• [deleted]@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I’m going to guess that shooting comes from pointing the camera at something and pulling a trigger to start, which with the old hardware wasn’t dissimilar to the steps to shoot a machine gun except slightly quieter.

    After typing that out I checked and it looks like I guessed right!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_(filmmaking)

    • 4am@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Photography used to involve aiming a device by looking down a sight, removing a cap from a barrel (the lens cap from the lens housing), and exploding flash powder to adequately light the scene.

      I’d imagine many described it as feeling like facing a firing squad

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Interesting then if the term “shot” comes from motion pictures but slipped “backwards” to include still pictures, which had a completely different mechanism.

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Original flash photography involved burning gunpowder on time with the shutter. Not dissimilar from being shot at. If anything it is more fitting, regardless of where it was used first. Also, video camera shutters sound awfully a lot like machine guns, and the first ones where cranked exactly libe early machine guns with a side handle.

      • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        The earliest cameras had no real “mechanism.” You would prepare a plate, often still wet with chemicals, load it into the camera, bring the camera out of the dark room, set up your subject, who would have to hold still for minutes at a time, and then just…take off the lens cap.

        Because what’s the point of an automatic shutter when it takes minutes of exposure to get a viewable image?

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Who knows when the term “shot” was first used though.

          Also, at no point did still cameras use a hand crank, which is apparently what made early motion picture cameras look like early machine guns.

          • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            48 minutes ago

            I could probably come up with a still camera with a crank. Manual cameras, those without a motor to advance the film, would have a knob of some sort so that the photographer could advance to the next frame of film. For retracting the film back into the cartridge when the roll is done, many cameras have a little crank that folds out of the knob for quickly rewinding. But yes you don’t turn a crank to take pictures like with an old timey movie camera.

            Since we’re talking about ye olde timey vocabulareye that became obsolete but still stuck, achieving the effect of everything moving unusually fast or unusually slow was called undercranking or overcranking respectively.

    • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      my experience, it’s not so much a gun trigger as it is a thumb trigger. at least that was our setup. really fun to use with a 35mm doing stop motion