# Don't be a "Machine Gunner"



## Mr.Photo (Oct 14, 2014)

While photographing during an event yesterday I was reminded of the "Machine Gunner" syndrome by another person photographing at the event.  I Wanted to post up this little tip for some of the up and coming photographers out there.  Especially those that may want to learn how to do sports/action photography.

The event was a Veteran's thank you type event which had several guest speakers.  I happened upon a woman using a Canon 6D and for every 2-3 frames (or single frame) I took she would pull up her camera (didn't matter what she was shooting) and fire off a 3-4 second continuous burst (about 25-30 frames).  She did this over the course of the event (about 2.5 hrs.), and when I chatted with her towards the end of the event she told me that she had taken more than 5500 shots compared to my 350.

Continuous burst mode is great when doing action shots such as birds in flight, auto racing etc.  It can even be useful when doing portraits as sometimes you may have someone that blinks a lot and you have a better chance of getting them with their eyes open.  However don't do what is commonly referred to as "spray and pray".  Other than the undue wear and tear on the shutter in your camera, you will then have a ton of photograph's to weed through to pick out the best one and delete the rest, and there is still no guarantee that you are going to get that magic shot. 

Instead learn the various focus modes in your camera, how they operate, and when to use them.  Learn to anticipate the right moment, then just before that moment happens begin to fire off a quick burst of 5-6 shots through that moment.  If shooting moving action, learn how to properly pan with the action while doing the burst. With practice it will become second nature, and you will save yourself a heap of time as well as frustration when you're editing your photo's.

I will also add (having done a little bit of birds in flight work myself) that you will rely on the "spray and pray" method at times as birds can be a nightmare to track.  However photographers who do this on a regular basis can take shots of birds doing only short burst's of a few frames and consistently get good shots.  It all comes down to technique, practice, and knowing your equipment.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 14, 2014)

Oh for the days when you'd roll into a wedding with a half-dozen '36' rolls in your bag and figure you had enough for two weddings!


----------



## Mr.Photo (Oct 14, 2014)

tirediron said:


> Oh for the days when you'd roll into a wedding with a half-dozen '36' rolls in your bag and figure you had enough for two weddings!



I remember watching a documentary on Netflix about a year ago or so about a National Geographic photographer by the name of Joel Sartore who went on a three month expedition in Alaska and burned through 800+ rolls of film.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 14, 2014)

Yeah, but even if he was hand-loading and managed to stuff 42 frames into a roll, that's only 33,600 frames.  Assuming he was using 'tailor-made' and assuming a 12 hour work day, that's only about a roll an hour.  Most amateurs I know blow through that in a MINUTE at an event.


----------



## lambertpix (Oct 14, 2014)

Mr.Photo said:


> Continuous burst mode is great when doing action shots such as birds in flight, auto racing etc.  It can even be useful when doing portraits as sometimes you may have someone that blinks a lot and you have a better chance of getting them with their eyes open.  However don't do what is commonly referred to as "spray and pray".  Other than the undue wear and tear on the shutter in your camera, you will then have a ton of photograph's to weed through to pick out the best one and delete the rest, and there is still no guarantee that you are going to get that magic shot.



Yup.

It took a little while for this to sink in, but I've found even with racing, I'm way better off with a single shot or a short burst of 2-3 at the right time vs. spray 'n pray.  I'll hold down the shutter if I'm tracking an off-track excursion or some fender-banging, but it's been a long time since I filled up my buffer.  Sorting through all the junk is a powerful motivation for change, though.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 14, 2014)

OMG!!! 5,500 frames in a two and a half hour, indoor event! Utterly laughable! She'll need a garbage truck to haul away all the rubbish! I have never heard of such ridiculous overshooting. Wow...what a waste of resources.


----------



## MichaelHenson (Oct 14, 2014)

I see the attraction in the "spray and pray" approach...to an extent but I can't imagine having to work through 5,500 images of a 2.5 hour event. Ugh!

I've done three separate "shoots" at this point that were for other people and ended up with 226, 60, and 250 images. The shoots were 2.5 hours, 30 minutes, and 2.5 hours (ish), respectively...

I know that someday I'll be able to be even more selective with my shooting but I'm pretty happy with that for now and only hope to get better.


----------



## runnah (Oct 14, 2014)

Mr.Photo said:


> While photographing during an event yesterday I was reminded of the "Machine Gunner" syndrome by another person photographing at the event.  I Wanted to post up this little tip for some of the up and coming photographers out there.  Especially those that may want to learn how to do sports/action photography.
> 
> The event was a Veteran's thank you type event which had several guest speakers.  I happened upon a woman using a Canon 6D and for every 2-3 frames (or single frame) I took she would pull up her camera (didn't matter what she was shooting) and fire off a 3-4 second continuous burst (about 25-30 frames).  She did this over the course of the event (about 2.5 hrs.), and when I chatted with her towards the end of the event she told me that she had taken more than 5500 shots compared to my 350.
> 
> ...



I disagree. I shoot tons of events and know that the one shot at a time doesn't work for speakers. You have to fire off quick bursts. A speakers facial expression changes so much when they are speaking that you have to be quick to get a good solid expression rather than a "derp" face. Plus you have to try to get an expression that fits the tone of the event. I have many shots where it looks like the speaker is angry or yelling but they really aren't.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 14, 2014)

Reminds me of my brother's wedding - I think I shot about 250 -275 frames (small, back-yard affair, <30 guests); there really was the stereotypical "uncle with a camera" and for every frame I took, he fired of 10-15.  It's one thing if you're shooting a cheetah taking down prey, but the bride's formals??????  I 'bout laughed myself silly all the way home.


----------



## MichaelHenson (Oct 14, 2014)

runnah said:


> I disagree. I shoot tons of events and know that the one shot at a time doesn't work for speakers. You have to fire off quick bursts. A speakers facial expression changes so much when they are speaking that you have to be quick to get a good solid expression rather than a "derp" face. Plus you have to try to get an expression that fits the tone of the event. I have many shots where it looks like the speaker is angry or yelling but they really aren't.



