# Why Do You Tell People Not To "Chimp"?



## Ballistics (Apr 5, 2013)

I'm always reading how-to and advice articles regarding some form of photography,
and the majority of the time the article will mention "chimping", regardless of subject matter.

For those of you that don't know, chimping is the process of checking your preview of shots you took either immediately after you 
take them, or sometime during the shoot. I hate the term, but it's the most common term to describe this action.

One article I just read, advised to not chimp during an event ever. But to wait until you get home to look to see what you did.

It says: 



> Either you got the shot or you didn't, and checking won't change that. Wait until you get home. When you spend time with your nose down in the back of your camera, you're wasting your time, missing the show, missing other shots, and standing in front of someone who wishes you would move on already.



In my opinion, it's horrible advice. It's essentially saying, go through an entire shoot hoping for the best, and make no use of the technology that makes your life easier. If you blew the entire shoot, oh well. And doesn't really address all of the many possibilities of being efficient while viewing your LCD screen.
I have automatic preview on, so when I shoot a few I'll pull the camera away from my face, look at the shot to make sure the exposure is good and it's sharp, and continue. That takes *maybe* 2 seconds.  

Let me stop here and present a disclaimer before I continue: If you successfully shoot without ever checking the LCD screen ever,
more power to you. I'm not going to tell you that the way you do things is wrong. It's been working for you this long, no reason to fix 
something that isn't broken. 

My question is for those who look down upon those people that look at their LCD screen. The technology that allows you to fix a trending 
mistake in the middle of a shoot seems to be frowned upon. Why?


----------



## JAC526 (Apr 5, 2013)

I agree with this entirely.  Way better to chimp then get home and realize you messed something up and left it that way for the entire event.


----------



## texkam (Apr 5, 2013)

Hell yeah, I chimp. It's a tool. I use it.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Apr 5, 2013)

Just don't LOOK like your chimping.  It's kinda like living in a famous city where the tourists flock.  If you want to walk around, fine, but you don't want to LOOk like a tourist...


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 5, 2013)

If I wanted to never check to see how things were truly coming along, I would still be shooting film 110% of the time. Isn't "Chimping" synonymous with shooting digital?


----------



## runnah (Apr 5, 2013)

It's some stupid phrase that "pros" came up with to make them feel better about themselves. 

Snob 1: "Oh did you see that Barbara chimps?"

Snob 2: "What a noob, lets go stab her in the neck."


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Apr 5, 2013)

runnah said:


> It's some stupid phrase that "pros" came up with to make them feel better about themselves.
> 
> Snob 1: "Oh did you see that Barbara chimps?"
> 
> Snob 2: "What a noob, lets go stab her in the neck."



Someone tell Barbara...


----------



## MK3Brent (Apr 5, 2013)

Ever shot film, and instinctively looked at the back of the camera after making an exposure?  *guilty* 

The whole attitude stems from "professionals that know what they're doing don't need to look... So when you look, you're saying you don't know what you're doing and couldn't predict how the image came out. 

For me, if I'm photographing someone, I'll chimp until I get the look I want... meaning adjusting lights and exposure. After that, I hardly look anymore other than for sharp focus. 

Has this author never heard of shooting tethered?! That's the whole point... make your adjustments to get them perfect before getting to the end.

It's like finishing a scan-tron test of 50 questions and then realizing you have 49 bubbles filled in.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Apr 5, 2013)

Agree entirely with OP.  It's a tool. Use it. Mistakes can be corrected IN THE FIELD this way. Too many people try to correct mistakes with software. It's a backwards way to about things. Do as much work in camera as possible. 

A word of caution: Don't miss *the moment* because you are reviewing in the field. This very thing happened to me recently. I was checking focus and exposure, the "moment" passed and I missed the click. 

That's the only disadvantage I see, the possibility of missing shots. Try not to do that.


----------



## jake337 (Apr 5, 2013)

I'll do it to get my exposure where I want it for a the first couple shots.  If the lighting is pretty constant I'll chimp to set it and just keep shooting.  Maybe checking it when I take a shot of someone with extremely darker/lighter skintones just to make sure they aren't over or under exposed.

I'll chimp outdoors in lighting that is changing.


----------



## runnah (Apr 5, 2013)

MK3Brent said:


> For me, if I'm photographing someone, I'll chimp until I get the look I want... meaning adjusting lights and exposure. After that, I hardly look anymore other than for sharp focus.




Exactly. I don't know how people setup up lights without chimping. I guess you could use light meters and knowledge, but who has time for that!


----------



## jake337 (Apr 5, 2013)

Wouldn't polaroid backs also be chimping then????


----------



## Overread (Apr 5, 2013)

There is a line between chimping too much and not chimping enough.

Beginners are likely to chimp too often and to also chimp badly (ei review without much thought or even without the histogram showing etc.... In addition they are likely to get into a habbit, shoot-chimp; shoot-chimp etc..... constantly. As a result this can hamper their learning (they get more focused on the chimping than on the shooting before the shot). As such I can understand discouraging people from chimping too often and to also reinforce this by teaching them how to review a photo in the best possible way so that when they do chimp they know what they are looking for. 


