One joy that digital photography doesn't offer

[2F/2F]

I don't think it will kill that instinct for me, thought others may be different. It would definitely prevent it from being developed in a new photographer with no film experience.

Exactly how I feel.

 

[moose10101]

The joys of "chimping" are denied to me I don't own a digital camera,and I don't feel that anything is missing in my life,and I often think to myself for what a decent DSLR costs I could buy a used Hasselblad, a real camera, and I wouldn't need to learn photography all over again.

I found a comment about chimping that expresses my opinion better than I could have done:

Polaroid and other types of instant film have been around for more than 4 decades. Apart from the instant gratification for point-and-shooters, the film system also found its way into the toolbox of the professional photographers as a quick way to determine lighting ratios, contrast, and composition. The great convenience afforded by these films were especially useful for medium and large format shooters, for whom the ability to change film backs/plates allowed flexibility of instant review, while simultaneously making available the whole pantheon of slide and print films that each has its devotees. Of course, it bears mentioning that it was obviously meaningless to have polaroids for smaller formats since there will be too little detail on the image anyway. The format was also used by such art dignitaries as David Hockney and Andy Warhol in various art pieces.

In the digital age, this process of review has been called “chimping” in some quarters, presumably referring to the hunched posture and excited utterances that resembles primates. That such a pejorative should exist is shocking, since the very act pretty much originated from the top professionals in studios. All that has been done is that the convenience of the polaroid has been transferred to an LCD, and made available in a much smaller form factor. I suppose the excessive reviewing betrays a lack of consideration for one’s image making, and that is indeed what should be discouraged here.

http://fotophilosophy.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/polaroid-chimping-in-the-analogue-age/

In other words, if it's being used as a tool and not a crutch, what's the problem?

 

[michaelbsc]

If we're talking about a gram of Helium, It might be a little hard to weigh it.

Well, since all "grams" have one gram of mass, and since the gravitational force in whatever place you're standing isn't likely to change from moment to moment, a gram of Helium would weight the same as a gram of Lead.

And answering my own question, since I got curious and looked it up, weight (force) isn't measure in Pascals at all. DUH!

I wanted Newtons, and one gram of mass weighs approximately 9.8x10-3 Newtons.

MB

 

[Sirius Glass]

In other words, if it's being used as a tool and not a crutch, what's the problem?

Because with the ease of chimpin' people do not ever get the sense of whether or not the got the photograph or not. They just spray away.

For example, during an air show last month I would take one photograph while some fairly knowledgeable digital photographers next to me sprayed away. After a few times, they asked me why I was only taking one photograph. I told them I know when I got the photograph and when I did not get the photograph. If I felt that I did not get the photograph I would take a second one. They all said that they had been taking photographs for various numbers of years and every one of them said that they could never trust that the got the photograph. Therefore they shoot, they chimp, and then to be sure they shoot some more. Their words, not mine. I do not know if that is typical or not, but from what I see it seems to be typical.

Steve

 

[tomalophicon]

I found a comment about chimping that expresses my opinion better than I could have done:

Polaroid and other types of instant film have been around for more than 4 decades. Apart from the instant gratification for point-and-shooters, the film system also found its way into the toolbox of the professional photographers as a quick way to determine lighting ratios, contrast, and composition. The great convenience afforded by these films were especially useful for medium and large format shooters, for whom the ability to change film backs/plates allowed flexibility of instant review, while simultaneously making available the whole pantheon of slide and print films that each has its devotees. Of course, it bears mentioning that it was obviously meaningless to have polaroids for smaller formats since there will be too little detail on the image anyway. The format was also used by such art dignitaries as David Hockney and Andy Warhol in various art pieces.

In the digital age, this process of review has been called “chimping” in some quarters, presumably referring to the hunched posture and excited utterances that resembles primates. That such a pejorative should exist is shocking, since the very act pretty much originated from the top professionals in studios. All that has been done is that the convenience of the polaroid has been transferred to an LCD, and made available in a much smaller form factor. I suppose the excessive reviewing betrays a lack of consideration for one’s image making, and that is indeed what should be discouraged here.

http://fotophilosophy.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/polaroid-chimping-in-the-analogue-age/

In other words, if it's being used as a tool and not a crutch, what's the problem?

I am of the understanding it was mainly the clients, art directors... whoever that wanted the instant feedback... Sounds like chimping to me...

 

[Sirius Glass]

ditto!

