I spotted this photo of the US Open on the BBC website.
I mentioned chimping a couple of times already. The ability to review your shots has helped digital take over from film in many aspects of photography. But this is a classic example of missing a shot due to chimping.
Maybe he had it in the can already. But this guy is obviously a pro, he has a nice big Canon camera and a big lens with IS, what are the chances that he actually missed the shot? And if he had missed it, wouldn’t he be better off shooting some more versions of this key moment, rather than checking his LCD?
How many times have I been at a tourist spot and nearly fallen over someone who has stopped dead in the middle of the path to check the shot he just took?
Digital cameras are very fancy these days. They miss very few shots in most circumstances. Any many times with action shots, if you miss them, you miss them. Taking your eye off the action to check what you might have missed just makes you miss something else. Take the shot, look for the next one or put your camera away and enjoy what’s next.
It’s not that I don’t chimp. I come across many difficult lighting scenarios and the ability to review the shot, check the histogram and adjust wherever possible is invaluable. But I try to keep my eye on the ball.
This video on chimping is excellent. There is a bit of ‘we film guys were good enough without chimping and you digital guys are all soft’ to the whole thing. And to be honest I see what they mean – photographers who shot film had it a whole lot harder and all the more credit for them to get the pictures they got on film. But in the context of sports photography, there’s a lot to be missed by sparing at your LCD and not the game in hand.