Makes sense...but 5,500?!?!


----------



## runnah (Oct 14, 2014)

MichaelHenson said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree. I shoot tons of events and know that the one shot at a time doesn't work for speakers. You have to fire off quick bursts. A speakers facial expression changes so much when they are speaking that you have to be quick to get a good solid expression rather than a "derp" face. Plus you have to try to get an expression that fits the tone of the event. I have many shots where it looks like the speaker is angry or yelling but they really aren't.
> ...



Yeah that is overkill. But I will say when its your job to get "the shot" if you have to burn through 4,499 shots to get the one, well its worth it.


----------



## MichaelHenson (Oct 14, 2014)

Can't argue with that! I just can't imagine going through that many images and trying to cull it down to a select few of the keepers...My couple hundred take long enough!


----------



## runnah (Oct 14, 2014)

MichaelHenson said:


> Can't argue with that! I just can't imagine going through that many images and trying to cull it down to a select few of the keepers...My couple hundred take long enough!



It's easier than you might think. its not about "art" its about documenting the thing that is happening. That makes it easy to know what to ditch.


----------



## Mr.Photo (Oct 14, 2014)

runnah said:


> I disagree. I shoot tons of events and know that the one shot at a time doesn't work for speakers. You have to fire off quick bursts. A speakers facial expression changes so much when they are speaking that you have to be quick to get a good solid expression rather than a "derp" face. Plus you have to try to get an expression that fits the tone of the event. I have many shots where it looks like the speaker is angry or yelling but they really aren't.



I never said to shoot a single frame all the time and while I didn't provide every instance where you would or wouldn't use continuous burst mode, I did say that in some instances taking multiple shots can be useful.  The moral of my tip is to learn when you might need to take several shots in succession or when simply 2-3 frames might do.  I myself during this event shot 3-4 frames at a time when the speakers were talking as I know that you can catch the wrong expression more often than not.  The woman with the Canon was pulling up her camera every 10-15 seconds, firing off burst's of 25-30 frames each time.  Even when she was photographing people just standing around talking or taking group photo's she was taking 3-4 second burst's.  When you know what you're trying to accomplish there is no need to take 50 shots of the same thing over the course of a few seconds.

On another note. I witnessed this same woman after leaving the event on my drive home.  She stopped on the side of the road to photograph a tractor cutting corn.  I had to stop behind her to allow an oncoming car to go by, and with my window down I could hear her camera "click,click,click,click,click,click,click,click,click" for like 10 seconds.


----------



## sashbar (Oct 14, 2014)

I was working at Wimbledon some years ago (not as a photographer) and went to the photogs gallery above the main court. There is a small gallery where you can see the whole court from above.  There were several guys shooting the Gasquet-Roddick quarter-final , and it was fun to watch them - they were shooting in complete unison.  Same moments, same series of 5-7 shots, they were all shooting with the same make - Canon 1D, even the lenses were all the same. I was watching the entire match, it was a 5-setter ( Gasquet won) and I thought they had each shot at the very least a 1,000 frames.  Probably much more. They were shooting each and every moment that might be worth it, throughout the whole match. And there were moments in each point. I was impressed. I thought: "competition is fierce there" .


----------



## runnah (Oct 14, 2014)

Nope, you're wrong.

Where in VT are you? I grew up outside Montpelier.


----------



## MichaelHenson (Oct 14, 2014)

Mr.Photo said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > On another note. I witnessed this same woman after leaving the event on my drive home.  She stopped on the side of the road to photograph a tractor cutting corn.  I had to stop behind her to allow an oncoming car to go by, and with my window down I could hear her camera "click,click,click,click,click,click,click,click,click" for like 10 seconds.
> ...


----------



## Mr.Photo (Oct 14, 2014)

runnah said:


> Nope, you're wrong.
> 
> Where in VT are you? I grew up outside Montpelier.



Great people skills you have there.  I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  I was merely trying to offer some advise, and you're making it sound like everything I've said is wrong.  I'm sorry, but I don't have the time nor income to replace the shutter in my camera once a year or less when it runs out.

By the way I grew up in the St. Albans/Sheldon area of Vermont, and currently reside about an hours drive North of Montpelier near Morrisville.


----------



## runnah (Oct 14, 2014)

Mr.Photo said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, you're wrong.
> ...



I was being funny.

Oh yeah Morrisville. Nice area. I used to bike on rt 12 all the time and go to Elmore lake.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 14, 2014)

Technique and practice. Hallelujah.

I agree it's a matter of learning techniques and knowing what to do when. I did event photos for a local team, sometimes it involved speakers in front of the sponsor's sign etc. It takes practice I think to get into the flow of an event and know when to get a shot. Not that you can't do some rapid succession of shots I suppose but you can do without, I've done it plenty of times, with a mechanical film camera or with a digital camera.

Pray  'n spray's not a technique so much as what people seem to do when they don't know what to do and just hope something turns out. Hopefully the person who shot 5500 photos in a couple of hours will start to develop some skills or eventually will figure out maybe photography's just not their thing.


----------



## Designer (Oct 14, 2014)

Derrel said:


> OMG!!! 5,500 frames in a two and a half hour, indoor event! Utterly laughable! She'll need a garbage truck to haul away all the rubbish! I have never heard of such ridiculous overshooting. Wow...what a waste of resources.



I wonder how anyone with a reasonable expectation of living a normal life can go through that many photos and select a few good ones.  So let's say that she uploads all 5,500 shots, and spends about 10 seconds each frame to decide if it is one that she keeps.  

