drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

I guess, in the days of film, you never shot a polaroid to see the shot on film before you used the film camera. It was mandatory during a studio shot with a 4X5 camera to shoot a 'roid'(polaroid). Made the set up easier to finish and that costly 'Chrome was not so costly because you knew you had the lighting correct. Same goes with digital these days. It's just another version of that 'Roid'.

snapshot18

I agree. Only arrogant people think they're infallible. Anytime one takes a photo that can NOT be repeated, or is considerably troublesome to do so, will check EACH image when taken. Imagine taking an absolutely fantastic picture at a wedding (the drunk Best Man hanging from the chandelier - by his feet) and finding out . . . after you return to your home or office, that your flash didn't fire or didn't recycle fast enough,that THAT photo was 4 stops under exposed? (HELP! PHOTOSHOP! PLEASE SAVE MY ASS!)

snapshot18

I never thought of it that way, but you're absolutely correct. I didn't do much studio work when 4X5 was the 'Format of the Day'. However, when I did, I did take a 'Roid' (as you called 'em) for the EXACT SAME reason that I chimp my Digital images (when I do). . . to verify that I didn't goof, somehow. The little Studio work I did was always 'Spot On', and had I been an Arrogant Ass, I wouldn't have had to as I was originally mentored by a certified "Master Photographer in Portraiture". But, my motto has always been, "When I meet someone perfect, I will pass out.

pdoyle

Oh I ALWAYS used Polaroid back in the day when shooting with a 4x5 or 8x10. I find the SLR much simpler to use and therefor less necessary. John's point about closed eyes though is well taken.

hassighedgehog Loc: Corona, CA

This thread makes me wonder who started calling reviewing a shot on the monitor "chimping"? I'm assuming it was short for something else. Or was it some die hard film shooter who thought doing this was not real photography and chose the name as an insult to those who do? The practicality of the practice in terms of human frailty is obvious from all the responses in favor. The only respondents who claim they don't that I believe, are those who shoot sports or other fast moving subjects.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Someone took a shot, looked at the LCD display and went "Ooh, ooh, ooh!" - ergo chimping...
I have NO idea who or where the connotation started.
There's nothing wrong with it, but many people look down their nose at those who do.
(Their problem.)

AndyGarcia

Wikipedia has the following:

"The term 'chimping' was first written about by Robert Deutsch, a USA Today staff photographer, in September 1999 when writing a story for the SportsShooter email newsletter. He did not invent the term but heard it passed down by word of mouth".

Also:

"Stephen Johnson, in his book on digital photography, writes:[3]

The implied pejorative [in the term 'chimping'] is shocking to me. If there's any one thing that is revolutionary in the advance of photography represented by this digital age, it is the ability to inspect your work. Ignore such ridicule, and use the tools to their fullest.

He further points out that using the LCD panel effectively means that a light meter can be left at home and if the shot isn't right, it can be tried again. Therefore, the idea that only "wannabe" photographers need to look at the LCD and check the exposure, image, or both may be unreasonable.

Some use the term "chimping" only to describe photographers who check their LCD screen excessively, such as after every single shot, and constantly interrupt the process of taking pictures in order to do so. This level of viewing is usually not necessary in order to check exposure and focus, and may lead to missed photo opportunities. A photographer can be occupied looking at the previous shot rather than actively photographing a scene unfolding in front of them.

Regardless of how the activity is viewed, it is now common to see photographers at media or sports events, "chimping" their shots, checking to see if they got the image they desired".

I agree. Seems like some kind of inverted snobbery to me. Also chimps are very intelligent so it's a positive phrase as far as I'm concerned. Keep on "chimping".....Pura Vida

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Some people feel the term has a negative connotation, but I think that is for people who do it excessively and risk missing a shot because of it.

snapshot18

I don't know the source of the word either; however, I have heard it used several times from 'wanna-be' photographers in a derogatory manner, so I think you might be right about that. Or . . .
Maybe Nikon gave one of the first digital cameras to a chimpanzee and he just kept looking at the first picture he took???

foggypreacher Loc: Dickinson, Texas

A. I like to be sure I did not mess up the shot. If I can enhance or use a different perspective, chimping allows checking to see what is happening and if I need to make any changes to get the shot I want.

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

...use your "Quote Reply" function so we know who/what you're referring to. ;0)

foggypreacher Loc: Dickinson, Texas

Michael1079 Loc: Indiana

Definitely A

RAR_man Loc: stow, MA

since i am wildlife oriented rather than a landscaper, i like to check to make sure my target image is crisply focused. wildlife is so tricky to catch. Movement, obstructing flora, often low light levels. So i do check my shots often. Horrible to wait only to find out that another, crisper shot, was needed. I use a loop to inspect my shots in the field. It is a simple, homemade one from a slide viewer. I have posted on this in the past. Use it ALL the time. It is affixed to my camera sling on a retractable reel. Love it!

snapshot18

Seems like most people value their 'shots' enough to make sure they get/have gotten what they wanted.