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

[photocat]

I believe that both film & digital have their "complicated" areas to learn. But when you chose which you want to work in - you have to learn all there is to learn about it to excel in it. That's the bottom line. I don't look at either as "complicated" but fasinating to what I can learn about the format.

It's not a debate as to which is better. If you have the eye and ANY camera - the technicalities and things you are finding "complicated," will eventually just come naturally to you. At that point - you'll take great photographs.

Cat

 

[Bifurcator]

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.

Ah, I think I get your meaning... can it be supplemented with adjectives like, tinkering, slow, methodical, mechanical, manual, "hand crafted", and etc.? Did I catch your meaning? I think it's more a frame of mind than anything else though. Sure, with film we're dealing with tangible materials and in digital you're dealing with virtual analogues and representational data. But I think the more we come to understand, see photos of, and hold in our hands the actual digital components like the imager, RAM, the CPU, DVDs, CDs, LCDs, memory cards, batteries, and etc. the more the virtuality is replaced with tangible and real substitutes for the film world. These understandings and experiences bring the hand crafted, mechanical, and methodical feeling back into the process with just a little less tinkering and allot less slowness.

I dunno I'm probably a total goofball but when I save a file I often visualize the data streams, recording mechanisms, and very real very tangible fields of transistors, electrical currents, and etc. that are at play. Yeah, sometimes I feel like Tron but when we actually understand it and think about it, it's just a different media substrate. More dynamic with higher potential transferability than film (maybe - certainly more rapidly transferable) but a roll of undeveloped film in our hands is still pretty transitory and a pretty close equivalent to a memory card.

I think it's just the stage of discovery and investigation (thus frame of mind) one is at. (That doesn't mean inferior or superior... just a different stage.) That's how I see it anyway. <shrug> I guess it's the same thing photocat said only she said it better.

 

[50two]

i tend to take a million photos and delete them as i go along till at the end of the day ill only have a selection left that i REALLY REALLY like. so if i used film, i guess theres no delete button? digital or film just suits a person based on what they do but then again the fact that uploading a photo is so easy, doesnt filter out all the unpassionate people seeing as since film actually takes effort to process, only the people who love photography can be bothered to do it

example: on deviantart 98% of digital photography submitted is absolute bullsheep

and the percentage of crap in traditional photography is much much lower.

 

[JerryPH]

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.

I see the validity of your point, and for most, that can indeed be true. However, those same skills are used JUST as much on digital, with the added advantage of instant gratification. I've been at it with my dSLR for a touch over a year. If I'd had to do the same thing with film, it would take me at LEAST 5 years to get to where I am today, just in terms of waiting for processing and what not to know what I did wrong. Also, if I do something wrong, on digital, I can look at the EXIF data and see where I was off... that doesn't exist in film unless you write down your settings with each and every click of the shutter.

The purists will always say that film is better, and in many ways, it is... however, the advantages of digital cannot be denied and if the mentality of the film shooter is applied to the digital camera shooter, you have the best of both worlds. That is something that the film people cannot say.

 

[elemental]

I see the validity of your point, and for most, that can indeed be true. However, those same skills are used JUST as much on digital, with the added advantage of instant gratification. I've been at it with my dSLR for a touch over a year. If I'd had to do the same thing with film, it would take me at LEAST 5 years to get to where I am today, just in terms of waiting for processing and what not to know what I did wrong. Also, if I do something wrong, on digital, I can look at the EXIF data and see where I was off... that doesn't exist in film unless you write down your settings with each and every click of the shutter.

The purists will always say that film is better, and in many ways, it is... however, the advantages of digital cannot be denied and if the mentality of the film shooter is applied to the digital camera shooter, you have the best of both worlds. That is something that the film people cannot say.

This is true in theory, but not in execution for me. Like 50two, shooting digital for me means taking too many shots to produce a few that really work the way I want them to. I use all of the same skills, but without the same sense of "urgency," because if I didn't expose correctly for the sky or the shadows or what have you, I can simply click-click and shoot again. For me, the difference is that film forces me to think through everything before pulling the trigger, because there's no instant gratification for me to lean on.

To be fair, I did start with a DSLR a little over a year ago and have, as you suggested, learned probably five years' worth of knowledge in that time because of the instant gratification. Now, however, I feel like film is really pushing me out of my "shoot-adjust-try again" comfort zone and forcing me to learn how to make decisions relying on the skills I've learned instead of using the medium as a crutch. Neither is better or easier or simpler or more complicated, they're simply means to an end, just like aperture priority and the "real live artist!" M mode. Yeah, I brought that up too.