10 seconds per frame, 6 per minute, would take her 916 minutes, or 15 1/4 hours.  Add in some time for breaks, you're up to say 20 hours of just deciding which ones to keep.  Then there is editing, if any, so add in some more time for that.  Oops, forgot to pay the bills, feed the cat and walk the dog, I was so wrapped up in going through all those photographs.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 14, 2014)

Designer said:
			
		

> I wonder how anyone with a reasonable expectation of living a normal life can go through that many photos and select a few good ones.  So let's say that she uploads all 5,500 shots, and spends about 10 seconds each frame to decide if it is one that she keeps.
> 
> 10 seconds per frame, 6 per minute, would take her 916 minutes, or 15 1/4 hours.  Add in some time for breaks, you're up to say 20 hours of just deciding which ones to keep.  Then there is editing, if any, so add in some more time for that.  Oops, forgot to pay the bills, feed the cat and walk the dog, I was so wrapped up in going through all those photographs.



Annnnnd there's somebody that gets the "waste of resources" concept. Hey, I've shot probably 100 press conferences/speakers. It's not "that difficult" to get a few decent frames. It's called "paying attention", and "timing". Good Christ...even at 6 frames per second, each frame is separated by 1/6 of a second! A fricking eye-blink is 1/10 of a second. As a kid in junior high and high school, I used to dink around with the digital watches I wore...I could reliably start, and stop, the chronograph in 0.07 seconds. That's seven one-hundredths of a second, *for TWO, discrete button presses, not just one!*

Firing along, blindly,like an idiot, at 6 FPS, that means exposures are 0.16666667 seconds apart. Krikey--that's basically BLIND LUCK. If one cannot shoot with better timing than that,then one sucks pretty seriously as far as having ANY sense of what is called "timing".

Take. One. Properly-timed. Frame.At.A.Time. Try.To.Get.It.Right. Do.Some.Simple.Math.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 14, 2014)

I've spent way too many days sitting next to these photographers that don't even look at what they are shooting, but just shooting with the hope of getting one good frame.  This isn't a new thing to digital, but it certainly has helped accelerate the blast factor.  In Sochi this year I stood next to a group of Japanese photographers that were all using  the 1Dx, as soon as they saw the skier they started shooting, I know that the first 100 images would have filled a tiny corner of the screen, the second 100 frames would have been usable with a tight crop and the final 10 shots would have been ok.  I was playing with my happy snap canon t2i with my 300 2.8 and 1.4 on single frame.  they looked at me like I was nuts, the difference was that I knew the sport, I pre focused on the flag and when the skier started to lean into it, I shot.

Photographers regardless of what level they are at, that lean on the shutter are using it as a security blanket because most of the time they aren't seeing what they are should be looking at, they just hope to get an image.


----------



## snowbear (Oct 14, 2014)

Spray and pray.

I use it for flying birds and the rare occasion I want to make a stop-action video.


----------



## Mr.Photo (Oct 14, 2014)

snowbear said:


> Spray and pray.
> 
> I use it for flying birds and the rare occasion I want to make a stop-action video.


----------



## bratkinson (Oct 15, 2014)

Seemingly eons ago, I remember the introduction of motor drives to cameras.  It didn't take long to decide that motor drives were likely promoted by Kodak as a means to get more film sales.  I was shooting mostly pictures of trains back then, and I'd see someone with a nice shiny camera and motor drive blow a 36 exposure roll on the locomotives of one train passing by.

I'm glad my slightly older Canon EF bodies weren't designed to accommodate motor drives, or I may have joined the 'machine gun camera club'.

For what it's worth, I've NEVER put any of my DSLRs in continuous mode.  There are times I may shoot 6-8 frames as fast as I can push the shutter button - mostly to get everyone in a group shot with eyes open.  But when I do, I have to weed through the bunch of shots to find a good one.  Needless to say,I do that as little as possible.


----------



## CameraClicker (Oct 15, 2014)

You could get a motor-drive in the 1970's.  The moved film at a blistering 2 or 3 frames a second!  My CanonRebel T2i can do approx. 3.7 frames a second!  It's a great feature.  Between Image Stabilization, a good grip and burst mode, you can get a nice sharp shot at night, without a tripod, even with a relatively slow lens.

For 2.5 hours, 350 shots is a lot!  I can't imagine more than 5,500 a day!  She must be shooting JPEGs.  Even then, she has fast memory cards and more capacity than I have ever carried with me!


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 15, 2014)

Meh. It's her camera, she can do what she wants with it short of disturbing the event itself.

I shot 650 photos at my last wedding, but about 50 of those were panorama shots. 300 of those were culled because I didn't need that many or missed AF because my 5D MKII has one somewhat reliable AF point. My previous one was 450 dropped to 350. Both of those included a lot of candid photos that I otherwise probably wouldn't have taken if they weren't weddings for friends.

5,500 is excessive, but since the OP didn't buy the camera, he can't really dictate what she does with it.


----------



## Designer (Oct 15, 2014)

Village Idiot said:


> Meh. It's her camera, she can do what she wants with it short of disturbing the event itself.  ..5,500 is excessive, but since the OP didn't buy the camera, he can't really dictate what she does with it.



I think his point was that she may have been under the impression that she is a good photographer simply because her camera can shoot in continuous mode.  

It makes a neat sound, like the professionals' cameras.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 15, 2014)

I use the machine gun when shooting cats:


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 15, 2014)

The problem shooting indoor events is that it does disturb other people and can be distracting. Even with my 1Dx the only time I blast away is during football running plays where a player is coming towards me, otherwise I'll just shoot a couple frames at a time.  I probably average 400-500 images during a football game, but then as team photographer, I am shooting the warmups, coin toss, generic signage and game action and portraits on the bench.


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 15, 2014)

*shrug*

I recently went on vaccation with a friend. The later had a single memory card and said if it was full, he would stop. I had quite the reserves, as usual. I shot about 4-5 times the pictures, and in the end had about twice the amount of keepers. Plus, to be honest, most of his pictures wouldnt have ended up keepers of mine.

Well, granted - I definitely didnt "spray and pray".

