Your Old Dog Posted August 16, 2012 Share #1 Â Posted August 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) The title should say it all. I ask because as a kid I had a one shot pellet rifle and the other kids had Daisy BB guns. They could get off 2 or 3 shots to my one but I was the better marksman because I had to get it right the first time and worked at getting it that way. Â I'm wondering if going without the lcd might cause us to think through what we are doing instead of just snapping the pic and seeing how lucky we got. Â A friend of mine used to say "better to make pictures then to take them". Â Not looking for snide remarks here, if you don't like the topic feel free to move on Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 Hi Your Old Dog, Take a look here COULD we be better shooters if we taped up our LCDs for a month. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
earleygallery Posted August 16, 2012 Share #2 Â Posted August 16, 2012 Better still try shooting film. No way of checking results until the roll is finished and developed. Yes, you have to do your very best to get it right first time! Â Better still use slide film, even less room for error. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted August 16, 2012 Share #3 Â Posted August 16, 2012 I don't honestly see the point in effectively tying one arm and one leg behind your back. In other words, use the equipment you have to the full - if it has a screen, it is there for a reason. Â I agree with James. If you want to change the result you get, you must change what you do and the easiest way to do that (extrapolating from your point) is to shoot film; no chimping, no deletion and reshooting and no messy tape residue. Â Give it a try. Â Regards, Â Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted August 16, 2012 Share #4 Â Posted August 16, 2012 I use both a film M and M9, and use the same technique with both. I'll often shoot for a weekend getaway and never look at the LCD. I know if I got the shot when I take it. Why bother with an LCD? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 16, 2012 Share #5 Â Posted August 16, 2012 Train yourself not to look at the LCD. It's not difficult. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted August 16, 2012 Share #6  Posted August 16, 2012 If you make it harder than necessary to achieve your goal and after some training you succeed in achieving your goal anyway, does that make you more skilled? Certainly. Is there a point in doing so? Not really. In my view photography is about pictures. It’s not a sport. In fact sport is often about achieving a goal in some unnecessarily difficult manner – why else would one place hurdles in the path of a runner? So if you believe that photography is a sport, not using the display might make sense. But if you believe it’s about the pictures taken then it most certainly does not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted August 16, 2012 Share #7 Â Posted August 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Having the instant feedback of a digital camera made me a better photographer. I get more and better results in shorter time and at less cost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Posted August 16, 2012 Share #8 Â Posted August 16, 2012 I can't answer from the perspective of Leica since I've only used film Ms but I do have a 5D2 which I have used extensively. Turning of the display was one of the first things I did when I set up the camera. Â Having shot film for a few decades I didn't feel any need at all to see a representation - because that is all the LCD will ever be - of the image just captured. The 5D2, of course, does not have 100% VF coverage but rather 97%. Still I didn't find a need to chimp to see what was captured by those extra 3%. I usually frame photos to allow for cropping. Â I also found that having an image show up automatically on the LCD after each shot disturbed my photography and required me to force myself - perhaps I'm weak of mind or something - not to look. I was much happier without the LCD. Â I should say, too, that having the LCD and chimping for the first several months did not make me a better photographer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 16, 2012 Share #9 Â Posted August 16, 2012 Well, the LCD has a few other functions. For instance I like to check my histogram when light conditions change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted August 16, 2012 Share #10 Â Posted August 16, 2012 It is an interesting though, but I think it has nothing to do with the LCD that people aren't deliberate about shooting. I believe that we could all be better shooters if we used a tripod. Not because of the added stability and technical quality but because we we take more time thinking about what we photograph. Â We could also be better photographers if we just shoot everyday for a month straight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm23221 Posted August 16, 2012 Share #11 Â Posted August 16, 2012 It seems to me NOT using the LCD for feedback, on ocassion, is a disadvantage. It can instill real confidence even in an accomplished photographer that he/she "got the shot". I would not tape mine, always have it turned off but it's always available if I need it so I don't miss that important shot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick in CO Posted August 16, 2012 Share #12 Â Posted August 16, 2012 Maybe it depends upon the subject and how you are taking pictures: if it's street or action photography and you have only one chance to get the shot, the histogram doesn't matter; if you are on an expensive travel and probably won't get back there again in your lifetime, then absolutely review the histogram and retake if necessary; same for a portrait (or wedding), especially if its for a paying client. I shot slide film for years before largely (not exclusively) converting to digital and the ability to review the histogram has increased my percentage of good pictures. Is that not what you mean by becoming a 'better photographer'? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Your Old Dog Posted August 16, 2012 Author Share #13  Posted August 16, 2012 It is an interesting though, but I think it has nothing to do with the LCD that people aren't deliberate about shooting. I believe that we could all be better shooters if we used a tripod. Not because of the added stability and technical quality but because we we take more time thinking about what we photograph. We could also be better photographers if we just shoot everyday for a month straight.  You've hit the nail right on the head. Thank you. I think the ability to bang away and hoping that luck shows up in the next lcd screen makes us less then what we could be.  I also agree with the tripod use. You tend to "make" images when you are parked on a tripod and "take" images when you are not. ***IMHO***  "Taping" the lcd screen was just to drive home the point of not using it. Not that we have to nail a wooden cover over it or anything like that! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi996sps Posted August 16, 2012 Share #14  Posted August 16, 2012 I'm wondering if going without the lcd might cause us to think through what we are doing  A friend of mine used to say "better to make pictures then to take them".   Is that not a good thing ie thinking through something before you do it? i would say yes. And 'making' a picture starts with taking it, so i cant really see where your going with that one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi996sps Posted August 16, 2012 Share #15 Â Posted August 16, 2012 The analogy might also be, 'i have a tripod, but i am not going to use it' why would you make it harder for yourself and try and achieve the best you can by ignoring the equipment availability. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carduelis Posted August 16, 2012 Share #16 Â Posted August 16, 2012 I have to disagree. I think having an LCD makes us better shooters particularly in achieving decent results in tricky lighting situations in locations you are never going to visit again. I am sure wedding photographers can sleep more easily thanks to the LCD. Â If anyone encounters someone sat on the Lakeland Fells with their fleece hanging down from their head in their own little world, it is likely to be me inspecting my images on the LCD in my own personalised darkroom !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted August 16, 2012 Share #17 Â Posted August 16, 2012 I do as Jaap suggests and mostly use it for the histogram. Â At a recent Leica Akademie, a pro who was mostly into street photography, loved to use a half case that covered his LCD, but that was mostly due to people asking if they could see the images he was shooting. He kept the LCD covered and would just say its an old film camera so he would not loose time showing every other person his results while being involved in try to make some money. I forgot to ask him where he got the case, but said it was a cheap copy of something. It had a finger grip built into it. Â He would use a WhiBal card to start out, check the LCD for proper exposure in that light, cover and forget the LCD after that unless lighting changed dramatically. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 16, 2012 Share #18 Â Posted August 16, 2012 ...I'm wondering if going without the lcd might cause us to think through what we are doing instead of just snapping the pic and seeing how lucky we got... Difficult to say but fact is i don't use the LCD of my R-D1 generally, at least during shootings. I am less tempted to flip it out than to press the play button of my M8.2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted August 16, 2012 Share #19 Â Posted August 16, 2012 The title should say it all. It does and the answer is NO. After all you can simply switch it off and not review. But reviewing is only valid in any case, when there is actually a reason to review - lighting/composition/exposure - in which case its simply another tool. Ignoring it won't make you a better photographer, nor will reviewing, unless that is, you are prepared to take on board what reviewing tells you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted August 16, 2012 Share #20 Â Posted August 16, 2012 No Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.