Serendipitous shooting Tool

torags

So why is this picture postable? Because it was taken behind my back with a Nikon V1, with a noiseless shutter. Just converted from raw to jpg

I put a plastic supermarket bag in my right hand with cam at the handle, took a walk downtown & snapped... errr... rolled.

Out of 80 shots walking - taking in front and behind me I got 6 targets, this was the best.

With the electronic shutter, it can take 60 fps.

I gotta get my targeting skill level up

lensmole

Your current targeting skill level is.
Six targets- 7.5%
One posted -1.25%

Garry Winogrand told one of his students who snapped off a couple of random shots without looking. ..always look through the view finder.

torags

Hmm.... looks like I need a lot of practice

Sounds like Garry Winograds candids percentages might be close to mine

Richard

Sorry, Rags, but I just have to ask if you would have taken this shot if you were using the viewfinder?

torags

Richard wrote: »

Sorry, Rags, but I just have to ask if you would have taken this shot if you were using the viewfinder?

Not at all; it was target practice...

bdcolen

So why show us misses?

torags

It wasn't a miss; it was a hit. With some PP it would have been presentable.

Of three exposures shot off my back I consider it a success, but that's just me.

Let's see one of yours shot behind your back.

OR start a thread, backward shots

richardman

Hate to sound like we are picking on you, but what kind of logic is that? Just because you took it backward, doesn't make it automatically good. Yes, we know it's difficult but it's an artificial limit placed on by you. It's not like your arms only point backward and have to take the photo this way :-)

torags

richardman wrote: »

Hate to sound like we are picking on you, but what kind of logic is that? Just because you took it backward, doesn't make it automatically good. Yes, we know it's difficult but it's an artificial limit placed on by you. It's not like your arms only point backward and have to take the photo this way :-)

True

I'm learning this to be able to get candid shots 2' away from a subject. For me it's an important skill, others may differ.

and BTW Picking? not at all - don't let that stop you from voicing an opinion

richardman

It's a very important skill. Did you see the Bruce Gilden video and my "Bruce" moment? Not my cup of tea, and I'd never do that, but apparently one can walk up to within a foot or two and fire away, if you have the guts and FAST RUNNING SHOES :-) Many of the acceptable Chinatown images I got by loitering for a while. For example, the card playing elders. There are billions of them and they keep staring at you. So I just loiter around interesting possibilities and do a quick lift of the camera to my eyes at the right moment. Remember not only am I shooting film, but it's a MANUAL focus camera. Couple times I think I got caught, and I smiled and loitered a few feet away. Nerve wrecking, I tell you.

I tried hip shooting, and just too many misses...

Richard

torags wrote: »

Not at all; it was target practice...

Fair enough. It's always helpful to have yet another trick up your sleeve. I shoot from the hip or chest once in a while, but I'm not very good at it. I suppose if I practiced a lot more I'd get better, dunno. Still, shooting behind your back seems a little perverse--given some of the opinions you've expressed here, I'd think you wouldn't have a very high opinion of aleatory art. Or is aleatory photography different?

bdcolen

torags wrote: »

It wasn't a miss; it was a hit. With some PP it would have been presentable.

Of three exposures shot off my back I consider it a success, but that's just me.

Let's see one of yours shot behind your back.

OR start a thread, backward shots

Actually, I believe it would take a great deal more than PP to make this presentable. It would have taken a real reason to have pushed the shutter release, intentional framing, and some forethought. Seriously.
I'd be interested in knowing why you consider this shot a success? If you had shot it with your eye to the viewfinder, would, as I believe Richard asked, it be worth showing? And why is it an accomplishment to hold an electronic device behind your back, push a button, and have "it" take a picture. Why would I want to do this, and why would one want a thread of these shots.