Outright saying "Don't chimp" is probably bad advice for someone self learning as the greater amount of time between shooting and review is going to hamper their ability to prevent getting into bad shooting habits. Sure there were times when you couldn't chimp, back then you had polariods, external light meters reading ambient not reflected light and chances are you also made a LOT of mistakes - vast amounts of film lost to poor exposure and rescued in the editing labs (either by yourself or the technician at the store).


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 5, 2013)

I think the issue or problem with chimping is that it can easily be overdone.  If you look at the LCD for two seconds....every time you take a photo....you are over-chimping.  In some scenarios, that won't be a problem, but in a 'professional' situation, I think it's undesirable if you are pausing for two seconds after every exposure. Imagine that you were posing for photos, and the photographer was constantly checking the LCD, it might seem like they didn't know what they were doing...or maybe that they weren't confident about the photos coming out.

At some point, you have to trust that what you are doing (technically) is correct for the result that you want.  If you are confident in that, they you probably don't need to check the histogram.  It doesn't hurt to get some confirmation...but if you don't expect that it will change, then why check it each time?

Good photographers are usually more concerned about connecting with their subjects.  They are confident that the technical aspects are OK, so they don't worry about it.  
If they were chimping all the time, it tends to break that connection with the subject, and it starts to show in the expressions of the subject.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 5, 2013)

> Good photographers are usually more concerned about connecting with their subjects. They are confident that the technical aspects are OK, so they don't worry about it.
> If they were chimping all the time, it tends to break that connection with the subject, and it starts to show in the expressions of the subject.



On an anecdotal level, I can't agree with this. I recently did a dancer shoot (which I posted here) and the environment was a lighting nightmare. I chimped on nearly every shot 
but still held up a conversation and she enjoyed the shoot thoroughly. I was able to have momentum

When I was using a Hasselblad with a digi back a few months ago in the studio, it had a whopping 1FPS and was tethered to a Mac on a cart next to the camera. I would literally shoot wait, 
look, and then show the model what I wanted her/him to do differently.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 5, 2013)

Overread said:


> There is a line between chimping too much and not chimping enough.
> 
> Beginners are likely to chimp too often and to also chimp badly (ei review without much thought or even without the histogram showing etc.... In addition they are likely to get into a habbit, shoot-chimp; shoot-chimp etc..... constantly. As a result this can hamper their learning (they get more focused on the chimping than on the shooting before the shot). As such I can understand discouraging people from chimping too often and to also reinforce this by teaching them how to review a photo in the best possible way so that when they do chimp they know what they are looking for.
> 
> ...



I don't know if you can chimp too much. If you are looking at the screen without knowing what you are looking at, then chimping in general is a waste of time. But for a beginner, who is learning the fundamentals of photography, chimping could be a fantastic learning(and teaching) tool.


----------



## peter27 (Apr 5, 2013)

I don't like to chimp; I find it fogs the film.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 5, 2013)

I chimp a lot.  Especially in the beginning of a shoot.  If the light stays consistent and I'm shooting something other than people then I'll quit after I'm dialed in.  But with people I'm always checking to make sure everyone's eyes are open and things like that.


----------



## Tony S (Apr 5, 2013)

I like a good chimp.  Chimps are funny.  It makes for a good photo project to shoot people chimping since we almost all do it.  So chimp away, I will.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 5, 2013)

I will add that I'm never looking down when I chimp. I pull my eye from the viewfinder far enough to view the screen and then bring it back and shoot.


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 5, 2013)

Does Chump + Wimp = Chimp?


----------



## kathyt (Apr 5, 2013)

I could not agree more. Your LCD screen is a wealth of knowledge. I have to know if I am in a good place, and then I will continue on. I don't rely on my histogram to tell me everything, but you better believe it gets me pretty darn close. Oh, and I love my blinkies. (I think it is called enable your highlights on Canon.)
Rotanimod, we know you love to chimp. Your profile pics says so.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 5, 2013)

I think maybe you have a somewhat off-base definition of what "chimping" means. *Chimping* is not simply reviewing photos on the LCD screen at an event...it is something much,much worse, and more detrimental. The term involves compulsive, immediate reviewing, and lots of "Ooh! Ohh! Ohh! Lookit, lookit! See what I got??? Isn't that a great shot!"

Chimping is one thing. Reviewing shots, and reviewing histograms is another thing entirely.

Chimping is stupid, and annoying. Reviewing exposures, reviewing histograms, is another matter entirely.

[video]http://www.sportsshooter.com/special_feature/chimping/[/video]

and here is part 2. SportsShooter.com - Chimping EXPOSED! (Part 2)

The above site and above videos is where the definition of chimping actually CAME from.


----------



## Overread (Apr 5, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> I don't know if you can chimp too much. If you are looking at the screen without knowing what you are looking at, then chimping in general is a waste of time. But for a beginner, who is learning the fundamentals of photography, chimping could be a fantastic learning(and teaching) tool.



Checking the shots on the LCD (esp with the histogram showing) is indeed a very powerful tool which is why I don't agree with the approach to "never" ever chimping at shots. That said I do think that one can over chimp. You can easily end up so that you have to review every single shot - each and every one. If you end up like that you:

1) Lack confidence in your camera and yourself to get the shot - this is important as people need personal confidence in order to be able to trust and indeed enjoy themselves when shooting

2) Reduced shooting speed - you'll miss shots, often key shots if you're breaking your shooting to chimp

3) Increased fatigue/reduced quality of shooting posture - if you're always flitting the camera up and down you're going to affect your shooting posture and you'll much more quickly tire and this impede the quality of latter shots.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 5, 2013)

> The term involves compulsive, immediate reviewing,



Which I said in the OP.