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

The ultimate crutch is chimping your histogram. A Polaroid is a veterinary case of an arctic bear needing a prescription of Preparation H.

 

[tomalophicon]

In Soviet Russia, Arctic Bear chimps you!

 

[mopar_guy]

Well, since all "grams" have one gram of mass, and since the gravitational force in whatever place you're standing isn't likely to change from moment to moment, a gram of Helium would weight the same as a gram of Lead.

And answering my own question, since I got curious and looked it up, weight (force) isn't measure in Pascals at all. DUH!

I wanted Newtons, and one gram of mass weighs approximately 9.8x10-3 Newtons.

MB

Yes, a gram is a gram regardless of what it is or where it is. How much would your gram weigh on the moon?:confused:

 

[tomalophicon]

My gran clipped me over the ears last time I asked her how much she weighs. YMMV.

 

[lxdude]

How much would your gram weigh on the moon?:confused:

Less than she does here.
And she's gonna be angry if she misses Mass because she's up there!

 

[lxdude]

In Soviet Russia, Arctic Bear chimps you!

What's worse than being face to face with a Polar Bear?
Being face to face with a Bi-polar Bear!

 

[tomalophicon]

What's worse than being face to face with a Polar Bear?
Being face to face with a Bi-polar Bear!

Bahaha this thread is AWESOME!

 

[lxdude]

Err, Ummm, Well grams aren't a measure of weight (which in the english system is a measure of Force).

Actually, pounds are units of mass and of force (pound-mass and pound-force). If I'm standing on a scale in my house I read 170 pounds, therefore having a pound-mass of 170 and putting a force, called weight, of 170 pounds onto the scale.

Grams are a quantity of mass, not weight.:munch:

I know, I know. So ask a European how many Newtons they weigh.

 

[mopar_guy]

Easy, turn your scales upside down...

Only someone from "downunder" could think that way.

 

[mopar_guy]

Actually, pounds are units of mass and of force (pound-mass and pound-force). If I'm standing on a scale in my house I read 170 pounds, therefore having a pound-mass of 170 and putting a force, called weight, of 170 pounds onto the scale.



I know, I know. So ask a European how many Newtons they weigh.

I prefer to think of my weight as the force of attraction of the earth to my fatness so that I won't float off into space.

 

[lxdude]

Only someone from "downunder" could think that way.

I once had an Australian girlfriend. She always wanted me to go downunder!

 

[lxdude]

I prefer to think of my weight as the force of attraction of the earth to my fatness so that I won't float off into space.

Which I guess means fatter people are more attractive!

 

[tomalophicon]

I once had an Australian girlfriend. She always wanted me to go downunder!

Don't risk it, downunder has lots of nasty critters scurrying around.

 

[tomalophicon]

Which I guess means fatter people are more attractive!

Obviously only to Americans. :confused:

 

[Diapositivo]

According to some other to chimp is just short for "check image preview".

Old-school photographer would pay great attention to the frame and the moment, as they had to.
New-school photographer learned photography with digital APS-like cameras which have viewfinders with a smaller magnification than full frame SLRs. The image is really "smaller" and it is more difficult to concentrate on every frame detail. It's the "tunnel effect". It goes against good photography.

Even when using my digital I try to use "old-school" accurate analysis of composition and moment. But with digital I do have many more cases when I later find an unexpected and unwanted detail in the frame. My digital camera is no DSLR (is a mirror-less camera) but the virtual viewfinder is not like the VF of my SLRs. With a proper VF you are so to speak "in the scene".

I understand why digital photographers (those without a full-frame camera, i.e. 95% of them) are not sure what they got.

This can work against photography, as the bad habit might be developed to take the picture first, and check immediately later, and maybe take another shot. This habit works against right composition and right "moment".

 

[Sirius Glass]

The ultimate crutch is chimping your histogram. A Polaroid is a veterinary case of an arctic bear needing a prescription of Preparation H.

How do you trap a Polar Bear?

You dig a hole in the ice.
Place peas around the hole.
When the Polar Bear comes to take a pea, kick him in the ice hole.
​

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

If you trap the polar bear that way, your a far gain ice hole.

 

[mopar_guy]

Which I guess means fatter people are more attractive!

I don't know if I'm really fat. In arecent image of myself, I appeared to be a little thicker around the middle. It could be barrel distortion.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't know if I'm really fat. In arecent image of myself, I appeared to be a little thicker around the middle. It could be barrel distortion.

Lets be clear. Do you mean lens barrel distortion or central core body barrel distortion?