P. S. Both of these were shot backwards over my shoulder (and when I can find it I'll post the photo of the anesthesiology resident injecting cortisone into one of my spinal discs, shot while I lay on my stomach, and held the camera backwards on the top of my head to take the shot. ;-) ):

bdcolen

richardman wrote: »

It's a very important skill. Did you see the Bruce Gilden video and my "Bruce" moment? Not my cup of tea, and I'd never do that, but apparently one can walk up to within a foot or two and fire away, if you have the guts and FAST RUNNING SHOES :-) Many of the acceptable Chinatown images I got by loitering for a while. For example, the card playing elders. There are billions of them and they keep staring at you. So I just loiter around interesting possibilities and do a quick lift of the camera to my eyes at the right moment. Remember not only am I shooting film, but it's a MANUAL focus camera. Couple times I think I got caught, and I smiled and loitered a few feet away. Nerve wrecking, I tell you.

I tried hip shooting, and just too many misses...

Bruce Gilden is a cretin. Period. His photography is inhuman and inhumane. It does not take any skill as a photographer to shove a camera into someone's face and pop a flash - it just takes a bully with a camera. And to then come up with some absolute bullshit rationale about how this reveals the real person? What real person? The real person startled by a flash. Last spring one of my MIT students presented on Gilden, and most of the students laughed when she showed the photo of the woman in the wheel chair, recoiling from Gilden's flash. I interrupted and said - "Show of hands - how many of you would laugh if that was YOUR grandmother." Of course not a single hand went up.

Yes, some of his Coney Island stuff is sort of interesting. I think the Japanese gangster stuff is interesting simply because it's 'exotic' to Westerners, and because we can't believe he was crazy enough to shoot it. But bottom line - a nasty bully with a camera working out some sort of psychological problem or problems on his subjects.

I know, I know, 'thank you for sharing.' rofl

bdcolen

torags wrote: »

True

I'm learning this to be able to get candid shots 2' away from a subject. For me it's an important skill, others may differ.

and BTW Picking? not at all - don't let that stop you from voicing an opinion

Getting candids from two feet away is indeed an important skill - that's why I assign it in my classes - and my students have to shoot from the front, not from behind their backs. If you're not focusing, composing - selecting the elements to include and exclude from the photo - or framing, why bother? Give the camera to a chimp and see what comes back - or get one of those cat camera collars.

torags

We'll have to see if the effort is worthwhile

richardman

Thanks BD. Gilden has his fan. Heck, the Eric Kim's take of Gilden is actually more frightening, I think. Eric Kim has a video of him popping flashes off people's face with one of his workshop participants videoing him. He was in Hollywood and I think that's why it worked for him... I agree that they look inhuman and inhumane... Not something I would strive for...

bdcolen

A former student and TA of mine took a Magnum workshop with him in NYC. Said it was one of the worst, most degrading experiences of her life.

richardman

OK Rags, BD set a bar, go beat it!!

bdcolen wrote: »

P. S. Both of these were shot backwards over my shoulder (and when I can find it I'll post the photo of the anesthesiology resident injecting cortisone into one of my spinal discs, shot while I lay on my stomach, and held the camera backwards on the top of my head to take the shot. ;-) ):

bdcolen

This was NOT intended as a challenge, but rather an attempt to show that photography is not about tricks and gimmicks, but rather about SEEING something and figuring out how best to capture it.

RSL

bdcolen wrote: »

Bruce Gilden is a cretin. Period. His photography is inhuman and inhumane. It does not take any skill as a photographer to shove a camera into someone's face and pop a flash - it just takes a bully with a camera. And to then come up with some absolute bullshit rationale about how this reveals the real person? What real person? The real person startled by a flash.

Hooray! Thanks BD. I've been saying this for years, and I usually get a brushoff. "After all, Gilden is a Magnum member!" Gilden does some good work, but not on the street. As I think I said in a different thread, I'm always surprised when I find Gilden's still alive.

Quincy T

bdcolen wrote: »

Bruce Gilden is a cretin. Period. His photography is inhuman and inhumane. It does not take any skill as a photographer to shove a camera into someone's face and pop a flash - it just takes a bully with a camera. And to then come up with some absolute bullshit rationale about how this reveals the real person? What real person?

^^