> and lots of "Ooh! Ohh! Ohh! Lookit, lookit! See what I got??? Isn't that a great shot!"



Not according to your video. Sure, a guy talks about sharing your shots, but they are showing people sitting alone reviewing there LCD saying "Look! They're chimping!"
A bit contradictory.

Edit: They even interview photographers and the only thing they refer to about chimping, is reviewing their shots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimping


----------



## Derrel (Apr 5, 2013)

Ballistics said:
			
		

> I don't know if you can chimp too much. If you are looking at the screen without knowing what you are looking at, then chimping in general is a waste of time. But for a beginner, who is learning the fundamentals of photography, chimping could be a fantastic learning(and teaching) tool.



Just purely for laughs, let's use an old device to see how that line of thinking holds up, shall we? 

Let's substitute the word _masturbate_ for the word _chimp_, mmkay???

I don't know if you can ______ too much. If you are looking at the screen without knowing what you are looking at, then _________ing in general is a waste of time. But for a beginner, who is learning the fundamentals of photography, _________ing could be a fantastic learning(and teaching) tool.

Huh....


----------



## kathyt (Apr 5, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I think maybe you have a somewhat off-base definition of what "chimping" means. *Chimping* is not simply reviewing photos on the LCD screen at an event...it is something much,much worse, and more detrimental. The term involves compulsive, immediate reviewing, and lots of "Ooh! Ohh! Ohh! Lookit, lookit! See what I got??? Isn't that a great shot!"
> 
> Chimping is one thing. Reviewing shots, and reviewing histograms is another thing entirely.
> 
> ...



I do all of the above, and then some. Especially the ooooh, awwws, and ohhhhh. If you watch me shoot, it is kinda like watching a crowd of people see an amazing fireworks display. I _am _a certified chimp.


----------



## runnah (Apr 5, 2013)

I forgot to add I always chimp when taking people photos to avoid blinkers.


----------



## kundalini (Apr 5, 2013)

Derrel said:


> The above site and above videos is where the definition of chimping actually CAME from.


Stealth Chimping FTW.


----------



## KmH (Apr 5, 2013)

I've never told anyone "Don't chimp."

But -


----------



## amolitor (Apr 5, 2013)

I think chimping is a perfectly good way to work. It's different from not chimping.

I've made the analogy that it's more like painting, there's YOU, there's the SUBJECT, and there's THE PICTURE which you're working with and altering in real time. Shooting without chimping pretty much eliminates the PICTURE in that little interaction, it's just you and the subject. That's the way it used to be, with film, except for the Polaroid-back crowd.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 5, 2013)

I do most of my editing in camera, it just saves me time when downloading after an event.  As soon as I can, I will cut the images that I don't need and that don't work.  If I have to shoot 2-3 swimmers in a race, I shoot the first one make sure I have a couple of good frames and then shoot the next one, I still only keep the frames that I can use.  If the card is going to someone else to edit onsite, they don't want to be looking though crap to find the best ones.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 5, 2013)

A quick glance is all I need.

As has already been mentioned, the LCD is there for a reason, and it's not so I can go home and look at it.

Whoever wrote that article is giving bad advice, and is to be mocked...


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 5, 2013)

[/QUOTE] I do all of the above, and then some. Especially the ooooh, awwws, and ohhhhh. If you watch me shoot, it is kinda like watching a crowd of people see an amazing fireworks display. I _am _a certified chimp.[/QUOTE]

Haaaa. I'm not sure about this. There are no Chumps+Wimps=Chimps from KCMO


----------



## kathyt (Apr 5, 2013)

I do all of the above, and then some. Especially the ooooh, awwws, and ohhhhh. If you watch me shoot, it is kinda like watching a crowd of people see an amazing fireworks display. I _am _a certified chimp.[/QUOTE]

Haaaa. I'm not sure about this. There are no Chumps+Wimps=Chimps from KCMO [/QUOTE]

Yeah, I was just kidding. I don't know if that would fly too well as a wedding photographer, but I am rather loud at my other profession. Goes with the job.


----------



## IByte (Apr 5, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> I do all of the above, and then some. Especially the ooooh, awwws, and ohhhhh. If you watch me shoot, it is kinda like watching a crowd of people see an amazing fireworks display. I am a certified chimp.



Lol im just going to say it.  I don't think they're watching the camera.. just saying.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 5, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Shooting without chimping pretty much eliminates the PICTURE in that little interaction, it's just you and the subject.



I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.

