Become A Better Digital Photographer

[misskrys]

I totally agree with you, Jeff. I started out with a Nikon N75 (film) and had to think of how to take every picture, because I only had (at most) 36 shots. Sometimes I would only get 3 good shots out of a whole roll, and it forced me to learn about exposure, lighting, etc. I admit, I'm still not all that great - definitely have room for improvement! Unfortunately, the expense got to me, and I haven't taken any photos in almost 2 years. =(

But I also agree that a DSLR can be excellent for newbies. Like reeves pointed out, you can take a photo, immediately look at it, and change it, which is quite helpful (especially for us poor college students! lol). But then there are those people who rely on the "well, I took 750 pictures, so there must be at least one good one" approach.

 

[fokker]

I don't really think the change is a bad thing. As phranquey explained, the learning curve with digital is much, much faster. I had a fleeting interest in photography with a mamiya film SLR years ago, and the lack of instant feedback just put me off. As soon as I went digital, I was hooked. During my first 6 months to a year of digital photography I would take multiple shots of everything to try and get the shot I wanted, and still usually fail. Now that I have improved somewhat I don't find the need to take multiple frames to get the shot. Now, I would be almost equally as comfortable with film, knowing what to expect when it is developed. Those first 6 months of reeling off thousands of crappy shots with instant feedback is priceless though.

I guess my point is, as you mature as a photographer you will find yourself limiting your number of exposures naturally because you learn to really think about each shot and take your time and compose it, rather than just rushing through with the 'if it sucks I'll take another one' attitude.

 

[athomasimage]

As I read your collective posts, I hear some common themes. The format doesn't matter; Film or Digital! What matters is shoot, shoot and shoot some more! In addition, as photographers we need to compare our art to others (not to copy), but benchmark our eye to others and look at how to improve. In order to improve our art we need to learn. That means reading, taking classes, being mentored, join a camera club, enter competitions, go to the art museum or what ever it takes to learn.

I am bothered by the recent Nikon commercial starring Ashton Kutcher (sp?). Because he has a Nikon and runs around taking pictures, the commercial makes him out to be a photographer. Simply because He's taken pictures. Buy a Nikon and you too can be a photographer. Buy the camera and learn the craft, then you can be considered a photographer!

So keep on shooting!

 

[Jeff Colburn]

Fokker and Athomasimage,

As you say, digital can make the learning curve shorter for photographers who really want to learn the craft of photography. But it can hamper those who don't. Digital makes it as easy to get better as it does to stay bad. And for those of us who want to learn the craft, digital is a wonderful tool.

As a professional film photographer in southern California I had a few negative (no pun intended) situations crop up just because of using film. One time I was doing a location studio shoot, tabletop stuff. I used my flash meter to check the output of the left stobe, then the right one, then the two combined. Everything was perfect. However, just after I took my last reading the right flash tube went out, which you can't tell with the naked eye when the umbrellas are only a few feet apart. So the film came back showing the product perfectly lit on the left, but the right was way too dark. So, I had to reschedule the shoot. Me not happy... client not happy. With digital, that never would have happened.

When my digital camera arrived, I could swear that the UPS truck floated to my house on a cloud, and when he opened the back door to the truck I could hear a choir of angels singing. It was almost a religious experience.

Have Fun,
Jeff

 

[Lazy Photographer]

I couldn't disagree more. If not for the age of digital I would never have gotten into photography. Why not? I am LAZY! I had a secondhand AE1 way back when and never did figure out how to take good photos. Admiitedly, I was young and had other hobbies, but the primary reason was I could not afford the cost and had no patience for waiting 24 to 72 hours to find out if a shot turned out. When the shot didn't turn out I wasn't even sure what attracted me to the shot to begin with or how I might have done it differently. Boy it wasn't long before I got bored with the whole process. The camera, which cost me next to nothing, became a nice paper weight.

Now I can think about a shot, shoot it, analyze it, re-shoot if it didn't turn out how I expected, and rinse and repeat to my heart's content. Most importantly, I can analyze why one shot looks better than another (to my eye) while I'm still on site and my mind is right in the game.

Consider this: I wonder where Tiger Woods would be if golf balls cost $2.00 a shot and he didn't get to see where his shot went until 24 to 48 hours later.