I think its about balance. Just dont go to extremes. Dont expect every single frame to be a success. Press the shutter whenever theres a chance its a keeper, even if it isnt. But dont stop thinking when you're making pictures, either.


----------



## Designer (Oct 15, 2014)

Having started out in film, I developed the habit of carefully composing and exposing each photograph as if were a future masterpiece.  (LOL)

In those days, even if I could have obtained a motor drive, I never seriously considered it.

Now even though each frame is very cheap, I still hold onto the old habit of shooting one frame at a time. 

Someday I'll put my camera into continuous mode to make sure it works.


----------



## 407370 (Oct 15, 2014)

I would love to spray and pray but my old FUJI takes a full lunar orbit to empty the buffer after a burst shot.


----------



## Overread (Oct 15, 2014)

I tend to have my 7D on its full 8fps mode all the time unless I'm shooting macro then I have it cut to 4fps (because the flash unit can't keep up if I go for a burst of shots - which I might well do for a handheld focus stack - otherwise its single shots). 

I don't tend to gun too badly, normally two or three frames - I might gun for more if what I'm shooting is very action orientated and also if I'm not sure what the subject will do - so getting more helps; plus one can look back at a more detailed sequence of events and then more easily spot the "moment" the real action shot happens (or the moments as sometimes a specific event can have several key points).

I think this is one of those things that when you read it - such as single shot on spots - it sounds wrong when you've not done it, or when you've only done it once before. But I can only back-up what others said - the more you come to understand a subject and situation the more easy it is to predict what will likely happen and thus when to take the shot you want. It's like driving - when you start the other cars could go ANYWHERE - but after a while you start to build up an understanding of what the speeds, angle, directions and road will all combine together to direct that car and thus where its most likely to head.


----------



## oldhippy (Oct 15, 2014)

Years ago, actually decades ago, while trying to flick the lid of my Zippo lighter.  My dad butted in and said.  You know there's only so many flicks, till that top comes off.
I think of that when I hear of spray and pray.  5000. Times 15 events equals end of shutter life.  I try to balance but not over use.  Just thinking.  Ed


----------



## ph0enix (Oct 15, 2014)

Derrel said:


> OMG!!! 5,500 frames in a two and a half hour, indoor event! Utterly laughable! She'll need a garbage truck to haul away all the rubbish! I have never heard of such ridiculous overshooting. Wow...what a waste of resources.




Seriously!  Who has the time to sift through all those trash photos.


----------



## Gary A. (Oct 15, 2014)

tirediron said:


> Oh for the days when you'd roll into a wedding with a half-dozen '36' rolls in your bag and figure you had enough for two weddings!


When shooting assignments, I'd tried to limit myself to four rolls. Anything more than four started to be a pain figuring out developer quantities and then having to examine every frame for the best shot(s).


----------



## bratkinson (Oct 15, 2014)

I fully understand the need for multiple frames per second to record "the moment" of someone being tagged out in baseball or something like that.  Maybe race cars too, predicting when they'd be in exactly the right spot to get "the moment" during the action, or perhaps during a crash.

But this morning, I found another "the moment" to capture online...a sound barrier breaking vapor cone.  I never knew there was such a thing.  It lasts only milliseconds, so it took the photographer many tries over 5 years to capture one...
Jet breaking sound barrier looks like this - GrindTV.com
But then, I Googled it, and it looks like there's a number of sound barrier vapor shots.


----------



## JerryVenz (Oct 15, 2014)

Yes, your camera's shutter does have a limited life and it's not always a long as advertised by your manufacturer. One of our Nikon's shutter packed-it-in at 55,000 frames--costing us $400.00 to replace.

The ONLY time I use my camera's max-frame rate is when doing extreme action--especially unpredictable action like rodeo.

Still my very best sports action photography ( racing cars, motorcycles, airplanes ) was done one-frame-at-a-time.  These were planned, and executed with knowledge of the sport--having been a racer myself. I found that MY timing of when to click the shutter was far better than the GAMBLE of just hitting the motor-drive ( yep, I had a Canon F1 with motor-drive and 250-shot bulk-film-back--and boy was THAT bulky!).


----------



## Gary A. (Oct 15, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For me, it all depends on what you're shooting. Using high FPS is purely situational. I use it a lot, mainly because that's how I was trained to shoot than anything else. The professional cannot afford to miss 'The Shot', to miss the defining image. High FPS is a useful tool/crutch to capture that shot. When the competition is on your immediate left and right and they are shooting at a high FPS, you cannot afford to give away that advantage.  If I told my boss I missed The Shot because I was saving the company money ... I'd probably end up in the emergency room, looking at a pink slip of paper, while waiting to have a shoe removed from my behind.

I have to admit I still remember and admire this Time-Life photog. We were shooting the president, (Ford). We were all set up across the room from the dias in some hotel. Next to me, on a tripod, (the only tripod in the room), was this Time-Life guy. The president come out and everytime he sneezes, every motordriven camera in the place opens up. Not this guy. He waits and waits until he sees the shot he wants and 'click' ... a single click. I shoot my typical four rolls ... he shot maybe one roll, (probably a 24 exposure roll at that, lol).

Gary


----------



## Gary A. (Oct 15, 2014)

JerryVenz said:


> Yes, your camera's shutter does have a limited life and it's not always a long as advertised by your manufacturer. One of our Nikon's shutter packed-it-in at 55,000 frames--costing us $400.00 to replace.
> 
> The ONLY time I use my camera's max-frame rate is when doing extreme action--especially unpredictable action like rodeo.
> 
> Still my very best sports action photography ( racing cars, motorcycles, airplanes ) was done one-frame-at-a-time.  These were planned, and executed with knowledge of the sport--having been a racer myself. I found that MY timing of when to click the shutter was far better than the GAMBLE of just hitting the motor-drive ( yep, I had a Canon F1 with motor-drive and 250-shot bulk-film-back--and boy was THAT bulky!).