Depending on the situation, of course, diverting your attention/interaction away from the subject _could_ be a bad thing though.  Looking at your camera after every few shots could 'break the flow', if you know what I mean.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 5, 2013)

KmH said:


> I've never told anyone "Don't chimp."
> 
> But -



really? that guy is a chump. 
it was a real stretch to get 9 reasons...and the last 3 weren't even reasons at all.
you look stupid? 
batteries don't last as long?? not really a super huge concern. a few seconds to change a battery. 
you apparently cant use peripheral vision if you pull the camera away from your face for 2 seconds?
going to miss a "moment"? you could miss the same moment adjusting your ISO, or flash power, or shutter speed...same 2 seconds. 
and the worst...you wont learn to get comfortable with your cameras settings...you might as well tell someone the same thing for using A or S modes. 
that guy spent more time making goofy faces and pretending to "miss" photo opportunities than he did making any relevant points. 

I dont chimp every shot... but i DO take a look at screen when i change settings. 
the view screen is just another tool on your camera. the flagship models have it same as the entry level. 
I guess there's always someone that has to decide what the "right" way to use your camera is.. i mean, heaven forbid you chimp and your shoot NOT turn out to be a total and epic disaster.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 5, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Shooting without chimping pretty much eliminates the PICTURE in that little interaction, it's just you and the subject.
> ...



Nah, it's not. Its just a different thing. One way of working is better for some things, the other is better for others. Depends on what you're doing, what you're trying to achieve, and who you are.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Apr 5, 2013)

I don't say a thing. I  check a lot to make sure things are right. Chimp or not...it is up to you and not me.


----------



## kathyt (Apr 5, 2013)

IByte said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > I do all of the above, and then some. Especially the ooooh, awwws, and ohhhhh. If you watch me shoot, it is kinda like watching a crowd of people see an amazing fireworks display. I am a certified chimp.
> ...



I don't get it.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 5, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> Chimping isn't just looking down to see the image in camera and the settings, it's when you look at the picture and then "OOOO! EEEWWWW EWWWW!!!!! Look at this one!!!!!"  to the guy next to you. Now THAT's chimping.



No it's not. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimping



> *C**himping* is a colloquial term used in digital photography to describe the habit of checking every photo on the camera display (LCD) immediately after capture.
> Some photographers use the term in a derogatory sense to describe the actions of amateur photographers, but the act of reviewing images on-camera is not necessarily frowned upon by professional or experienced photographers


----------



## EIngerson (Apr 5, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> > Chimping isn't just looking down to see the image in camera and the settings, it's when you look at the picture and then "OOOO! EEEWWWW EWWWW!!!!! Look at this one!!!!!"  to the guy next to you. Now THAT's chimping.
> ...



First, you quoted me before I could remove it. LOL Derrel already said the same thing I did. 

Second, Everyone has to look at their screen every now and then. I don't worry about calling that chimping. Still, a pretty funny topic.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 5, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> IByte said:
> 
> 
> > kathythorson said:
> ...



I think he was saying that you're hot.  

And because of that, they don't notice whether you're chimping or not.


----------



## kathyt (Apr 5, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > IByte said:
> ...



Oh. Mods please remove that accidental post. My fingers slipped. (walking away with red cheeks)


----------



## amolitor (Apr 5, 2013)

Does it bug anyone else how much straight up macking on the people with pretty female avatars there is on TPF? It's not a big deal for me, but I periodically think 'man, I dunno'


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 5, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Does it bug anyone else how much straight up macking on the people with pretty female avatars there is on TPF? It's not a big deal for me, but I periodically think 'man, I dunno'



It's obnoxious, but I think we're all obnoxious in different ways


----------



## weepete (Apr 5, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Does it bug anyone else how much straight up macking on the people with pretty female avatars there is on TPF? It's not a big deal for me, but I periodically think 'man, I dunno'



In short, yes.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 5, 2013)

I don't think there's anything wrong with telling someone that they're pretty.  I realize that it would get you fired quicker than looking at a picture of ammunition (lol) at most corporations, but morally - I don't see it as a problem.  If it becomes harassment, then yeah - that would be a problem.

(Only speaking for myself, but I don't think I've ever 'macked' on anyone here, lol.)


----------



## Derrel (Apr 5, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Does it bug anyone else how much straight up macking on the people with pretty female avatars there is on TPF? It's not a big deal for me, but I periodically think 'man, I dunno'



It's pretty obvious how much a good-looking avatar counts for in TPF-land. Normally rational thinkers turn into fawning sycophants.


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 5, 2013)

I need to see if there is a new definition of Mack because I have not seen anything close to it in this thread.


----------



## skieur (Apr 5, 2013)

It depends on what I am shooting.  Macro, scenics, products, interiors, etc. ...sure I check focus, lighting, colour balance etc. and consider dynamic range adjustments.  If I am shooting people, I will probably only check the first two or three.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 5, 2013)

The term 'chimping' has been attributed to Robert Deutsch of USA Today in 1999 - Open & Shut Case ; the video was done by Bert Hanashiro, also of USA Today and one of the founders of Sportsshooter (I've used resources on the site for several years). 

While the video was having fun with it, chimping is usually considered in sports to not be best practice because if photographers are looking at the backs of their cameras, they're missing shots they should be getting. The action can be happening too fast for there to be time to stop and look at photos. 

I think it interferes with the flow of shooting. I'm a longtime film photographer so am used to not seeing the photos til later; when I shoot digitally I usually don't stop and look at the photos til after a series of shots (however many that would be depends on what I'm photographing).


