confuse the AF
> system
> with a real background), evenly lit from beneath by the flash system (no
> icky shadows) with a twinkle in the eye supplied by the flash.  The first
> one was fantastic, the second and third and fourth were kewl but when
> you've
> been inundeated by hundreds they're all BORING.  It's mass-production
> photography just as interesting and challenging as the output from the
> shooting galleries at sporting events.  The challenge has become acquiring
> and programming the equipment.,,,

I find what you've said above gives me a far greater appreciation of your 
talent and skills as a photographer producing what you do weekly with your 
birds. Amazing without question!

And without all the electronic motor driven wizardry, you are a very 
talented photographer.

> So Ted what I've tried to say in a roundabout way is that in the past a
> photo like the diver striking her head probably would have been the result
> of a skilled and knowledgeable photographer relying on instinct and timing
> instead of fast frame rates, the game for the majority of sports 
> photography
> has changed: the odds of any one photographer capturing the moment of
> impact were slim, but because of the huge number of photos being made of
> the event the odds of someone getting the picture are pretty good.<<<

On the number of photographers today compared to what would've been, say 
50-60 years ago, I'd have to agree the chances are greater today for the 
picture to be taken.

However, despite all the motor driven auto cameras it still requires a sharp 
re-action time on the part of the photographer, as he's following the diver 
through the viewfinder, but not shooting.... which I'd have been doing 
without shooting, but waiting for something special to re-act too. It falls 
into "one sheet at a time!" ;-) You hit the peak action with your re-action 
to the action then the motor can run after you've shot the first "one 
sheet!"

Basically it's making the motor drive work for you and not letting it do 
it's own thing.

ted