Chimping, is it just me?
 

Having observed many other photographers at Southend air-show yesterday, I was surprised by the number of people instantly reviewing every single picture they took (a.k.a. “chimping”). I can understand the occasional check now and again if you’ve tried a shot that you think may have not worked out too well. I can also understand the quick flick through if you are getting short on space and the review screen is a useful tool for clearing out the obvious duds to make space.

Having learned photography using film, I’ve never really got used to the idea of being able to review pics immediately, I’ve been used to taking a reel of film and sending it off for D&P. The review is when the prints came back. I used to keep a notebook with the settings used for each shot and compare print with notes. I have to say that EXIF is a godsend! I chimp when I feel the need to (see above), but not for every picture. Apart from anything else, it really extends my battery life by not reviewing more than now and again.

I’m not saying what I’m doing is right, and everybody else is wrong, far from it, do whatever you feel comfortable with. I was just rather taken aback by the number of others around me chimping every pic, it came as a bit of a culture shock. Is it just me?

Duncan

I have to say Duncan with the wedding this weekend I will be doing a lot of "chimping" good word that, I like it. For bird photo's no I don't chimp until I have stopped taking photo's. BUT! if its a bird photo I want to make sure I have got the best, after I have taken a few for safety, then yes I chimp. I used to use a polaroid to check everything was setup right when I had film cameras if the takes where very important, it saved on re-shoots. So you could say I am a definate chimper.

I think you have a lot of will power Duncan!

I think taking a look after every shot is excessive, and chances are, if you look this often, with some subjects you'll miss some shots. I suppose it depends on the type of photography and the confidence you have in your ability. I photograph birds, and do not yet feel confident enough in all situations to take a series of shots without reviewing the histogram. If possible, I'll take one or two, review the histogram(s), adjust the compensation (if necessary) and then fire away. Perhaps with your experience with exposure control you do not feel the need to do this?

But, to get back to my original point, I think it's just that some of us get too exited by the process (perhaps we need to get out more) and simply cannot resist a quick peep!

I am with Duncan on this one - apart from glancing at the histogram for correct metering on occasions I rarely actually look at any of my shots until I get home and upload them to the PC.

Same here. just the ocassional glance at the histogram.

Harry

:D I really don't know what the problem is. Why shouldn't we chimp? (the definitive site is HERE BTW)

Now I know I'm going to upset some people here, but I feel sure some of you have never really moved on from the days of film. Everything in digital photography has to be compared with using film. We mustn't take a load of exposures, we must nail the exposure from the outset, we mustn't manipulate the images cos thats not what the camera took, now you are bringing into question the practice of reviewing images in the camera. Don't we need to move on, don't we need think digitally and work digitally, take advantage of whats at our disposal.

Chimping is simply fulfilling a need to review a series of shots, perhaps editing as we go. The DSLR user doesn't have the advantage of a wysiwyg preview screen, so its a comfort to know you have nailed it ;) As for using the histogram, well I'm afraid I have never seen a pro shooter checking that when working on the hoof:) a glance at the image in the screen is enough usually. As for battery life, well that should not be an issue, don't you carry a spare ?

So Duncan & Roy, I'm afraid it just may be you. Don't chimp at your peril. :D
Take no offence guys, its all tongue in cheek.

I suppose it depends on what you shoot. I might shoot a few frames in half an hour, and I tend to check the histogram after the first shot, just to make sure. I prefer to get an accurate exposure as it reduces noise and highlight clipping.

Leif

No Offence taken Stephen but I had never heard of the word 'chimping' before this thread, nor do I say who is right or wrong. I just state that I do not 'chimp' (probably because I cannot be bothered). As for moving on to digital - I have never know anything other than digital as I have only been snapping for a couple of years. I guess 'chimping' is for those that take their photography a lot more serious than I.

chimping - what a great term, not one I've heard before...

Personally I don't tend to do it much, the odd look to check that I'm happy with the settings and that the exposure's about right.

Ha Ha best not to take things too seriously eh Roy lol

Hey you are doing it then :D Everyone chimps to a greater or lesser degree

I love chimping, it's one of my favourite pastimes. I learned a lot from it too - more fun than endless 'tutorials and lectures' from my husband. :D

I don't review each and every shot but I certainly have a quick look after a series (aka a blast off) and I usually make sure I have a few that look something like I wanted before I leave.

