Treat your DSLR as a SLR... for a gig

[Syb]

Lately I was thinking that I use the digital extras on my camera a lot. Instant review, the shoot-edit settings-shoot-edit settings way of working.

This was not possible in the SLR days. So I decided that I will use my camera as a "standard SLR" next time on a (non-professional) gig. See if I can still do it. Shoot and look at the results later.

Why?

Because the instant review option costs a lot of time and battery power, and I may one day need al the battery power I have for shooting pics instead of reviewing.

Of course i will post the honest turnout. (that means: also if they turn out bad because of a wrong light setting or way-to-high ISO or Av preset.) I invite you to join me in this experiment. Hoping that it will lead to better knowledge of photography chances and situations, better insight in your own skills!

Or, if you think this is a bad idea, please tell me so before I start the experiment. Would be a waste of time...

Syb

[alohadave]

I feel that it would be a waste to have the ability to verify your work instead of losing a shot that can't be gotten again. It's not like you have to verify after every shot, and realistically, reviewing your pictures does not take that much battery power. You can always carry a spare set or two.

Plus, it's helpful to be able to show your clients a quick review of the shots so they can tell you if there is anything that works or doesn't work for them.

[rburgoss]

Hmmm what is instant review?

Just kidding. But to be honest, I still use my DSLR as if I was using film. That is: taking care of every picture like saving every frame.

I guess most of use who grew up with film, cannot "detach" from that fact and still care about film waste, so for example, I always take great care when adjusting camera settings for every picture, as for not wasting a single frame. Of course, as when the film days, the rate of keepers/garbage has not improved a lot.

[kerrowdown]

Hi all, I do a lot of gig photography, with both in low light and fast changing coloured light set ups, I'm usually having to run nearly wide open (lens wise f1:1.2 to F1:2.8) and at 800 to 1600 iso, with continuous advance drive mode to get good usable results.

For me one of the major benefits of DSLR is the ability to keep a check on what I'm doing. I agree not after every frame, but when the action goes off a bit i.e. between songs, I have a quick review of what I've got. It's still pretty hard to see the quality on the camera LCD screen, but it does give you a feel for where you are in terms of the images you've captured already.

Checking histograms doesn't really apply here, we're talking dark, low light stuff here; you know every thing will be bunched up on the left. That is except when some bugger of a lighting engineer has his wee laugh and damn nigh blinds you with the odd one million watt white spotlight from the stage out to crowd.

In terms of power requirements, I run two batteries in the camera (body and grip) with spares in the Crumpler, same with memory cards. If this is your lively hood, these are the cheap consumables like film used to be. It is not worth skimping in this area, have loads of both, no excuses, just get the stunning images.

[ukbluetooth]

Every now and then I pick up one of my old film cameras with great nostalgia and keep promising myself to go and buy some film.

But then the convenience and ease of a DLSR sort of sways me in the other direction.

Also I have recently had a bad experience with film. I remembered some slides that I had taken back in the seventies that I had not looked at for many years. Lots of interesting memories there I thought. BUT they had just about totally disintegrated. They had delaminated and were just clear film with a bit of dust. Presumably this was caused by poor processing by Kodak, possibly in the final washing stage.

Now - how do we ensure that the digital media we record today will still be pristine in 40 years time?

Sorry - drifting off topic - but I think if you want to shoot film, use film. Otherwise best make use of every convenience digital gives to us.


My farthings worth ...

[Nowhere Matt]

Just a few weeks ago, I was also sort of testing myself and the battery performance by turning off the preview so none was shown after the shot was taken.
Mind you I was not taking a great deal of serious shots and photography is just a luxury interest for the most part for me so I would just wait until I thought I had captured the scenes I was after before looking at previews briefly.
I have never considered myself good enough to be very competitive in my photography and so it never really bothered be to shoot ten rolls of film while on a weeks vacation or 400 digital images during 8 hours at an airshow.
Conversely, while my digital was in the shop a few months ago I habitually treated my slr like a dslr; looking at the zx-50's back for a preview in a lcd screen and manually focusing more often than I once did.