----------



## manaheim (Apr 5, 2013)

I was thinking about this tonight as I was shooting the play... the lighting kept changing. the backdrops were changing and the meter was HORRIBLY confused... think of a bunch of lit subjects in front of a black curtain and the meter trying to find 50% gray?  Yeah, no.   

I had to vary my ISO from 2000 to 12,800 or so depending.  It was crazy.  After an hour or so I got the feel for what level needed what ISO and was able to look less frequently, but if I hadn't looked I would have screwed up probably about 80% of the shots.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 5, 2013)

I have a bunny avatar so everyone thinks I'm a chick but no one flirts with me.

I'm very sad. 

Kathy gets all the pretty boys to pay attention to HER!

*stomps foot*


----------



## mishele (Apr 5, 2013)

Kathy is so pretty!!


----------



## manaheim (Apr 5, 2013)

She is.  Now if only she had a whip...


----------



## mishele (Apr 5, 2013)

Kathy could have whip. Every female should have one.


----------



## kathyt (Apr 5, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Does it bug anyone else how much straight up macking on the people with pretty female avatars there is on TPF? It's not a big deal for me, but I periodically think 'man, I dunno'
> ...



I am straight up obnoxious. I can dish it out, but I can take it too. I have a HUGE sense of humor. If you knew me in real life, I am ALWAYS playing around with people, laughing, and in a good mood.  Even with my clients and my patients. They love it! It is my personality. All of my family is like this too. I do have a serious side too. Trust me, if someone was getting out of line I would let them know, but that would take alot. We are just having fun Amolitor. I would PM someone if they were getting fresh!  (or pm Mishele to have her whip them since she is a mod now) BAM!!!


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 5, 2013)

Very refreshing. Thank you!


----------



## Derrel (Apr 5, 2013)

vintagesnaps said:


> The term 'chimping' has been attributed to Robert Deutsch of USA Today in 1999 - Open & Shut Case ; the video was done by Bert Hanashiro, also of USA Today and one of the founders of Sportsshooter (I've used resources on the site for several years).
> 
> While the video was having fun with it, chimping is usually considered in sports to not be best practice because if photographers are looking at the backs of their cameras, they're missing shots they should be getting. The action can be happening too fast for there to be time to stop and look at photos.
> 
> I think it interferes with the flow of shooting. I'm a longtime film photographer so am used to not seeing the photos til later; when I shoot digitally I usually don't stop and look at the photos til after a series of shots (however many that would be depends on what I'm photographing).



Glad to see more support for the origins and the correct use of the term. Kind of like the way the word _bokeh_ is so often misused, it seems like many confuse the meaning of the word *chimping* with the occasional or infrequent use of the camera's LCD for review of exposure or focus.


----------



## kathyt (Apr 5, 2013)

JacaRanda said:


> I need to see if there is a new definition of Mack because I have not seen anything close to it in this thread.


You just reminded me of a good song.


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 5, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > I need to see if there is a new definition of Mack because I have not seen anything close to it in this thread.
> ...



Ahhh, remember it well.  Sheesh, it's about time I take Wifey to a club and embarrass her attempting to do the smurf or moonwalk or something.  Or, yell for her help when I injure myself trying to do either one.  Best I just listen here and leave the rest alone.


----------



## e.rose (Apr 5, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> I'm always reading how-to and advice articles regarding some form of photography,
> and the majority of the time the article will mention "chimping", regardless of subject matter.
> 
> For those of you that don't know, chimping is the process of checking your preview of shots you took either immediately after you
> ...



Sh*t man... I'm not gonna read through this whole thread, but I look at my LCD screen all the mother effing time.

It's THERE... why NOT?

I look at it.  I'm not ashamed.

The only time that I try not to is if I'm shooting a concert or something like that where something can happen at any moment.

And with that being said, that doesn't mean I NEVER look at it... it means I look at it less *frequently*, and when I do look, it's a quick glance usually to see if I got the jump shot that just happened... or just to make sure my exposure is still on... especially if the lighting is uneven or changing.

but other than that... I look all the damn time and ain't nobody gonna change my mind about that.


----------



## terri (Apr 6, 2013)

Derrel said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> > The term 'chimping' has been attributed to Robert Deutsch of USA Today in 1999 - Open & Shut Case ; the video was done by Bert Hanashiro, also of USA Today and one of the founders of Sportsshooter (I've used resources on the site for several years).
> ...




It just makes me think of face ripper monkey....       
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






Go, you chimpers!   Go!


----------



## bratkinson (Apr 6, 2013)

To chimp or not to chimp...that is the question...

Back in my film days, for me, and all photographers, you trust your meter, make the settings, and shoot.  Period.  For night shots, I'd bracket the daylights out of it, if time permits...nightscapes and other static objects, no problem.  Moving cars, hope for the best.  Fortunately, I didn't have a motor drive to really drive up costs.

But since going digital, I LOVE IT!  I can see if I 'got it right' or not!  No, I don't check the LCD at every shot.  Once I 'got' the settings I want, I click away.  The main exception being when some kids want me to take their picture and they want to instantly see the results.  As I do most of my work at church events under perhaps 5-6 different lighting situations, I HAVE to check the results...histogram, framing, etc.  It would be nice to remember what settings I used last time I was in each location...even just 10 minutes previous...or even writing them down...hey, I can't even remember what I had for dinner last night!  That's one of the 'costs' of reaching Medicare age...AKA 'senior moment'. 

