Do You All Think Digital Photography gets too Over Complicated Sometimes?

[Hawaii Five-O]

I like digital photography a lot, but sometimes to me it seems like it can get a little overwhelming. With all the file formats, photo processing, HDR, HD, and everything else that goes with digital photography heh. I know film takes a lot of time and talent too, especialy if you do your own developing and printing. But its also simpler in way and has more of a human element to it. Digital just seems so sterile sometimes and lacks character. I mean it can look great and sterile at the same time. But your getting bogged down in techniques and photo processing and data, while jpegs, gigabytes and automatics fly around. So bascaly what I mean in all this is the basic art of photography can get lost in all the digitalization.

what do you all think? Does digital get over complicated sometimes?

 

[sabbath999]

No.

 

[Bifurcator]

Q. Do You All Think Digital Photography gets too Over Complicated Sometimes?
A. No.

Also I don't understand what "the human element" of film would be - nor how digital is sterile. With all the different films that were out there at all the different speeds with all the different film characteristics and with loading, unloading, buying, developing, printing, print touch-up dyes, different kinds of paper, scanning (later when computers cam along), and etc. they seem about the same to me with the one outstanding difference being that digital is instant in so many ways. You're more in control with digital. With film you had to tell the lab guy to push the development or add/subtract C, Y, and/or M during the paper exposure. With digital it's basically the same thing but you do it yourself in something like photoshop with instant interactive feedback.

I dunno... That's how I see it anyway. It's the same thing in a different form factor which turns out to be very enabling.

 

[Joves]

I find it much easier for me. I dont have to buy and store chemicals, paper and, all the other equipment to process my photos. Also I dont have to be stuck on one film speed till I finish the roll or, carry all the rolls of film with my. I love cards they store so flat. So no digital is simpler to me. And far from sterile.

 

[Hawaii Five-O]

Q. Do You All Think Digital Photography gets too Over Complicated Sometimes?
A. No.

Also I don't understand what "the human element" of film would be - nor how digital is sterile. With all the different films that were out there at all the different speeds with all the different film characteristics and with loading, unloading, buying, developing, printing, print touch-up dyes, different kinds of paper, scanning (later when computers cam along), and etc. they seem about the same to me with the one outstanding difference being that digital is instant in so many ways. You're more in control with digital. With film you had to tell the lab guy to push the development or add/subtract C, Y, and/or M during the paper exposure. With digital it's basically the same thing but you do it yourself in something like photoshop with instant interactive feedback.

I dunno... That's how I see it anyway. It's the same thing in a different form factor which turns out to be very enabling.

The key words I picked were "instant", thats one way digital is sterile to me fast, fast,fast with minimal effort. At least with film your physically doing something and not hunched over a keyboard and mouse. Film just has a natural nostalgic character to me that digital dosen't have or will ever have I doubt. As it dosen't sit still long enough to develope one.and I think thats what makes digital Sterile.

Its simlar to me in a way as how a 68' dodge challenger or a shelby cobra mustang have have character that a 2008 self parking computerized everything lexus dosen't have nor will ever have. Which makes the lexus a nice car but thats about it.

 

[RyanLilly]

No, all the different formats and file systems, are quite easy to understand when you speak binary. 1100001000000001111001111001100000111001001001100100100100100
10010100000011111100001100111110010010010011110010010111100111
01010010000001111100101011101010001110011000000011111111100000
000011111100000010010010000001000100111100010010.

 

[MarcusM]

It's complicated, yes. Which makes it more challenging and all the more satisfying when it 'clicks'.

Film will be all but extinct in the near future though. Like it or not, digital is here to stay.

 

[prodigy2k7]

011000100110100101101110011000010111001001111001001000000111001101110101011000110110101101110011

 

[icassell]

I think alot of people make it more complicated than it has to be. The point (at least for me) is not to memorize statistics on all variants of cameras and bodies and accessories. The idea is to take photographs. You don't need to be a technophile to do that -- you just need to go out with your camera ...

The tech side is an added bonus for those that want to immerse themselves in it. Although it helps some, it doesn't automatically make them all better photographers. In fact, I think some would be better if they spent less time tech'ing and more time shooting.

 

[Moglex]

Remember that, as with film, it only has to be as complicated as you want to make it.

As you get more involved in the complexities the number of situations you can tackle increases and the quality of your results will improve but there's no reason why you can't produce pictures that will delight you and your friends with a simple POS camera.

As to digital being 'sterile' I think I know what you mean.

Film photography had a whole set of smells associated with it. Most quite pleasant.

From the smell of the film itself to the characteristic smells of developer and fixer these are smells that one came to associate very strongly with photography.

Smell is a very important sense, even to humans, and I think the lack of it is one reason why you find digital to be 'sterile'.

Of course, others might be very pleased to no longer need to rely upon 'a load of smelly chemicals'.

 

[Alex_B]

No

Remember that, as with film, it only has to be as complicated as you want to make it.

Exactly, I know people who just take pictures with their digital cameras, save them as JPGs on their computer and sometimes get them printed by a lab. that is it.

They did it the same way when they shot film, take the picture, get it developed in a lab and decide which ones they want printed.

With all the file formats, photo processing, HDR, HD,

- my file formats are RAW and JPG mostly
- the processing I do appears just as easy or complicated as with film
- I do not do HDR
- I do not know what HD is.

So for me the main complications are still composition and light and creativity (or lack of).

 

[Robin]

I don't find it anymore complicated than working in a darkroom - different processes, same level of complication.

 

[JerryPH]

No.

I did have a feeling of being overwhelmed for about the first couple weeks I got my D200 a touch over a year ago, but that was my fault. Reading the D200 manual, Thom Hogan's manual on the D200 as well as 3 other books on photography all at the same time was simply info overload.

Today, becuase I feel I have the basics down pat and have practiced a lot and had the benefit of 4 weddings as a mentored second shooter, it is no more over-complicated than I wish it to be. Things that I thought were complex (dynamics of light, post processing, technical aspects of photography, etc...), are now common to me, even almost boring at times, and I specifically look for challenges using these things in new and different ways.

 

[elemental]

It's complicated, yes. Which makes it more challenging and all the more satisfying when it 'clicks'.

Film will be all but extinct in the near future though. Like it or not, digital is here to stay.

I find film much more satisfying when it "clicks" because film forces me to rely on my skills with the camera more- no white balance, no "test shots" to see if what 'm picturing in my head is what's hitting the film.

This is no doubt because of the way I shoot film- old manual camera, black and white film, self developed, as I know a professional may swap to a different back for a Polaroid "test shot" or use any other number of practices to manipulate the results. Because I don't, I get the satisfaction of simplicity from my film more than my digital.

It's all how you use it.

 

[Mike30D]

No.

I have to agree with some of the responses above. You make it as overwhelming as you want it to be.

I think the problem is that people are overwhelmed with choices in digital photography. Look at all the software that's out there that you can buy to help you process and/or sort your digital photos. Have you seen all the RAW converters that are out there??

I think in all reality it should be a bit easier and quicker only because now you don't have to wait for the film to come back from the lab to see your results (obvious). The key to all this is developing a workflow solution that works for you, and be consistent about it. I mean there are people out there who think they need every single plugin and action for PS and that's just not true.

People also need to realize that just because it's digital now, it doesn't mean that Photoshop or any other program is going to make your crappy photos into good ones.