Battery power has never really a problem for me with the istD as it can use 2xCRV3 or 4 AA .........and I have a stock of CRV3 so I always carry a couple of spares.

Pol.

It would be really great to have Duncan's confidence and maybe with DSLRs you are getting a true preview before pressing the button. However, I don't trust either the box or my skills and not only 'chimp' but take several of each as well to make sure. Amazing how many times you cannot go back for a retry.

FZ7 must be the chimpers delight with review/8x magnification on option without moving from shooting setting in use.

I usually take several shots with slightly differnt focus. I "chimp' after taking a series of shots. I think that I should be doing a lot more of it. There's nothing more frustrating than to find out too late that a shot isn't what you had hoped and the opportunity to re-shoot is gone.

I have little or no film experience so digital photography is all I know. I started using a Fuji S2 and used the screen to measure brightness and composition. I soon realized this drew lots from my batteries and stopped this practice to enjoy better battery life. I then upgraded to Nikon D2X which has lots of information concerning the images, master histogram, RGB histogram, highlight warning, focus selection area and clear and easy image zoom. I soon became a 'Chimper'.

Chimping allows me to obtain correct exposure through compensation and ascertain it the last shot was clear or not. Slow shutters are required for motion blur for props and rotors and I feel its important and satisfying to chimp.

After spending the winter doing still life and family photography I felt 1/125 was a fast shutter speed at an airshow, chimping allowed he to realize this was not the case and better photos followed using faster shutter selection.

To extend discussion, does anyone know where the term 'Chimping' came from or why people who look at their camera screen following a shutter actuation are know as 'Chimpers'?

HaHa I thought that was obvious Stephen, Have a look at the video I linked to in my first post in this thread, alternatively check out http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Chimping
Basically its a reference to the sounds photoraphers make when reviewing their shots which is similar to that of chimps Oooh! Oooh! Aaah! :D

Indeed they do... I think that in some areas it's more useful to chimp than in others. Most of my photography is of birds, often you just get one chance to get 'the shot' so there's not much point in chimping as I can't re-take with a different exposure comp...

I have also found out in the past that a shot that looks good on the camera's screen could well be not much crack when I get it on the computer. So I try not to chimp as it can give me false hope/expectations of a shot.

Chimping will give an idea for the order of compensation required and chimping for a histogram will suggest how the exposure turned out despite how an image is displayed on screen.

I do the same as Peter(postcard).I never check/chimp an image after taking the shot.again,most of my photography shots are of birds,I am too busy keeping my eye on them,waiting for them to stop preening etc,but,and this is a big but!!!.If I was able to understand a histogram,and I did check each image,I would have realised a couple of times that the exposure setting had been accidentally knocked down a couple of stops,and I could have rectified the error,there and then,as opposed to a couple of days later,whereupon I ruined some Lapwing shots.
But ,yes ,I do see people taking a shot,and then reviewing/chimping each time,a matter of personal preference ,I guess.

Probably not often enough. I have to stick my reading glasses on now if I have to look at camera setting etc. ( ageing eyes ). Mainly to check when I am exposure compensating or if I think the subject moved whilst the mirror was blocking my view ( flowers in the wind ). I find the screen too dim in bright outdoor light anyway to see anything of much use. Like other birders too busy keeping an eye on the subject. ( It's the little one that never sit still for 2 seconds )

Looks like there is such a thing as intelligent chimping! Have realised that LCD tends to make image look over-exposed when it isn't; need to learn about histograms to make it all more controlled.

BTW, though only of interest to those wanting lightweight kit, the FZ7 allows quick transfer between LCD and viewfinder of the whole works and also shoot screen in viewfinder (with eye correction like binocs) yet review on the LCD, both with histogram.

No when a chimp first met a Singh:eek: ---chimp...(S-silent shh) ing-chimping;) .That's the truth guys :D cross my legs and hope to..

I thought this thread had died – wasn’t getting updates.

If you’re going to chimp, surely there's no point in doing so unless you review the histogram? The images alone tell you very little about the exposure, especially in difficult lighting conditions. I would not be surprised to learn that most pros do use it, Arthur Morris certainly does. :D

I photograph birds too, and I agree it isn’t always possible to chimp, but there are many, many occasions when it is possible and a good idea (especially when inexperienced with exposure compensation).