Fortunately, I can fix most of my errors in Lightroom.  A little more/less exposure here, a crop there, quickly delete the real BIG mistakes, etc.  Referring back to a previous thread of the past few days...nobody sees my mistakes but me!  And they are quickly deleted!


----------



## Ilovemycam (Apr 6, 2013)

In the old days we had to pay big bucks to chimp...polaroid backs.


----------



## pgriz (Apr 6, 2013)

I don't call it "chimping".  It's intelligent use of positive feedback.  Standard management technique - Plan-Do-Assess-Modify.  Tethered shooting takes it to a even higher level, but it gets awkward if you have to move.  In my case, it's exposure check, focus check, background and foreground check.  Very useful if I'm shooting ETTL flash, as that technology gives rather variable results.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Apr 6, 2013)

I chimp. Shoot me. Maybe not in the same aspect that Darrel posted, but I do check my work throughout my shoots, event or not. I don't make noises, but if I see something I like or don't like, I might make a face.

Who cares, anyway? I mean, I could see how annoying it'd be to be accompanied by a photographer who is constantly going "oh oh oh, check this one out!!! Did you get this?!?!? I did!!!!"

However, I'm not going to make a bid deal about a photographer reviewing their own work, even if they make a face of satisfaction. It's their camera, their work, and their time.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 6, 2013)

Derrel said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> > The term 'chimping' has been attributed to Robert Deutsch of USA Today in 1999 - Open & Shut Case ; the video was done by Bert Hanashiro, also of USA Today and one of the founders of Sportsshooter (I've used resources on the site for several years).
> ...



Well, if you read the link posted in the post you quoted, it doesn't support your idea of the term. 
Nor does your video. 

Taken from the link


> ("Chimping"...a series of photographers all looking at their screens like monkeys!). Or better yet, "cross-chimping": defined as comparing your shot to the others.)



You don't have to be making noises, or sharing your shots. Not according to anything but you so far.


----------



## kathyt (Apr 6, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > I've never told anyone "Don't chimp."
> ...



Yeah, this guy isn't working for me either. The points he made were dumb. The one I hated the most.....the one about just looking at them later in pp! Hell to the NO! Listen, it is getting warmer outside. There are warm, golden UV rays to be had. (with sunscreen of coarse) The last thing I want to do is sit inside on my computer, and spend unnecessary time going through crappy photos. I read in a book once that when you cull you either love it or you hate it. Keep or delete. That is my motto.


----------



## jake337 (Apr 6, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> I chimp. Shoot me. Maybe not in the same aspect that Darrel posted, but I do check my work throughout my shoots, event or not. I don't make noises, but if I see something I like or don't like, I might make a face.
> 
> Who cares, anyway? I mean, I could see how annoying it'd be to be accompanied by a photographer who is constantly going "oh oh oh, check this one out!!! Did you get this?!?!? I did!!!!"
> 
> However, I'm not going to make a bid deal about a photographer reviewing their own work, even if they make a face of satisfaction. It's their camera, their work, and their time.




Or it might not even be work.  They might be taking snaps of their kids and enjoying the fact that they can see them right away.


The only reason I try not to do it is because I am trying to envision an image and create it, not snap away and see if the images I captured are relevant to my vision.  But even if I have a lot of pre-thought into an image it's still nice to be able to check and see if I'm on the right track.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 6, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Yeah, this guy isn't working for me either. The points he made were dumb. The one I hated the most.....the one about just looking at them later in pp! Hell to the NO! Listen, it is getting warmer outside. There are warm, golden UV rays to be had. (with sunscreen of coarse) The last thing I want to do is sit inside on my computer, and spend unnecessary time going through crappy photos. I read in a book once that when you cull you either love it or you hate it. Keep or delete. That is my motto.



+3 - Poorly thought out list.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 6, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, this guy isn't working for me either. The points he made were dumb. The one I hated the most.....the one about just looking at them later in pp! Hell to the NO! Listen, it is getting warmer outside. There are warm, golden UV rays to be had. (with sunscreen of coarse) The last thing I want to do is sit inside on my computer, and spend unnecessary time going through crappy photos. I read in a book once that when you cull you either love it or you hate it. Keep or delete. That is my motto.
> ...



"Yeah it may have been out of focus but it kind of looked interesting."

Ain't nobody got time fo dat.


----------



## Benco (Apr 6, 2013)

I don't see the problem with checking photos in camera, if you can do it then why not? and if it makes me look like an amateur...so what? I am an amateur. As for the OOOOOOOH AHHHHH definition of chimping then I'd say it's irritating but if that's what an individual wants to do then fine, that's up to them, I'm certainly not going to tell them they shouldn't be doing it.

For myself I'll check every couple of shots or so provided that: 

1. I know exposure is going to be tricky.
2. I know there's time to do it.

Otherwise not, I'll keep my eye in the viewfinder and shoot away trusting that the settings I've made will work. 
I'm hoping that with experience the former will become less of an issue.


----------



## e.rose (Apr 6, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



I was annoyed with him before the credit title started.

At 1:50 I felt the intense need to slap him

At 2:30 I turned it off.