My experience has been different. My best action images were best served by a combo of timing and high FPS. The combination of these two elements provides a much higher consistency rate than either element alone.

Gary


----------



## Overread (Oct 15, 2014)

Gary - agreed. Timing is everything - time your shots to the right moment, but also use the fast frames per second. This maximises the chances of getting that right moment; the higher frames is helping you, but it still relies upon the photographer getting that right moment (and chances are the first 3 or so frames will have the shot you want).


----------



## TheStunch (Oct 15, 2014)

I always try think about culling the photos when I squeeze the trigger, if I have to kill 800 photos for 4, I need to rethink my shooting strategy.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 15, 2014)

5,500 frames at a two and a half hour podium-heavy event. Constant, repeated 18- to 25-frame bursts. LMAO. That's basically 36.66667 frames per minute. For 150 minutes. I can only imagine what a PITA this woman was to anybody who had the misfortune to be near her for the duration of this indoor event. I bet there were some awesome moments of people talking, and some amazing pointing gestures, perhaps some awesome hand-clapping shots, and probably some incredible handing-over-the-microphone shots, maybe a few shuffling of the notes shots! exciting stuff!


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 15, 2014)

Overread said:


> I tend to have my 7D on its full 8fps mode all the time unless I'm shooting macro then I have it cut to 4fps (because the flash unit can't keep up if I go for a burst of shots - which I might well do for a handheld focus stack - otherwise its single shots).
> 
> I don't tend to gun too badly, normally two or three frames - I might gun for more if what I'm shooting is very action orientated and also if I'm not sure what the subject will do - so getting more helps; plus one can look back at a more detailed sequence of events and then more easily spot the "moment" the real action shot happens (or the moments as sometimes a specific event can have several key points).
> 
> I think this is one of those things that when you read it - such as single shot on spots - it sounds wrong when you've not done it, or when you've only done it once before. But I can only back-up what others said - the more you come to understand a subject and situation the more easy it is to predict what will likely happen and thus when to take the shot you want. It's like driving - when you start the other cars could go ANYWHERE - but after a while you start to build up an understanding of what the speeds, angle, directions and road will all combine together to direct that car and thus where its most likely to head.



All I can think about is....maybe she is a beginner.  I still make all kinds of beginner mistakes and decisions even after 3 years.  Not sure how receptive she would have been, but it could have been a nice teaching or showing moment.  Instead of, look at this crazy lady with a Canon thinking she's all that with her fancy overuse of continuous bursts.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 15, 2014)

5500 is pretty crazy.  LMAO.

Pretty sure I would have quit this stupid hobby pretty early going through that many shots.

It's bad enough when I fill an 8 gig card with approx. 330 shots.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 15, 2014)

She probably is a beginner. One with a lot of time on her hands. I mean, my gosh, 5,500 frames!!! What is the expected download time? How long would that take to import and to create previews for in Lightroom? How long would it take to cull through all the similars?

It would probably make more sense to shoot video with a high-quality video camera, and then watch the entire event, and pull some screen grabs out, and run with those. Yes, the woman obviously must be a beginner, or very much lacking in confidence if she thinks just blasting away in 18 to 25 or 30-frame bursts is the way to shoot still photographs. Yes, some gentle teaching might have been nice, provided she could handle the constructive criticism/suggestions, but that's not a given that she'd have been able to even listen to such advice. Most people who are self-taught and who never had either peers, or mentors, or teachers, are often pretty unaware that there actually are social standards against blasting away with a motorized camera and making a nuisance of one's self for two and a half hours, so she might really have no clue as to how best to shoot such an event, or that she's being rude and obnoxious by shooting over 5,000 pictures and clickety-clacking away basically non-stop. I agree: it might have been a teachable moment, but then again, considering her utterly gauche behavior, it might not have been a teachable moment.


----------



## Gary A. (Oct 15, 2014)

Beginner or not ... if she was near or in with spectators, then her actions and noise to those around her, were quite rude. Beginner or not, common courtesy begs for her to exercise some restraint.

If she was in a press area apart from the audience. That's different, in which case, she was a beginner or stupid or ignorant or any combo of these three. The only option remaining is that she is so far advance than any of us and has developed a technique requiring a huge total of images for which she is able to glean/create/process an image far beyond what can be gleaned/created/processed from a mere 300 images.

(Just read Derrel's thread above after posting mine ... we came to the same conclusions independently.)


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 15, 2014)

But but but it had silent mode.


----------



## Fred Berg (Oct 15, 2014)

5.5K exposures in 2.5 hours = the law of diminishing returns.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Oct 15, 2014)

I'll burst like Hell when I shoot motorcycle racing. It's there; it's a tool. I'll use it;.


----------



## CameraClicker (Oct 15, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> But but but it had silent mode.


I doubt silent mode was being used.  Silent mode slows the camera down.


----------



## Designer (Oct 15, 2014)

CameraClicker said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > But but but it had silent mode.
> ...



The OP said he could hear it clicking on the side of the road.

Besides; the click-clacking noise is what is cool about it.  What's the point in having a cool camera if you're not going to make noise like a professional?  All the cool photo journalists run their cameras on continuous.


----------



## CameraClicker (Oct 15, 2014)

Designer said:


> CameraClicker said:
> 
> 
> > JacaRanda said:
> ...


LOL!  Confirmation!  I'm sure I read that, hours ago.  I just figured that at a constant, slightly faster than, a frame every 2 seconds, sustained, it was very unlikely the camera was running at less than full speed when it was shooting.  Otherwise you couldn't achieve that many frames and also take time to breath.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 15, 2014)

Mr. Innuendo said:


> I'll burst like Hell when I shoot motorcycle racing. It's there; it's a tool. I'll use it;.



