How Fast Can You Take A Picture?

[Guest COGrizzly]

If you want to get that big money-shot of a Bigfoot, you gotta whip that device out there quick!

 

Some sightings are only a few seconds long, so I timed myself recently.  Actually, I practiced doing it as quick as possible often, but only recently did I time myself doing it.  Why this silly-ness, you ask?  Well in my profession, I see a lot of bears. So we get trained to operate a pepper gun and use it as a deterrent for the bear.  I 8 different bear encounters last year.  If we see them in any of the Residential areas, we basically go give them a "bad experience" with a human.  It's not to tick off the bear so they'll be mad at "people", it's giving the bear a negative experience.  The intent is they end up an alive bear come fall time.  Doesn't always work.  The Division of Wildlife has a 2 strike rule now....so at least 4 of the 8 bears I saw ended up being euthanized.  Anyway....

 

Guess how many pictures of those bears I have?  None.  I had my phone with me.  Oh, the bear didn't run, but strolled around the northeast corner of the house.  Out of sight.  (it's fun, you get to have another co-worker flank you with a pepper gun too)  By the time I got my phone ready, it was gone.  But people gripe about "no bigfoot pictures".  Well, it's pretty tough to get pictures of normal wildlife!  Cougars are even more difficult...but you darn sure know they are there!

 

My best time is a little over 6 seconds.  Average between 6 - 8 seconds on a Samsung Galaxy III.  Yours?

[Guest]

Thanks, great post and interesting job. I was actually filming some bear scat and apples on the ground when I heard the bear...lol, even with the camera running I got not one shot, i was too busy retreating in an orderly manner...lol  I like Freeman's "thar' they go" footage, always have..and think it does a good job of communicating the fear even when a person assumes they have a visual advantage.... is it real? I think so, don't tell me it isn't!  But with a video camera in hand, even immediate response requires a power up of a few seconds...guess why people leave them running.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I suppose it just depends on the particular person, and where they have their camera. For instance, many people shoot videos on their cell phones. Depending on what type of phone they have, it can take a while to get it out and unlock it and open a camera. And I would bet that for an average person who is out in the woods, they will not immediately think to grab a camera when they first see something unusual. It will take them a minute to realize that they are looking at something unique that they should document, and as you mentioned, the majority of encounters are not very long. My encounter was probably no more than 5-10 seconds, and I did not even want to look away from what I was seeing. It would not have mattered in my case if I tried to take a photo, as I would not have had time. But for those who see these animals for longer periods, say 30 seconds to a minute, if they have a camera they have plenty of time to take some video.

 

But another part of the problem is that if the animal is quite close, close enough to get a good shot, it is not likely to hand around that long while a person attempts to film it. So by the time an average person is ready to film, I would expect the animal to be a good distance away. And with the sasquatch propensity to move toward cover, filming may be impossible. The best scenario would be if the animal did not know the person was nearby. That happens sometimes, and would present a better situation to obtain footage. I remember at least two youtube videos of this nature that I believe to be authentic. In one the animal was standing right outside the woodline in what looked to be a pretty rural area, and the person saw it standing there and grabbed a camera, filming it from a window for a little while before it retreated into the forest. And that was only after that little kid yelled at it, lol.

 

I'm sure everyone knows the video I am speaking of. The figure was not that clear precisely because of the distance. And the distance was not that great, but it was greater than the average consumer grade camera is meant to film from, thus the bit of blurry or out of focus quality. Yet some call these fake for precisely that reason, when it appears to me there is a logical, technical explanation for such things. But closer videos that are of bad quality were either shot on bad cameras, like old cell phone cameras, or are deliberate hoaxes. It can be easy to dismiss them all, and at the end of the day it does not really matter one way or the other, because video cannot prove the existence of sasquatch.

[BobbyO]

Add to that the intense shock of viewing something that shouldn't actually exist in the first place, then adding the fact that you're highly likely to be scared out of your skin when doing so, then recalculate..

[Guest DWA]

Well, this is what nobody ever thinks of with all that "everyone has a cell phone" stuff.

 

But not surprising.  Most people just don't get outside that much, and don't have much if any experience taking pictures of animals not habituated to humans.

 

Here is what one gets with a cell phone and oodles of time:

 

http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=23160

 

So how many of those prove bigfoot?  Would a million of them bring us close?

[Guest ewashguy56]

Definitely gives new meaning to the term of blurry, but several of the pictures were of quality where you could makeout something, that looked like a large gorilla, or apeish, at the very least.

[Guest DWA]

Well, and one wonders (and I actually did) whether a whole slew of such pictures, accompanied by a lot of very sincere people with no obvious motivation to lie, might move the needle somewhat.

 

But reading the account, again, they were in contact far longer than the typical sasquatch sighting.  Or any other non-habituated wild animal, while we're on that.  Most cell phones would have no chance in the vast majority of encounters I have read about.

 

My first focus would be:  stay in the moment; see this; only go for the camera if it looks as if good photos are likely.  I'd want to see it more than prove it.