He's an annoying toolbag.

:lmao:


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 6, 2013)

Ballistics I didn't follow your point, the term chimping started out as a way to refer to people looking at the backs of their cameras going ooh-ooh as they look at their photos (like chimps) but since then is often used to refer in general to people looking at the backs of their cameras a lot while they're shooting. (I can't quote any particular source, it's more a term that's used generally). 

I think it seems like checking the back of your camera all the time would be like doing anything and constantly double checking your work; as skills develop there would be less need to do that. If you know how to use a meter that would tell you how to change settings as you're shooting. I can adjust settings using a film camera with no viewscreen or if I'm shooting digitally I'll usually stop periodically and glance thru my images.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 6, 2013)

vintagesnaps said:


> Ballistics I didn't follow your point, the term chimping started out as a way to refer to people looking at the backs of their cameras going ooh-ooh as they look at their photos (like chimps) but since then is often used to refer in general to people looking at the backs of their cameras a lot while they're shooting. (I can't quote any particular source, it's more a term that's used generally).
> 
> I think it seems like checking the back of your camera all the time would be like doing anything and constantly double checking your work; as skills develop there would be less need to do that. If you know how to use a meter that would tell you how to change settings as you're shooting. I can adjust settings using a film camera with no viewscreen or if I'm shooting digitally I'll usually stop periodically and glance thru my images.



Ok then. In the case of *this *thread, I'm referring to checking your work sans the the noises and sharing your shots like it says in your link.


----------



## IByte (Apr 6, 2013)

What's a chimp? Oo


----------



## gsgary (Apr 7, 2013)

runnah said:


> MK3Brent said:
> 
> 
> > For me, if I'm photographing someone, I'll chimp until I get the look I want... meaning adjusting lights and exposure. After that, I hardly look anymore other than for sharp focus.
> ...




Its called using a flash meter


----------



## gsgary (Apr 7, 2013)

Another reason i'm not shooting digital, i dont like to look at the shots till later, sounds like most are chimping but we still see loads of crap shots on here so it looks like chimping does not work


----------



## cynicaster (Apr 7, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > I've never told anyone "Don't chimp."
> ...




"Don't chimp, you look stupid!"

... says the guy with gross looking man-boobs posting obnoxious tirades on YouTube.  

Yes, the end is nigh.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 7, 2013)

gsgary said:


> Another reason i'm not shooting digital, i dont like to look at the shots till later, sounds like most are chimping but we still see loads of crap shots on here so it looks like chimping does not work



So, by this, you're saying that every person that has posted in this thread that chimps posts loads of crap?

I keep saying this to the guys that generalize members in a thread but never address anyone specifically. Name names gsgary. 

Also, this is why if/else logic doesn't work in real world scenarios. "People use their LCD screens and there is crap on this site therefore, chimping doesn't work" is an absolute statement that just fails to address the hundreds of possible variables as to why there are images on here that are not up to your standards.


----------



## terri (Apr 7, 2013)

> So, by this, you're saying that every person that has posted in this thread that chimps posts loads of crap?
> 
> I keep saying this to the guys that generalize members in a thread but never address anyone specifically. *Name names gsgary.*



That's exactly what he shouldn't do!   This is the kind of baiting comment that causes things to go offsides.


----------



## David444 (Apr 7, 2013)

gsgary said:


> Another reason i'm not shooting digital, i dont like to look at the shots till later, sounds like most are chimping but we still see loads of crap shots on here so it looks like chimping does not work


You don't need to shoot film to not look at your photos until later, you just need willpower.  
I have my LCD turned off but I still like to check the histogram for correct exposure at the beginning of an event.

Saying that, I don't understand why anyone would care if another photog chimps or   not. Unless it affects your photos somehow, what does it matter.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 7, 2013)

terri said:


> > So, by this, you're saying that every person that has posted in this thread that chimps posts loads of crap?
> >
> > I keep saying this to the guys that generalize members in a thread but never address anyone specifically. *Name names gsgary.*
> 
> ...



Wait... What?!





That doesn't make sense. I'm not baiting him, as he already said something inflammatory directed towards everyone.
I merely suggested, if he's going to make generalized comments (implying generalizing comments that are insulting), he should say specifically who he's talking about.

I find it kind of funny how you targeted me and say my comment is the kind that causes things to go offsides, but gary pretty much insulting the entire thread
doesn't even get mentioned. Seems legit.


----------



## shefjr (Apr 7, 2013)

He could be talking about me... I chimp frequently because of changing light conditions and because I spot meter different colored birds and I do post mostly crap. lol Posted somewhat in jest to add levity to the thread. 
But, most of what I said is true. I'm a chimper and proud!


----------



## manaheim (Apr 7, 2013)

Chimp?

*BANANA!*


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 7, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Chimp?
> 
> *BANANA!*




Do you see what you've done, people?


----------



## terri (Apr 7, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> > > So, by this, you're saying that every person that has posted in this thread that chimps posts loads of crap?
> ...



Well it isn't, sorry.   Naming people is a terrible idea!  So take a crazy pill and relax.


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 7, 2013)

No one truly qualifies as a chimp until they throw some poo.