[Lowell Goudge]

I think in many situations I use probably the preview about 1 in 10 to 1 in 20 shots.

Why not every time, for the reasons the OP stated.

I do a lot in manual, where I set the exposure using the green button on a grey object, (usually roadway or tree trunk) and then shoot with that, checking exposure as I said about i in 10 shots.

In difficult lighting, high contrast situations etc, I am much more careful, but when shooting wild life, I generally take 10-15 shots between checks. Usdually then it is more for focus, as opposed to exposure.

Yoou need to learn to trust the metering and your technique.

[Fredshome]

I almost never use the preview either. In some extreme cases I'll check the histograms. Sometimes I'll actually look at the image right away when I wonder if I actually got the action in a wildlife shot that went real quick and is now over but that's really not typical.
Not to mention that apart from the framing and possibly the fact that a shot is completely out of focus, the LCD won't show you anything interesting. Colours will be off, it'll be hard to tell if the image is really sharp, etc.
All in all not very useful. I wait until I'm back with a machine that has a proper screen and Bibble or another bit of decent processing sotware to check the images.

[kristoffon]

Originally Posted by ukbluetooth

Now - how do we ensure that the digital media we record today will still be pristine in 40 years time?

That's so easy. Keeping backups and periodically refreshing them -- ie, if they're in a computer just copy to the new one when you change computers every couple of years. If they're on DVDs or other writable media - don't trust it - make fresh copies every couple years and keep multiple copies.

[sluggo913]

You have to trust yourself, your experiance, and gear. If you check every shot how many do you miss? We did not have that option with film, check every so often to see if you are about where you want to be and keep shooting then sort them out later. It is about the moment you are trying to capture not the battery power consumed.

[Wheatfield]

Why would I wand to limit myself by not using one of the camera's most desirable features?

[Syb]

These are interesting differences in the responses above. I use the review mostly to check facial expressions. I take a lot of portraits of people "in action", that is while they're addressing a speech for example. It is very convenient to see whether the expression was right when the shutter button was pushed.

When it comes down to other things, I use the LCD for histograms and composition. But this trial and error- way of working makes me - this is my fear - a slower photographer than when I would simply know what works and what doesn't.

Just the idea that I have that once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity to shoot that famous gorgeous rich woman because she walks by... and that I have to adjust-check-adjust-check-adjust-.... simply because I didn't train myself to do it right automatically.... it keeps me awake at night!

(so then I practice)

Cheers,
Syb

[Lowell Goudge]

Originally Posted by Syb

These are interesting differences in the responses above. I use the review mostly to check facial expressions. I take a lot of portraits of people "in action", that is while they're addressing a speech for example. It is very convenient to see whether the expression was right when the shutter button was pushed.

When it comes down to other things, I use the LCD for histograms and composition. But this trial and error- way of working makes me - this is my fear - a slower photographer than when I would simply know what works and what doesn't.

Just the idea that I have that once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity to shoot that famous gorgeous rich woman because she walks by... and that I have to adjust-check-adjust-check-adjust-.... simply because I didn't train myself to do it right automatically.... it keeps me awake at night!

(so then I practice)

Cheers,
Syb

You should spend just a little time testing your camera and all the lenses you have, for exposure.

I find on the K10D especially that old lenses meter in a unique fashion, adding a TC even to a new lens modifies metering. you can learn how a camera and lens behave in less than 15 minutes with a series of test shots. Learn this, and plan in advance, the camera is predictable, as long as you have measured its performance in advance.

[reeftool]

I check my pictures always on my first few shots because I sometimes do stupid things like forget to change my settings from the time before and then occasionally to see if things are coming out the way I want. Thats the reason I use a DSLR. My film cameras still work if I want surprises.

[sabarrett]

I like the idea. I am not sure I can do it every time, however, as others have stated its one of the big benefits of going digital. However, it does challenge the photographer to think about the shot a bit and maybe focus on getting proper exposure the first time. This may be one of those analysis and learning exercises, not for everyday shooting. As you learn more about exposure, the need to chimp could get less and allow you to get better shots faster.