Chimping defined

When another photographer looks at his review screen and makes little
oo-oo-oo noises, points excitedly at the lcd, and invites other mammals
over to look also, that is chimping.

When you and I prudently review something just shot, to check focus,
content, or the histogram, it's just that: a review. It's not done on
every shot in most cases.

Some of us only review; some of us chimp mercilessly, and many do both
from time to time. I am among the latter photographers.

I hope that clarifies this contentious point.

--
john mcwilliams

On Feb 3, 7:14 am, John McWilliams <j...@comcast.net> wrote:
> When another photographer looks at his review screen and makes little
> oo-oo-oo noises, points excitedly at the lcd, and invites other mammals
> over to look also, that is chimping.
>
> When you and I prudently review something just shot, to check focus,
> content, or the histogram, it's just that: a review. It's not done on
> every shot in most cases.
>
> Some of us only review; some of us chimp mercilessly, and many do both
> from time to time. I am among the latter photographers.
>
> I hope that clarifies this contentious point.
>
> --
> john mcwilliams

This link will also help clear up just what it is.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/special_feature/chimping/

Scott

On Feb 3, 12:14 pm, John McWilliams <j...@comcast.net> wrote:
> When another photographer looks at his review screen and makes little
> oo-oo-oo noises, points excitedly at the lcd, and invites other mammals
> over to look also, that is chimping.

As opposed to someone who shoots thousands upon thousands of frames,
only to do the same back home on the computer.
Both sort of denote a hack.

On Feb 3, 8:30 am, "Rich" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 12:14 pm, John McWilliams <j...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > When another photographer looks at his review screen and makes little
> > oo-oo-oo noises, points excitedly at the lcd, and invites other mammals
> > over to look also, that is chimping.
>
> As opposed to someone who shoots thousands upon thousands of frames,
> only to do the same back home on the computer.
> Both sort of denote a hack.

Interesting definition of a hack you have there. I have to note that
National Geographic photographers typically shoot over 10,000 frame
for a assignment, I guess they are hacks.

Scott

Scott W wrote:

> Interesting definition of a hack you have there. I have to note that
> National Geographic photographers typically shoot over 10,000 frame
> for a assignment, I guess they are hacks.

Take 10,000 shots of Condoleezza Rice or Janet Reno in one sitting and tell
me with a straight face you're not a hack.







Rita

John McWilliams wrote:

> I hope that clarifies this contentious point.

No.





Rita

On 3 Feb 2007 11:36:40 -0800, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 3, 8:30 am, "Rich" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 12:14 pm, John McWilliams <j...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > When another photographer looks at his review screen and makes little
>> > oo-oo-oo noises, points excitedly at the lcd, and invites other mammals
>> > over to look also, that is chimping.
>>
>> As opposed to someone who shoots thousands upon thousands of frames,
>> only to do the same back home on the computer.
>> Both sort of denote a hack.
>
>Interesting definition of a hack you have there. I have to note that
>National Geographic photographers typically shoot over 10,000 frame
>for a assignment, I guess they are hacks.

Further, they don't just invite other mammals over, the other mammals
pay for the privilege of looking.

>Scott

Rich wrote:
> On Feb 3, 12:14 pm, John McWilliams <j...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> When another photographer looks at his review screen and makes little
>> oo-oo-oo noises, points excitedly at the lcd, and invites other
>> mammals over to look also, that is chimping.
>
> As opposed to someone who shoots thousands upon thousands of frames,
> only to do the same back home on the computer.
> Both sort of denote a hack.

So scrutiny of a day's shooting at home = a hack??

That would mean every single professional digital shooter is...a hack.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On Feb 3, 10:54 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> > Interesting definition of a hack you have there. I have to note that
> > National Geographic photographers typically shoot over 10,000 frame
> > for a assignment, I guess they are hacks.
>
> Take 10,000 shots of Condoleezza Rice or Janet Reno in one sitting and tell
> me with a straight face you're not a hack.

Well 10,000 shots in one sitting would be closer to video then it
would be to photography.

But I would probably click 100 to 200.

Scott

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
>
> Scott W wrote:
>
> > Interesting definition of a hack you have there. I have to note that
> > National Geographic photographers typically shoot over 10,000 frame
> > for a assignment, I guess they are hacks.
>
> Take 10,000 shots of Condoleezza Rice

You have a person with no sense of beauty :O)


--
Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/