Yeah, and it's also awesome for people at podiums, talking into microphones! Nothing like firing off 75 to 100 frames to get a good shot of the adjusting of the microphone's height, or 150 to 200 frames as a speaker steps up to the podium and shuffles his notes, and maybe, if you are lucky, he does something exciting and snap-worthy, and puts on his reading glasses!


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 15, 2014)

Well, she told me it was on silent the entire time.  So she really only took 3000 during the event.  The other 1500 were from the tractor going the opposite way prior to the event.   

   two smileys this time just in case.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 15, 2014)

Designer said:


> CameraClicker said:
> 
> 
> > JacaRanda said:
> ...



Another reason not to get those crappy Canons.  So loud you can hear them from another vehicle even with a tractor cutting corn in the area.


----------



## CameraClicker (Oct 15, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > CameraClicker said:
> ...


You're just jealous


----------



## MichaelHenson (Oct 15, 2014)

Gary A. said:


> The only option remaining is that she is so far advance than any of us and has developed a technique requiring a huge total of images for which she is able to glean/create/process an image far beyond what can be gleaned/created/processed from a mere 300 images.



I think you nailed it here...She probably takes all of those pictures at varying exposures/angles and of different subjects at the event to make a HUGE 5,500 photo collage of the main speaker at the event! I'm surprised I didn't think of this earlier!


----------



## Gary A. (Oct 15, 2014)

LOL!!!! There you go.


----------



## Gary A. (Oct 15, 2014)

My X100S, is 100%, absolutely, bonafide, unqualifiedly quiet on quiet mode. Gotta love those leaf shutters.


----------



## Mr.Photo (Oct 15, 2014)

Actually the event was outdoors not indoors.  The entire event lasted roughly 2.5 hrs.  The speaking portion lasted just over an hour.  I was on the opposite side of the crowd about 20' away and I could still hear her camera every 10 seconds or so firing away.  The best part was she stayed in one place, and would shoot 3-4 long burst's at the speaker, then turn in to the crowd zoom in on someone, and fire off another 3-4 bursts.  The she would zoom in on one of the other speakers in their chair, and do the same 3-4 burst's, then turn back and shoot someone in the crowd.  After all the speakers were done there was a BBQ on the back lawn, and she was up there doing group photo's, and candid shots firing away like a woodpecker having a seizure.

Needless to say, but if I could hear her camera from 20' away.  I can only imagine how annoying it was for the guest's hearing clicliclicliclicliclicliclicliclicliclicliclicliclicliclicliclicliclicliclicli...........

Interestingly enough, I usually get beginners following me around taking the exact same shots I do.  This woman picked one spot, and just stayed there not moving other than pivoting to take 100 portraits of a single person.


----------



## Overread (Oct 15, 2014)

Sometimes if you're new to an event or situation it can be intimidating to move around - plus you don't really know the form of what is going to happen where or when so you tend to gravitate toward a more limited range (or even just pick one spot) because at least from there you have a base-line to work from. 
It can also be a kind of herd-thinking if everyone else (spectators) are sitting still. 

A few more similar events and a better working understanding of the flow of events and many will break out of their shell - they'll be more confident at moving around the area (even if other people are not) and also more confident at selecting good shooting positions because they'll have a rough idea of the format for the day so they'll be confident they can pick a spot and not miss key events happening elsewhere (or if they are they can justify that they can't cover everything and thus make a definitive choice what to shoot). 

Going with another photographer or having prior experience of similar but not identical events can jump-start things a little - encouraging people to move out of the comfort zone more readily - although going with another photographer can also have varying effects depending upon that persons experiences, skill and method of operation. 



One would hope that after a static day of 5K shots the photographer will start to learn more so how to judge the event to cut down on the volume of the bursts - and to also read the event and move around more freely (where practical/allowed).


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Oct 15, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Mr. Innuendo said:
> 
> 
> > I'll burst like Hell when I shoot motorcycle racing. It's there; it's a tool. I'll use it;.
> ...



Well, since I don't shoot people speaking at podiums, I wouldn't know. If I did, though, I would agree that it would be overkill.

Motorcycle racing? Yeah, I'll use it then.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 15, 2014)

Mr.Photo said:
			
		

> SNIP> 20' away and I could still hear her camera every 10 seconds or so firing away>SNIP> she stayed in one place, and would shoot 3-4 long burst's at the speaker, then turn in to the crowd zoom in on someone, and fire off another 3-4 bursts.  The she would zoom in on one of the other speakers in their chair, and do the same 3-4 burst's, then turn back and shoot someone in the crowd.



OHHHHH! AHHHHH! the old " Action > reaction!" shooting method! How exciting!


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 15, 2014)

I've mentioned this story before about a photographer that sat next to me covering figure skating, he would start shooting as soon as the skater got on the ice, and for 5 minutes he just made a movie. As I was right next to him using the same camera and lens, I think I shot between 25-40 maybe.  He would fill 10 5GB cards on roughly 15 skaters. I asked him why he shot the way he did, his honest answer was "Because I'm not very good"   

So next time someone is blasting away, think of that honest answer.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Oct 15, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> So next time someone is blasting away, think of that honest answer.



Yes because the example of one person shooting figure skating clearly represents _everyone _who shots in that manner.

I think yours is an excessively extreme example.

Some solid points in favor of it have been brought, and they are valid. 

Like I said, it's just another tool. Why not use it when it's appropriate?


----------



## MichaelHenson (Oct 16, 2014)

Of course, this line of conversation made me think of all the new HD and now 4K cameras coming out on the market that allow you to video whatever you want then take the video back and select the single frame out of all of those in the video that you would like as the picture.

Sounds like some of these "spray n' prayers" would be better off getting a GoPro and just using that.