:eek: You are stating an excellent case for chimping, but you say you don’t do it?

I’m an addicted chimper and I don’t think I’ll change. I think learning to use the histogram had a positive impact on my photography. :)

I'm often only interested if a particular area of the image is correctly exposed, the main subject matter is all I'm interested in. An aeroplane in the sky would be one example I can think of. Can you explain how the histogram can tell me if this particular area is exposed correctly?

Duncan

Although I’ve never taken photographs of planes, I can’t think of a circumstance in which it would be difficult to check exposure with the histogram? It’s not too different from photographing birds in flight.

You don’t say what tone your plane is and what colour your sky is? When thinking of planes I tend to think of a predominantly white plane against a blue sky, which would be fairly easy to check. A dark plane against a white sky, a white plane against a dark sky; both would be fairly straightforward also, I think.

In simple terms, if the plane were white, you’d expect to see spikes to the right of the histogram, but not up against the right edge, as this would represent overexposure. This would hold true whatever the colour of the sky. If the plane were black, you’d expect to see spikes to the left of the histogram, but not up against the left edge, as this would represent underexposure. Over or underexposure are both probably impossible to detect from the image alone.

Of course there are circumstances where you may ideally want to include detail in both white and black areas, which may prove impossible. This problem exists whatever method of analysis you use, but using the histogram allows you to make a well-informed decision about what to sacrifice. This all assumes that the plane hasn’t flown off while you do your calculations!

Wish I had "chimped " today!!!.Took lots of shots of some Bee Orchids,alas no card in the cam!!!.But I had taken some using a different cam and lens,but I have missed out on some macro shots.

On the 20D (and on my previous prosumer Minolta A2) where/if the highlights blown out, those parts of the image "blinked" so you could see on the image the areas of overexposure and make a decision to reduce the exposure on not depending on whether or not that part of the image was important.

Don't know if other camera offer this facility - its very useful :D

Bad luck Christine; I am surprised the camera even allows you to press the shutter without a card in.

I have this feature on my 10D. My only complaint is that it’s so small (and my eyes are starting to go!) I sometimes find it difficult to see the very small blown highlights and the detail at the right of the histogram. I believe the 20 and 30D have bigger screens?

Read page 41 in the EOS 350D user manual

I was actually thinking of this image:
http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...=500&ppuser=34

How can I tell from the histogram that I've got the exposure of the 'plane right? All the histogram is telling me is how many pixels I have at a particular tonal value. As long as I don't have a huge spike to the far left or far right then I can understand what you are saying. But this image, like many other similar shots, just has a peak somewhere in the middle. It can still be a peak in a different part of the middle section and be over or under exposed by probably 0.7 to 1.0 stops.

Advice?

Duncan

Very nice picture.

I would expect the white in this image to be represented by a short spike at the extreme right of the histogram. If the spike sits against the right-edge of the histogram then these areas are over-exposed and there will not be any detail recorded in the white areas. This may not be a problem, but if it were, I’d dial in some compensation and go again.

The same thing applies for dark areas at the left edge of the histogram. Sometimes I have to make a decision about which detail to lose, because it’s not always possible to record both light and dark areas with a contrasty subject in bright sunlight. However, if both extremes of the tonal range in this image are on the histogram, then I have a perfect exposure with detail in both areas.

This is only of any use, of course, when I have the time to do something about it. If this were the one and only pass of this plane, then you’ve got to go with your knowledge and experience. The other problem is that the lighting will change as the plane flies past, which will ideally require a different exposure, but these problems exist whether we use the histogram or not. This happens a lot in my type of photography too. Shooting RAW allows me to correct small errors in exposure, but if I haven’t recorded any detail in light areas of the image, no amount of processing can bring it back. I also like to get within 2/3 of the correct exposure, otherwise corrections result in excessive noise (that might be my old 10D sensor).

But I often find when photographing a bird that I have time to take a shot, check the histogram, make an adjustment (if necessary), and fire off some more shots. If inexperienced, this will, in some circumstances, change a poorly exposed shot into a very good one.

I think I'm taking this 'chimping' to the extreme - over the last couple of weeks I've only used my camera attached to and controlled by a laptop ... (I still managed to expose a couple wrong - thank goodness for the delete key!)

another reason for chimping, see
http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...8&limit=recent