On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 10:07:05PM +0800, David Savage wrote: > > >From what I understand of Cory's original post, what happens at these > events is that they set up several banks of still cameras in strategic > around the court/field/venue, aimed at various points of potential > interest?! (it doesn't matter a whit to me if they are 35mm Rollies', > 4x5 view cameras or 1DsMkII's) An operator controls the shutter via > remote, and when the action is in the right area they fire away > without really knowing what is in frame! If this is the case, then the > guy or gal operating the camera, IMO, is not so much a photographer as > they are a "Camera Operating Technician". > > There is no "art" to it. It's a scatter gun approach, plain and > simple. With so many cameras trained on a certain spot, your bound to > get something useful. And no doubt it's financially motivated. It's > got to be a hell of a lot cheaper to have one person operating 25 > cameras, instead of 25 photographers with one each.
I diagree with this condescending attitude 100%. For most of these shots, it is physically (or at least practically) impossible for there to be a photographer standing there behind the cameras. So, in order to cover the number of viewpoints that would be available to this hypothetical photographer, it's realistic to stick several cameras (and a few different focal lengths) there. To imply that the person pushing the button doesn't know just when to do so (and doesn't have a very good idea just which camera is most likely to provide the money shot) is derogatory and insulting. Some of the best motosports photographs I've seen have been created by remotely-operated cameras - they provide a viewpoint I'm unable to capture (often from positions it would be too dangerous to stand).
