# decisive moment



## candc (Sep 28, 2013)

When I started out I never had a motor drive so I always had to try and anticipate the decisive moment. I still shoot that way but I suppose I am not taking advantage of what the modern camera can do. I guess if I was shooting for a living I would feel obligated to shoot a sequence to deliver the best shot to the client but that kind of takes some of the excitement out of it for me, what do you think?


----------



## mwh1964 (Sep 28, 2013)

A good picture is never just firing away, but to see the moment before it happens. However, moderne tech will help you getting the best possible outcome.


----------



## candc (Sep 28, 2013)

mwh1964 said:


> A good picture is never just firing away, but to see the moment before it happens. However, moderne tech will help you getting the best possible outcome.


True, but don't you enjoy hitting the best shot with your finger instead of sorting through them?


----------



## distant.star (Sep 28, 2013)

.
What I enjoy is looking at a good picture. I'll do whatever it takes to get it!


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 28, 2013)

distant.star said:


> .
> What I enjoy is looking at a good picture. I'll do whatever it takes to get it!



Amen brother. Have you ever seen a great sports photo and then realized, oh this sucks, he was motor driving. I don't want a t-shirt that says I shoot RAW. I want good photos.

candc, I would rather just see some of your photos than worry about how you took them.




Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr


----------



## candc (Sep 28, 2013)

Okay, I will start shooting that way more, it will feel different but you have a good point


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 28, 2013)

I've generally never used the high speed shooting capability of my cameras, I did try to capture a whip cutting a flower in someones hand one time, but that was neigh impossible.

I was looking thru a old 1916 National Geographic, and noticed that photographers did ok with out motor drives. It definitely makes capturing some images easier and removes the need for skill and timing.


----------



## dpackman (Sep 28, 2013)

An interesting philosophical question that is clearly answered practically by "do what you need to to get the best shot." At my level of photography, the question is just whether to take a camera along or not. For with a camera I look at the world in a different way. Perhaps this is a better way, but it is clearly different.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2013)

So, capturing a burst is 'cheating'? If so, better turn off AF, use M mode and disregard the light meter. Turn off IS, too. Next time your taxes are due, use only a paper and pencil - no TurboTax, no calculator, not even an abacus. Where does it end? Become a Luddite, maybe... 

I'm in the camp that says it's all about the result, and if technology makes that easier, great.


----------



## scottkinfw (Sep 28, 2013)

Take a hybrid approach.

Still be "at one" with the subject. when you anticipate "the moment" fire it off. If it is something fast, don't hesitate to use your fastest frame rate (you have one for a reason, and to not use it is illogical).

Remember, unless photographers are posting a problem pic, they will show only the good ones. It is not cheating.


----------



## candc (Sep 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, capturing a burst is 'cheating'? If so, better turn off AF, use M mode and disregard the light meter. Turn off IS, too. Next time your taxes are due, use only a paper and pencil - no TurboTax, no calculator, not even an abacus. Where does it end? Become a Luddite, maybe...
> 
> I'm in the camp that says it's all about the result, and if technology makes that easier, great.


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


----------



## candc (Sep 28, 2013)

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


----------



## Menace (Sep 28, 2013)

Personally, I'd use my camera's technology to its max to achieve best possible results - I've paid (good money) for it, it's there to use and I'll it use without any remorse.

On the other hand for yourself, you can always get hold of a working antique camera system, learn to use it and master the developing process and see if you find it satisfying.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 28, 2013)

candc said:


> When I started out I never had a motor drive so I always had to try and anticipate the decisive moment. I still shoot that way but I suppose I am not taking advantage of what the modern camera can do. I guess if I was shooting for a living I would feel obligated to shoot a sequence to deliver the best shot to the client but that kind of takes some of the excitement out of it for me, what do you think?



I can sympathise with this. Having shot with film for so long it took me a long time to adjust to all that digital offers. With digital you can cover everything without worry of running out of film. Remember 36 exposures ?!

Being able to cover exposure, focus, frames per second etc results in more perfect pictures. It's a fact. In doing so it has also de valued photography but that's another story. Everyone is aiming to produce perfect images to it is pointless not to fully utilise all that digital offers.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 28, 2013)

Burst isn't the same as spray and pray.

When I'm doing sports stuff I'll get to the venue early and walk around to work out whats going to give me the shot I want, taking into consideration foreground and background perspective, taking into account the likely gait of the sportsperson, the available light, it's relevance in terms of 'the story' of the event.

I'll practice my exposure and tweak my settings during warm ups, then when the decisive moment occurs I'll be ready.

I might shoot in burst mode, I will almost certainly shoot in AiServo (of course if you are adhering to the decisive moment ethos you will MF, you will zone or hyperfocal, won't you?) Burst will give me a choice of up to 8 images per second. 

I'm not photgraphing handsome young couples strolling out of parisian cafes.

Had Cartier-bresson and all the great street photographers had colour film, had reliable predictable af, had motordrives of course they would have used them.

The fact is that they didn't. They had mechanical leicas or rolleis.
So a certain style of working was forced upon them.

I love using manual film cameras, they require a different way of working, thats for sure, but I actually think there is as much skill in predicting and preparing for a moment than waiting for a moment to occur.

The fallacy of course is that the street photographers had intent, it wasn't just by happy accident.

Gulp. Some if the shots (robert dossineu) are now widely accepted to have been staged.

What with the classic looking fuji x cameras there appears to be a longing to return to a more innocent time. Or a more craft based technique.

Bin your fuji x. Pick up a voigtlander bessa, a minolta hi-matic 7sii, a minolta cl, or if you can afford it a leica mp.
Pick up some film. Mono.

Go and see if finding the decisive moment is as much fun as you'll think.
I can virtually guarantee that in this day and age with the pederast and terror paranoia, that the most pleasant rewarding thing about your experience will be using an old camera.

It's great. The decisive moment guys weren't retro. They were state of the art.

If they were working today they may still use a 35mm lens, but it would be on a 1dx.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 28, 2013)

Apologies for typos. On iphone!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2013)

candc said:


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



I see. So, you're engaging in 'camera use' as opposed to photography, and your images only serve to 'keep score' of your ability to press a button at precisely the right time? To each their own...


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 28, 2013)

candc said:


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



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

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


----------



## GuyF (Sep 28, 2013)

Paul Walnut - bang on the money, dude.

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


----------



## fragilesi (Sep 28, 2013)

I can see both sides of the argument but when you are shooting fast moving animals or action like say soccer then I'd suggest that it must be an incredibly rare skill to be able to time a shot to a split second to get the very best result.

I normally use burst mode when shooting any such subject, as much as anything because the action is often just so unpredictable. Hell, watching sports the players often don't know what's coming next let alone a photographer .


----------



## Grumbaki (Sep 30, 2013)

Does it really have to be exclusive?

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

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

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


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 30, 2013)

+1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Skulker (Sep 30, 2013)

candc said:


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



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

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


----------



## fragilesi (Sep 30, 2013)

Grumbaki said:


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



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


----------



## fxk (Oct 1, 2013)

GuyF said:


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



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

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

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

Or Photoshop the original.


----------



## fxk (Oct 1, 2013)

Orangutan said:


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


Also good analysis.


----------

