decisive moment

[Grumbaki]

Does it really have to be exclusive?

Why can't one truly deeply enjoy having nailed the one pic he took instead of a series but appreciating having the best shot available to show people (and potentially clients)?

I'll make an analogy. All football fans agree that a 30 meters shot after dribbling 3 defenders is a better goal than a wtf pinball with the goalkeeper. But it's still better to win 1-0 with this kind of goal than a draw (or loosing) with only artistic attempts.

To go back to photography, I was recently shooting traditionnal Miao dancers. In a series of 5, the 5 shots were good or above. But one was a micro expression with a deep look right at me. I would have had a 4/5 shot with oldschool way but got a 5/5 with new tech...why is that so bad?

 

[paul13walnut5]

+1.

The joke is of course is that the street photographers into the decisive moment chose the most compact, easiest loading, easiest winding cameras of their day.

It's not that they wanted quaint old cameras. In their time they were the absolute state of the art, with the cameras costing substantially more in relation to the average wage than they do now.

If these guys were shooting today they would have state of the art.

It's a nice myth that folk fall into, that it's about the gear. These guys were excellent photographers, they used the best gear of it's time with an appropriate approach.

I often feel that folk latching onto old tech or old working practices often do so to stand out, because all to often in this proliferation of digital imagary, where everybody is a professional on day 2, it's all they've got.

When I worked in camera retail, I hankered after a contax G2. It's collision of old aesthetic but with programme modes, af and the best build quality ever. I could afford a Ricoh GRS (loved it) but it was the contax I dreamt about.

I could afford a contax no bother these days, I'm no longer a student on part time money. I might buy one, because it is a thing of beauty, the pleasure of holding it, the sound of it operating, the lustre champagne finish.
Would it be a statement of intent? Do I want the hassle of using film. I have an equally adroit EOS 3 with some super lenses, I never use it.. could I justify the contax as pretty much a trophy? A trophy from a long lost war..?

Curious thing is despite loving the rangefinder with automation idea, the fuji x cameras don't speak to me at all.
They look great, the feel great, and their users tend to be evangelical. Just never ever considered it.

I love my M. I see that as a spiritual successor to a Leica CL.

Good photographer shines through regardless. I know its a gear forum, but I care more about where photographers get than how they got there.

 

[Skulker]

i am not talking about the results, just what i like

There's nothing wrong with that. Do it how you feel comfortable or how you like.

Me, I'm a burst man as I'm often trying to capture a wildlife moment. But I try to keep the number of shots down. Partly because you don't half get a lot of images at 12 FPS, and I'd rather be taking shots than sorting through loads of files. If I can I will take just 1 shot.

 

[fragilesi]

Does it really have to be exclusive?

Why can't one truly deeply enjoy having nailed the one pic he took instead of a series but appreciating having the best shot available to show people (and potentially clients)?

I'll make an analogy. All football fans agree that a 30 meters shot after dribbling 3 defenders is a better goal than a wtf pinball with the goalkeeper. But it's still better to win 1-0 with this kind of goal than a draw (or loosing) with only artistic attempts.

To go back to photography, I was recently shooting traditionnal Miao dancers. In a series of 5, the 5 shots were good or above. But one was a micro expression with a deep look right at me. I would have had a 4/5 shot with oldschool way but got a 5/5 with new tech...why is that so bad?

Totally agree but the odd thing is that the wtf pinball with the keeper will often make a better photo than the spectacular goal!

 

[fxk]

Paul Walnut - bang on the money, dude.

Oh, and who's decisive moment is it anyway? Cartier-Bresson's shot taken behind the Gare St. Lazare (Google it) might have been better a split second later with the pedestrian's toe just in the puddle causing ripples. No? We'll never know since he didn't have motordrive.

Agree with you on Paul's analysis.
But not on the iconic photo.
It's the inevitability of the pending mistake (foot in water) - so close. Totally committed. So close, but not yet. Anticipation. Tension.

In a later scenario, by time ripples would be seen, the "moment" would have passed. How long was the foot in the water? Who cares? Deed is done.

And yes, we could know. Set the scene (easy enough). Shoot it with a modern multi-fps camera and you be the judge.

Or Photoshop the original.

 

[fxk]

no i am not saying its cheating, what i am saying is that it is more rewarding to me to recognize and hit that decisive moment than it is to pick from a sequence

If the human species were interested only in maximal results we wouldn't have many of our sports. Why run when you can drive? Why drive when you can fly? For many people accomplishing a goal with a specific limitation is rewarding all by itself. Consider the following: race-walking, joggling, caber-tossing, classic car rallies, bi-plane races, many forms of classical music composition, haiku poetry, etc. It even happens in photography where photographers will take their modern digital beast in the field, but limit themselves to 36 shots for the day as an exercise in careful composition and exposure (i.e. learning to take time to fully appreciate a frame before pressing the shutter release)

Short of "spray and pray," my goal is usually to get the best possible shot, but I completely respect your desire to practice the "one shot" technique when you feel so inclined. I would only suggest you experiment with other methods because everyone should taste unfamiliar food once in a while.

Also good analysis.