[Cotter]

My buddy was disposing of dead raccoons with a shovel 2 weeks ago.  He was dry-heaving while moving the carcasses (been out in the sun for a couple days).  The old lady tried to get a picture of him doing this y'know, for fun.  6 pics, all blurry.  This was with her KNOWING where he was going to be scooping up raccoons and dropping them off.

 

Pics taken with one of these new-fangled 'smart' phones.

[PBeaton]

I love snappin' photos of wildlife. When I'm down at the beach, I often have my camera on already an good ta go. Been more than a few times deer will dart by an all I get is blurred crappy shots. Dependin' on the brush/trees, if it's thick as, camera will often want to focus on somethin' other than the object I'm after. That's with a decent camera, now a phone ??? Doesn't surprise me in the slightest in the lack of photos. 

 

Pat...

[Airdale]

I've been a serious amateur photographer since 1965, and have taken more photos in the last ten years since going digital than in the previous 38. I believe one of the problems, particularly with still photos on cell and many other dedicated cameras, even high end units, is the fact that there are no eye level viewfinders (EVF's). It is much more difficult to frame and focus on an LCD screen held at arms length than through a decent viewfinder, with the camera steadied against your face, especially on a moving subject. It is virtually impossible to find an entry level point and shoot with an EVF, and most of the new compact mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras have one available only as an expensive option, if at all. And many people that own cameras with an EVF still hold it at arms length. I guess it's a generational thing. Also, once you exceed the optical zoom range, the image gets pixellated very rapidly and I don't know of any cell camera with any optical zoom capability.

I took the two elk photos with a 5 MP Canon S2IS equipped with a 12 power optical zoom, my first somewhat serious digital purchased in 2005. It was what used to be called a bridge camera with many of the functions of a DSLR, including a resemblance to one, but still possessing an image sensor about half the size of a postage stamp. I belly crawled into position wearing a digital camo coverall and boonie hat and had the camera draped with digital camo fabric. Both were taken in October, a year apart, after 6:00 PM with fading light, manual esposure, f4.5 and 1/60 sec. shutter speed, ISO 100 and maximum 12x zoom. Out of several dozen taken each day, these were among the best although most were sharp. But as Pat mentioned, some focused on a pine branch or clump of brush that were close with the background blurred. The third photo was taken with the same camera at a 2009 airshow in Helena, Montana, of the USAF Thunderbirds. Out of some 300 shots of jet aircraft flying that day, this is one of a handful that was really worth printing.

Long story short, even if prepared and using good gear that you are familiar with, getting a sharp photo or video of an unexpected subject visible only for seconds takes a degree of luck. I would reference the PGF. Getting that money shot with a cell or inexpensive point and shoot, while in a state of near shock, is going to take a degree of luck verging on miraculous (hope that doesn't violate the policy prohibiting religious discussion).

[MarkGlasgow]

Add to that the intense shock of viewing something that shouldn't actually exist in the first place, then adding the fact that you're highly likely to be scared out of your skin when doing so, then recalculate..

Spot on. Anyone who has an up close and personal encounter would be dealing with the 'flight or fight' response immediately. Fishing around for a camera would be much further down the pecking order whilst putting distance between you and it would be the primary objective.

The possible exceptions could be someone lucky enough to have the camera rolling at the time (Paul Freeman). Or someone with the luxury of having the creature in the gun sights of his good buddy if the BF took exception to being filmed (Patterson).

Edited May 20, 2013 by MarkGlasgow

[Guest]

Yea, Patterson was a combination of stuff including a location that the trees were flooded out, leaving large open space, that they felt safe in as no one goes up there, and well, THERE IT IS! Its still not good enough for most people. And weird stuff happens when people try to take pictures sometimes, cameras die suddenly, or out of focus, or low pixel count.

 

Taking pictures is sort of low-level BF interaction, and is hostile to the BF. Interacting on a personal level would be your best bet, cameras aint gonna do it. Without video, across a clearing, it will be called another suit hoax.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Wag

[Guest]

While out, I also have at least my little cheapo camera on and in hand, with thumb over "RECORD"...lately I'll have my Sony Handicam instead (little camera is easier to hide and more quiet). In the past 3 years and over 20 trips, I've managed to film a fleeting black bear, a fleeting cougar and and a fleeting deer. Blurry? Heck yes. But, it's dang good practice.

 

I also did a little experiment with the Sony just a couple weeks ago while out in a remote wilderness area. I had it on "stand-by", which technically is supposed to allow you to point and shoot. By the time I did so, at least 3 seconds had elapsed. Doesn't sound like much but I can tell you while out in the wilds, trying to film a creature of any sort and 3 seconds is a LONG, LONG time.

[Guest]

I've never seen the big guy, but I think I'd feel pretty insulted if I was told I didn't see what I saw. Not just referring to this thread, but in general.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Elaine

[BobbyO]

Ain't that the truth Elaine, there's not a lot more frustrating nor insulting for me.