Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Do you think chimping is “unprofessional,” that “real” photographers don’t do it and laugh at those that do? (I did a search and there seems not have been much discussion about this on the 'Hog.)

For the uninitiated, “chimping” is generally defined as the act of checking a just-taken picture on the LCD screen of your camera. The origin and etymology of the term is not clear, but it’s generally taken as pejorative inasmuch as it implies that one or more persons are gazing stupidly at your screen and making chimp noises, as in “Oooo oooo oooo…”

Pejorative or not, chimping is simply checking your image on the LCD. It is argued (especially by street and event photographers) that if you do it after every single shot you are missing other shots, and I cannot argue with that. But it’s often implied, if not outright stated, that ”REAL” photographers simply do not chimp!” “REAL” photographers came up in film and had bloody better know what they’re doing because chimping is impossible with a film camera. That is also true.

Full disclosure: I chimp. I am not ashamed of it. I consider it just another tool, available to digital photographers. I love it. I came up in film. I know what I’m doing. But when in the studio I often used Polaroid backs in my view cameras to insure that I had the lighting and exposure right. That’s chimping, is it not? I did not know a single studio pro who didn’t do that at least some of the time.

I don't chimp every shot. We go places and do things. We spend a lot of $$$ to get there. I may not ever get back. Getting the picture right the first time is important. I chimp to check exposure and composition, and above all sharpness! I love that I can do that. I don’t do it after every shot, but sometimes I’ll sit in the shade and review shots. I don’t scratch or make chimp or monkey noises. :lol:

More full disclosure: I use compact cameras that are always in live view. I take full advantage of that. My Nikon P7800 has an electronic viewfinder that I usually have showing everything: histogram, level, and briefly, right after exposure, a freeze-frame of what it got. That’s sort of full-time chimping I guess, and I’m not sure any or all DSLR’s can do it (mirrorless may be able to). But I’m getting instant feedback with my eye to the finder and I think that’s wonderful! I still double-check at some point, mostly to insure sharpness. I will sometimes switch to the “blinkies” view, mostly because I hate blown highlights. Checking every shot is probably overkill, but why not use every tool you have?

Well, I never know when to shut up… :D So what do you think? Is “chimping” unprofessional, and do you care? (‘Cuz I don’t.) :mrgreen: :lol:

Violameister Loc: michigan

Of course I chimp. But not for every shot. Some shots are straightforward and will turn out. Some are not due to a variety of factors, and checking the result can be a very professional thing to do.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

i do it on all important or planned/setup shots

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

I believe the term itself came from the notion that when the photographer is hunched over the camera to view the LCD (especially to shade the LCD when outdoors) it looks to an outsider kind of like a chimpanzee.

As for it being unprofessional, of course it is not - a pro will use whatever tools are available when necessary, and with tricky lighting situations, for instance, where there might be a question about how well the metered exposure worked, to be able to take a look, even with the limitations a JPEG derivation of the raw file entails, can be most useful.

It almost seems like a modern-day version of the argument decades ago that "real" photographers don't need motor drives, because they know the precise moment to release the shutter and didn't need the crutch of getting 8 exposures in a second.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

So far we seem to be in full agreement: there is nothing silly, stupid, or evil
:twisted: in checking an image. (Back in our film days we'd have killed for the ability!) :D

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

I have my image review set to a couple of seconds which gives me an opportunity to do a quick review after exposure so that I don't have to go back and bring the image up. Most of what I do is landscape so that works. Not reviewing at all has proven to be a disaster in the past- usually due to some setting from before that didn't get changed. If the lighting is consistent I will often use manual exposure- check it out to be sure it's correct and then move forward. It's very easy to do this with the Pentax. With my mirrorless cameras surprisingly I chimp more often- the image in the electronic viewfinder is not always accurate.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I do not chimp for the simple reason that I do not think of it. It does not come to my mind to chimp so...

The reason is that I was blind as a bat so it meant removing my glasses, look and squint. THAT took time. Plus coming from an old school were there was no feed back I am used to wait (This is not about "it was better" but about being used to the wait.

Now? After eye surgery I have a different problem, I need reading glasses to chimp so...

Ah, oh, I have an aversion to chimp on other folks camera (usually my wife's). "Let's wait for a larger monitor, shall we?"

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

I turned OFF the automatic review feature on my cameras. I can still review if I need to by pressing the playback button. I find the time saved to be substantial if I pay more attention to the settings BEFORE I shoot than checking after the fact. In the film era, we could not "chimp" and I never missed it then.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The film alternative is to bracket, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

We chimp because we don't want to lose the moment. What's wrong with that? It's common sense, especially if you just spent a small fortune to get there.

pdsdville Loc: Midlothian, Tx

I must admit that on occasion I Chimp. I started shooting in 1967, film of course so you couldn't Chimp. I have that little bit of cat curiosity so after several shots the urge to look just get the best of me. I'd hate to miss a shot in a remote location because I did something stupid.

Steve_m Loc: Southern California

[quote=Chuck_893]Do you think chimping is “unprofessional,” that “real” photographers don’t do it and laugh at those that do? (I did a search and there seems not have been much discussion about this on the 'Hog.)

Only snobbish stupid people would say that.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I look at the LCD frequently but not every shot.

If you don't avail yourself of the digital camera features you may as well shoot film, and I would never go back.

alandg46 Loc: Boerne, Texas

Histograms are invaluable.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Not all the time.
Once your exposure is set, time spent chimping could mean missing better shots.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Now that the most understated lie!!!

Histogram are calculated on a compressed reduced sampling of the full sensor capture and as such only an indication if a JPG capture is ok.

When it comes to raw capture? HISTOGRAMS LIE as they are still a reduced sampling of a JPG not of a raw capture...

Just for info to correct the usual mis-conception about in camera histograms.