 

[ryan7783]

011000100110100101101110011000010111001001111001001000000111001101110101011000110110101101110011

HEY! you take that back RIGHT NOW! My mother is a saint and for you to say such an awful thing is rude and elementary.




:mrgreen:

 

[Fiendish Astronaut]

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'

Hey! My computer smells lovely...

The other thing is, processing on a computer generally involves sitting down, working with film is something one would do standing up. That makes a bif difference. So at least it's less complicated for my feet.

 

[Joves]

The purists will always say that film is better, and in many ways, it is... however, the advantages of digital cannot be denied and if the mentality of the film shooter is applied to the digital camera shooter, you have the best of both worlds. That is something that the film people cannot say.

Yeah I keep hearing that out of the hold outs. I started shooting when my granfather gave me an old 120 when I was nine. When I hit JrHigh I got a 35mm and, also learned how to develope and, print. As I got older I got away from shooting because I didnt have the time to shoot and process and, I didnt like what other labs did with my prints. So I gave it up for awhile. Now with didgital I can shoot all I want and, processing is done in a quarter of the time, if that even. It has made my life easier.

 

[Bifurcator]

i tend to take a million photos and delete them as i go along till at the end of the day ill only have a selection left that i REALLY REALLY like. so if i used film, i guess theres no delete button?

You can shoot that way with 35 mm film. You need a bulk winder and either shoot transparencies or just have them do proof-sheets. It's not even that expansive really. I guess it would be if you did that every day though. :blushing:

the percentage of crap [photos] in traditional photography is much much lower.

Hehehe I think I tend to disagree actually.

 

[Moglex]

i tend to take a million photos and delete them as i go along till at the end of the day ill only have a selection left that i REALLY REALLY like. so if i used film, i guess theres no delete button?

You can shoot that way with 35 mm film.

How do you delete the image from the emulsion?

You're not really achieving the same thing with profligacy of film use as

a) You don't have the immediacy of on-site image selection which alters the whole dynamic of shooting.

b) The 'rejected' images never go away and take up space and make finding the images you require that much harder.

I know people did work that way with film but the experience would be quite different to that described by 50two.

 

[Garbz]

Hehehe I think I tend to disagree actually.

www.flickr.com

The random photo I just got was of someone's bra strap showing under their armpit.

 

[nynfortoo]

It gets more complicated the further you go down the rabbit hole, certainly. If you pace yourself, though, you won't be overwhelmed by the experience; you'll be able to take each step in stride and learn much more effectively.

Like JerryPH mentioned: it's very easy to fry your brain with too much information too quickly.

Once you have a basic grasp of the core principles and concepts, you can usually hold your own in most situations. If you try to shoot out of your depth, though, you're going to struggle and overwhelm yourself. You'll get fed up.

It's always good to shoot slightly above your level, so you constantly push yourself to learn, but don't do it too quickly. This is a life-long hobby, you've got plenty of time, so go at your own pace.

 

[randerson07]

Film will be all but extinct in the near future though.

Define near future? I dont think it will ever disappear, but it is getting harder to acquire. If im not mistaken, there have actually been some new films released recently.

Anyway to the OP,

Have you been into any other hobby with any depth?

Every Hobby I have or have had, has two ends to the spectrum:

the people that enjoy it on their own terms in its most basic form

and the people who tweak every single component until there is no more tweaking to be done.

Just to give examples, Ive been into some form of Radio Control since 1999. Most of that time I raced on a regular basis, onroad, offroad, indoor, outdoor, carpet, asphalt, etc. I never took it to the extreme, but there are some guys who spend all day at the track measuring, weighing, and adjusting, yeah those guys win most of the time, but the guys out there just for fun win too.

 

[Village Idiot]

When did fast = Sterile? And who says it doesn't take any work? I put a lot of effort into some of my creations. Just because I do all the work before hand with the lighting and the setup and such, just means that there's less to do in processing because I'm doing the right way; correctly taking a picture and not depending on Photo Shop to fix it.

 

[terri]

This has crossed into a film v. digital debate, so we're closing it now, as this isn't allowed on TPF. There have been several thoughtful replies here, and the OP can use the search function if requiring more comments along these lines.

Thank you for your cooperation!