Blog
The Machine Gun Syndrome
There is no doubt that digital cameras have made photography more accessible and more popular; at many levels. Gone is the cost of film and the subsequent processing. The memory card, while not limitless in capacity, can easily be cleaned out on-site to ensure a good shot is not missed through lack of storage. Inevitably there is a down side to this and I call it the “machine gun syndrome”.
Because the digital image is cheap compared to its wet film counterpart, pressing the camera shutter a couple more times costs practically nothing. It is a reasonable maxim to say, “better take plenty when there” and that way you have a better chance of capturing the image you were after; whether it be by varying the viewpoint, the camera settings or ensuring the shutter was fired at the appropriate moment. The camera is working like a machine gun. This is particularly true at sports events, where things are happening quickly and sometimes continuously. By keeping working during a sequence you maximise your chances of capturing that one moment that encapsulates what you are trying to convey, rather than trying to anticipate the optimum shutter press. The downside to this approach is you can potentially end up with a very large number of images to review and cull, before you can start your post-processing proper. Some people also argue it makes you lazy in your camera work. It is a bit like throwing a stick of dynamite into a pond and catching all the fish blasted out of the water as opposed to the skilled angler who goes after them one at a time.
I think there is a time and a place for the machine gun approach and fast sports is one. You have to be really skilled to snipe single shots and hope to capture critical images (or get lucky). Whereas a rapid sequence of 4 or 5 images much improves the prospects for lesser mortals of coming up with the goods. However where this falls down and is completely counterproductive is if there is no editing once the shoot is over. There is nothing more off-putting than to see an online album of 90 images, the vast majority of which should have been deleted on first review. The viewer quickly gets bored because of the poor quality and moves on, potentially missing the one good shot in the set. I see this all too often on a rugby club website that I’m associated with and it does nothing to enhance the club’s image. Therein lies the problem of increased accessibility created by the digital camera. At the risk of being accused of being an image snob, photography by the masses should stay in family albums; if you want to put your efforts online you must have standards and always strive to meet or exceed them. Getting your images online should not be for your own benefit but for the viewer and unfortunately far too many people forget that.
Because the digital image is cheap compared to its wet film counterpart, pressing the camera shutter a couple more times costs practically nothing. It is a reasonable maxim to say, “better take plenty when there” and that way you have a better chance of capturing the image you were after; whether it be by varying the viewpoint, the camera settings or ensuring the shutter was fired at the appropriate moment. The camera is working like a machine gun. This is particularly true at sports events, where things are happening quickly and sometimes continuously. By keeping working during a sequence you maximise your chances of capturing that one moment that encapsulates what you are trying to convey, rather than trying to anticipate the optimum shutter press. The downside to this approach is you can potentially end up with a very large number of images to review and cull, before you can start your post-processing proper. Some people also argue it makes you lazy in your camera work. It is a bit like throwing a stick of dynamite into a pond and catching all the fish blasted out of the water as opposed to the skilled angler who goes after them one at a time.
I think there is a time and a place for the machine gun approach and fast sports is one. You have to be really skilled to snipe single shots and hope to capture critical images (or get lucky). Whereas a rapid sequence of 4 or 5 images much improves the prospects for lesser mortals of coming up with the goods. However where this falls down and is completely counterproductive is if there is no editing once the shoot is over. There is nothing more off-putting than to see an online album of 90 images, the vast majority of which should have been deleted on first review. The viewer quickly gets bored because of the poor quality and moves on, potentially missing the one good shot in the set. I see this all too often on a rugby club website that I’m associated with and it does nothing to enhance the club’s image. Therein lies the problem of increased accessibility created by the digital camera. At the risk of being accused of being an image snob, photography by the masses should stay in family albums; if you want to put your efforts online you must have standards and always strive to meet or exceed them. Getting your images online should not be for your own benefit but for the viewer and unfortunately far too many people forget that.
12/05/2013