----------



## peter27 (Apr 8, 2013)

For me, chimping has something to do with the modern way of living, in which everyone wants (and expects) everything now - if not sooner. But, again for me, a good photo is like a good wine: it has to be nurtured and needs time to develop; it cannot be forced or rushed, and most certainly should never be downed in five minutes like a cool beer. 

Why all the obsession with speed and instant feedback? Is it really necessary to know how a shot came out two seconds after taking it? Where is the mystique if this is so?

Photography is something to savour.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 8, 2013)

> Why all the obsession with speed and instant feedback?




Because life is ridiculously short. 



> Is it really necessary to know how a shot came out two seconds after taking it?


Yes



> Where is the mystique if this is so?



I don't photograph for the mystique of it. I do it because I like taking nice photos. 



> Photography is something to savour.



I savour the print on my walls. Everything leading up to it is labor to me.
If I can go from taking the photo, to literally printing out of camera without
spending anytime in photoshop, I definitely would. Getting it right
in camera is usually only half the process. Depending on the type of
photograph, I could (and have) spend 30 seconds in photoshop and then printing 
right there. That's my favorite thing about photography lol.  
Some people have the patience, and actually enjoy going the film route.
I could never possibly stomach that process. I respect it, but I would never do it.


----------



## peter27 (Apr 8, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> > I savour the print on my walls. Everything leading up to it is labor to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## amolitor (Apr 8, 2013)

Painters should all paint with blindfolds on! A painting is something to savour!


----------



## KenC (Apr 8, 2013)

I suppose those who dislike chimping think all of the old studio photographers who put Polaroid backs on their large-format cameras so they could check the lighting were just idiots.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 8, 2013)

peter27 said:


> But surely a labour of love, otherwise why go to all the trouble? After all, you could buy nice prints from a gallery to hang on your walls.


Kind of an obvious answer kind of question. You don't appreciate something as much when it's not done by your hands. 
I hate cleaning, but I love the look of my apartment after it's cleaned. Doesn't mean I have to love the process to love the outcome. 



> Each to their own. Some like to save time and others like to take it.



Pretty much.


----------



## peter27 (Apr 8, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> peter27 said:
> 
> 
> > But surely a labour of love, otherwise why go to all the trouble? After all, you could buy nice prints from a gallery to hang on your walls.
> ...



Yes, it was a rhetorical question.


----------



## peter27 (Apr 8, 2013)

KenC said:


> I suppose those who dislike chimping think all of the old studio photographers who put Polaroid backs on their large-format cameras so they could check the lighting were just idiots.



For me, the two things can't be compared. A professional using a Polaroid back on a large format camera to avoid expensive mistakes is very different to the common practice of using the LCD sreen to look at every shot taken on a DSLR. By all means take a test shot and check that on the camera's monitor, but there's no need to check every shot taken, imo. But if this is what people are comfortable with, I'm not going to try to stop them. I just find it a little bemusing and perhaps symptomatic of the way many live their lives nowadays.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 8, 2013)

The point really is this:

_Looking at the LCD after a shot is just a thing you can do.

_There are lots of things you can do. Some of them get in the way of what you're trying to do. Some of them do not. Some of them get in the way of what you're trying to do, _some of the time._ You might reasonably also say "don't lie down on your back when you're shooting" which would be a fair piece of advice a lot of the time, except when it's not good advice.

There is no doubt that gaping stupidly at the back of their camera is something that gets in the way of some people's shooting, some of the time. A little advice to "shoot more, chimp less" is perfectly reasonable here, assuming advice-giving is in the cards. If you've got someone doing a still life, and fussing with lights, telling them to stop chimping is the exact opposite of helpful.

In between, we will find a wide spectrum of possibility. As usual.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 8, 2013)

Ok, truth is I look after each shot because I'm checking for demons.  That's the kind of info I need asap.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 8, 2013)

Solid choice. I mean, nobody wants demons in their photographs, right? And Photoshop's Context Aware Demon Remover, well, don't even get me started.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 8, 2013)

terri said:


> > So, by this, you're saying that every person that has posted in this thread that chimps posts loads of crap?
> >
> > I keep saying this to the guys that generalize members in a thread but never address anyone specifically. *Name names gsgary.*
> 
> ...




Don't worry i'm not going to name names


----------



## gsgary (Apr 8, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> > > So, by this, you're saying that every person that has posted in this thread that chimps posts loads of crap?
> ...



Sorry but i have a different sense of humour to most


----------



## gsgary (Apr 8, 2013)

shefjr said:


> He could be talking about me... I chimp frequently because of changing light conditions and because I spot meter different colored birds and I do post mostly crap. lol Posted somewhat in jest to add levity to the thread.
> But, most of what I said is true. I'm a chimper and proud!



Just had a look on flickr, yes mostly crap :hug::


----------



## shefjr (Apr 8, 2013)

gsgary said:


> shefjr said:
> 
> 
> > He could be talking about me... I chimp frequently because of changing light conditions and because I spot meter different colored birds and I do post mostly crap. lol Posted somewhat in jest to add levity to the thread.
> ...



So you were talking about me!!! :lmao:
At least you are giving  it to me straight as opposed to the more friendly C&C that TPF is becoming.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 8, 2013)

peter27 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > peter27 said:
> ...



Interesting.


----------