----------



## snowbear (Oct 16, 2014)

A while back, my oldest son came down with his camera to shoot a little.  He has my father's Minolta SRT101.  i grabbed my new (to me) N90s and as we were walking around we spotted a cardinal in a tree.  I didn't realize the N90's drive was in "high."  Since I don't use burst mode that much, I tend to hold the shutter down a bit longer than most.  I fired of about seven frames of film before I realized it.  It hasn't been out of single frame since then.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 16, 2014)

Having a camera that is capable of a higher frame per second rate does come in handy in certain situation, some people still use it without paying attention to what they are seeing. I've said this before.   The other difference is that I don't consider a camera that is capable of only 4-6 FPS second as high speed cameras.  As an example using a 5Dmklll which is 6fps second, or a 5D-6D which are both under 5fps, these may be considered high speed for the average user. I have a 5D mklll, and use it a lot of the time, great camera. I also have a 1Dx which is at 12fps, and I consider as high speed.  I wouldn't think of blasting away for 10-15 seconds with the Dx.  It still all comes down to looking at what you're shooting, and shooting just before, during and after peak action.

There is a huge difference between blasting away with a 4.5fps 6D and 12fps Dx.


----------



## AlanKlein (Oct 16, 2014)

People shoot these bursts because they can.  But even the US Army learned the disadvantages of this.  The later M-16's machine guns shoot in three round bursts when on auto fire instead of the original design of continuous as long as you held the trigger down.  If you couldn't hit the guy with three rounds,  there was no point in wasting any more.


----------



## xzyragon (Oct 16, 2014)

When I'm shooting with my 7d, i rarely have it on high burst mode.  I don't need doubles of shots if I press the shutter for too long...

But to be fair, it's great for action shots.  And particularly useful for skating.  As a skater myself, I kind of know the lines and moves skaters are going to take, which makes it extremely easy to "guess" when and where they're going to throw their tricks.  So just compose, wait for them to start the trick, and then 8 fps until they land.

But even then, an hour of shooting skating still only leaves ~200 photos...


----------



## Overread (Oct 16, 2014)

Mr. Innuendo said:


> Like I said, it's just another tool. Why not use it when it's appropriate?



I don't think its that people are straight out saying "don't use burst mode" but more that shooting an event with the angle of bursting shots at very single subject (no matter the context) is a poor way to shoot for a number of reasons:

1) It might mean that you're not confident on what you're looking for in a shot. You're gunning the moment, but you're still not quite sure what part of the moment you want to capture - so you're timing is likely going to be off (you'll start far too early and finish far too late). 

2) It might mean that when you get home you've got thousands of shots - I did something like 2K shots once at the zoo and I never got through them all I can't imagine 5K shots from a single day - its just so much volume of material. If shooting like that regularly I'd honestly probably want to shift to JPEG mode just to have print ready shots from the get-go (or shoot in a situation where lighting is so standard that I can apply one action to the whole set without cherry picking through each shot). 

3) It's "lazy" in that you as a photographer just gun the event; this is linking into point 1 - you don't know what to look for so you gun it - and if you continue to use that method then you're not learning what you do want to look for in a shot.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Oct 16, 2014)

But, if "gunning" it results in you getting the money shot, a strong argument could be made that it's a good thing for someone to be able to take advantage of when they may not know how to compose a shot or how to predict what's coming next.

When I use burst (and it's rare), I don't think  I'll end up with more than 3-5 frames per burst. It's difficult to predict when a motorcycle rider may go down, or when a guitarist is going to kick a cup of beer into the crowd. If I happen to be "mid-burst" when either of those things happen, well, good for me.

Likewise, though, for someone who doesn't know how to do those things, how is it bad if they do it and get the "money shot"? I get the impression that some here believe that such a person simply shouldn't be entitled to get such a shot because of their lack of knowledge. I just think that's a little silly.

I agree it's a poor way to shoot as a "go to" method. I know I certainly don't have the time I would need cull through thousands of photos shot at 6.5 fps over the course of an afternoon, so it would be a poor choice for me. But it being a poor choice for me doesn't mean that someone else, who's less experienced, can't use it to get that one shot to give his afternoon some meaning. If someone else has no problem with looking through that many photos, then it's not anyone elses place to say that it's "wrong".

Also, let's not lose sight of the fact that, while the OP experienced someone shooting like that, we have no idea if that's how she normally shoots. If someone were to to watch me shoot one concert, where you get to shoot the first three songs (if you're lucky), would it be fair for that person to assume that I always shoot that way? Truth be told, the vast majority of my photos are taken deliberately and with planning. I might shoot 15 photos in an hour, at best.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 16, 2014)

Well, the first three songs are likely to mean 12 minutes or less, whereas a 150-minute "talking event" is much longer. Three- and four-second bursts of people talking, or people clapping, are unlikely to yield much that is truly exceptional. On mostly-static events, like people talking at podiums, or audience members clapping, the "action" is not going to change all that much over three or four seconds.

If a flight full of hurdlers in the 110 meter hurdles is approaching a photographer stationed 10 yards behind the finish line, then YES, in three to four seconds there will be multiple types of shots...in-between hurdles, going over, in-between, hurdling, in between, and then going over hurdles. In pole vaulting, you'll get approach, plant,pull,approaching the top of the vault,crossing the bar, pushing the pole away,clean vault or bar knocked off, descent, and impact on the landing pad, and triumph or despair, all in a little more than three seconds. Sometimes shooting across the span of three or four or even five or ten seconds of real,actual,dynamic action makes total sense. If there is a LOT of rapidly-changing action that can make a decent image if the framing is right and the focus is good, burst away and work it as best as you can with your skill set. In other situations, the peak of action exists for only a fraction of a second, and neither *the before* nor *the after* are really worth seeing. In baseball, the ball-on-bat is an example. Six FPS is wayyyy too slow to capture anything like ball on bat just by mashing down on the trigger; it is all about the timing the shooter has. At least until you move into the realllllly fast-firing cameras at 20 to 60 FPS.

There is a big difference between being able to actually time a shot and blindly mashing on the shutter for three to four seconds and HOPING that somehow, something interesting occurs. There are also plenty of situations where extended sequential action is best shot using a deep buffer and shooting things "as they unfold". There is composing and firing and working the action while shooting genuine sequential action, and there is zombie-like, blind, ignorant holding down of shutter buttons on basically static scenes.


----------



## Overread (Oct 16, 2014)

And we are agreeing with you in so much that many of us will use burst mode - or will use a controlled short series of shots at the key moment. What we are disagreeing with is the extreme view of when a person is gunning every shot into the extreme as their primary method of shooting.


----------



## Tegan Payton (Oct 16, 2014)

You know, it's funny that you posted about this. I'm a pretty novice photographer-- that is, maybe one day I'll photograph for money, or not. Just a nice hobby for me.

I bought a digital camera to take on a trip (since mine is still packed up at Ft. Hood), and figured I'd take some photos. I recall many, many novice photographers (like my self), spraying and praying. But, with my son and my sister, I decidedly just took my time. I did "feel like" I wasn't doing it right since I wasn't shooting quickly..
But after reading this, I do feel a bit better for focusing on what I wanted, rather than running and gunning it.
I took 21 of my sister..was able to quickly whittle down to 11.


----------



## hamlet (Oct 16, 2014)

I only use continues burst mode when i cannot predict my subjects movement. Otherwise if it is on burst mode, it is probably by accident.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Oct 16, 2014)

Derrel said:


> There is a big difference between being able to actually time a shot and blindly mashing on the shutter for three to four seconds and HOPING that somehow, something interesting occurs.



Obviously. I can't say I know anyone who would shoot someone speaking at a lectern and blaze away in burst mode for 20 seconds at a time. That seems insane to me and, evidently, to you, as well.

But if someone "mashes the shutter" and gets "the" shot they need, well, then a strong argument can be made that mashing the shutter works. It doesn't work for you or me, but if it works for someone else, we're really in no position to take exception to how they shoot. 

If they need a shot which is realized with that method, more power to them.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Oct 16, 2014)

Overread said:


> What we are disagreeing with is the extreme view of when a person is gunning every shot into the extreme as their primary method of shooting.



What matters are the results.

I think it's crazy for someone to shoot 1,000 photos of the Foo Fighters in just three songs. To me, that's absolutely insane. But, if someone does that, and one of those 1,000 photos lands on the cover of Rolling Stone, well, I'm really in no position to criticize.


----------



## Overread (Oct 16, 2014)

Mr. Innuendo said:


> What matters are the results.



Yes and No. 

From one perspective the control over the camera doesn't matter - that you got THE shot is what counts. 


From another perspective using a method and promoting a method that is not practical nor necessarily reliable isn't good practice. That you're on a forum that focuses greatly around education and the sharing and furthering of members knowledge within the field of photography means that you're going to get people who will totally agree that if you got the shot that's fantastic - but still there are better and more effective ways to shoot such an event. 

Heck with several thousand shots its very easy that THE shot could simply get lost in the sea of other shots.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 16, 2014)

There are always reasons for shooting more than one frame, I don't consider anyone shooting 4-5 frames in a burst as overshooting. I consider someone that is shooting 20-30 frames in a burst as overshooting, however there will always be circumstances when it makes a difference.  Using a mid range camera that allows less than 5fps will help keep the numbers down for the sprayers, the same person using a high end 12fps camera is going to spent a lot of time deleting useless images in front of the computer.

When shooting sports, understanding the sport, and timing is the key to the best images. Then you can factor in luck, which shouldn't be overlooked.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Oct 16, 2014)

Overread said:


> Mr. Innuendo said:
> 
> 
> > What matters are the results.
> ...



For all practical purposes, photography is about the image. With regards to that, the results are, in fact, what matters more than anything else.



> From another perspective using a method and promoting a method that is not practical nor necessarily reliable isn't good practice.



This would matter, I suppose, to a photography professor. It's simply a nice thought in the real world. In fact, if someone is trying to get a particular shot while paying an over-abundance of time and care to composition and timing, and still is unable to get the shot, I would say it's time to put it in burst and fire away. Hell, the other way isn't working, and it's, according to some, the "right" way to shoot.

You do what works for you. If you're not doing that, you're going about it wrong.



> That you're on a forum that focuses greatly around education and the sharing and furthering of members knowledge within the field of photography means that you're going to get people who will totally agree that if you got the shot that's fantastic - but still there are better and more effective ways to shoot such an event.



As I said, I agree with regards to someone speaking on a stage in a static position. But for a musician, or a motorcycle, or a race boat, or a Blue Angel, well, the rules mean less when_ following _rules keeps you from getting the shot.



> Heck with several thousand shots its very easy that THE shot could simply get lost in the sea of other shots.



And that means exactly nothing if the photo isn't lost.

Again, I'm not promoting it as the thing to do all the time. But it absolutely has its time and place.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 16, 2014)

My comments come from a background of shooting film, getting what was required in 30 frames and not having time to change rolls was the difference between success and fail. Now with digital and working for Reuters or Canadian Press wire services where the best and first image that goes out gets used, having to sift through hundreds of images, or having a photo editor going through them, you have to produce great images in a very short time, and in the least amount of frames. It doesn't matter if it's someone  standing at a podium speaking, motorcycle racing, football or a royal wedding, fewer images is better and if it takes hundreds to get one, find a new job, this is fact.

The photographers that overshoot, don't work.

Working an event where there was no pressure or stress and you have all kinds of time, then sure spray away.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Oct 16, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> The photographers that overshoot, don't work.



And yet, oddly, the woman spoken of in the OP; the one who was overshooting, _was _working.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 16, 2014)

You have not understood anything that I said in my last post. I seriously doubt she was working for a wire service *where turning out a high quality image as quick as possible in as few frames possible is necessary*. If she was blasting out as many frames as was stated she would not be working for a wire service.   As I clearly said, I have based what I have said from my experience working for a wire service.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 16, 2014)

_Fin..._


----------

