Has Digital Made You More Competent Or Lazy

[Designer]

The term "competent" does not apply to me, but I will say that I'm happier with my results in digital than I was in film. Usually my color transparencies turned out o.k., but my own home-brewed B&W prints were not up to the standards of the drugstore prints.

 

[dxqcanada]

I'm still the photographer I was 30 years ago.

 

[tirediron]

I'm still the photographer I was 30 years ago.

I'll bet your jeans would disagree!

 

[dxqcanada]

Sadly I had to give up my white jeans long ago.

 

[fmw]

Do you think that doing so would make you a better driver?

No but from someone who's hand cranked an old John Deere, I can tell you it makes you a better mechanic to keep it tuned for easier starting LOL

Frankly, I make images the same way I did on film.

Kind of the direction the author of the book is taking - create more in the camera and less in the computer.

Though not a professional, I can see the benefits that the digital age has brought to those who earn their living this way, and don't mean to imply that's it's wrong to use new technology as it becomes available. I'm sure there are many well versed in the technical aspects of all things digital to whom the whole process seems as simple as the film of yesterday, and no doubt some of the work done today wouldn't have been possible 30 or 40 years ago. Today a CNC and robots can manufacture a complicated piece, a 3D printer can build something from a pile of powder, Google can drive a car, and a lot of people now rely on post processing to "fix" what should have already been completed in camera. Maybe it has to do with the photographer as an artist verses one who only records images, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not against tweaking a digital image in post process. I do it all the time. I just think you need to do what is right to get it as good as you can in the camera. When it comes to correcting serious problems, the image editing software may not be able to solve the problems without creating more of them.

 

[JoeW]

There's not that much in terms of editing that has changed

Wow Serial #1 and 2 and still running, that would have been something to see. As a kid I hated those old JD's with their hand clutch. Set it loose enough to release, and it wouldn't stay in, tighten it up and it would take both hands and both feet to make it release. Have to disagree with you on editing difference between the darkroom and now, there's things we never dreamed of doing in the darkroom that are routine in photo editing software now. I do however agree with your previous comment about the importance of the final result and the ability to use all the tools at your disposal.

Actually, I think it's the wrong question.

Actually you answered the question, if I read your post right, it's allowed you to become more competent. Giving you the freedom to take more shots (in anticipation of the right one), giving you the freedom to experiment, and ultimately changed how you "see" and "shoot".

Not sure I'd say it's made me more competent. It's made me a different photographer. It has also absolutely affected what I shoot and what I don't shoot.

 

[sec]

Competent or lazy? Hmm...maybe a little of both. Maybe neither. Depends on your definition. I started shooting film (if you can call it that) of the family dog at 5 yrs old on my mother's old camera. Thirty seven years later dogs and photography are still my hobbies. I only switched to digital in 2012 when the film door latch broke on my camera while I was on vacation.

I was definitely more likely to think about what the final print would look like with film and would it be a photo of something I would want to go back and look at again. I still try to take the best photo I can in camera with digital but there is always the possibility that something that is not totally right can be fixed on the computer. I find I take far more photos with digital since I'm not worried about having to buy film and then pay to have it developed. I don't think my increased competency is a matter of film vs digital. That is a result of years of experience and a desire to move from "I was there" snapshots to quality photos. The way I take pictures has not really changed at all. What digital has provided is instant feedback and the ability to take another shot and/or correct any problems later.

 

[rexbobcat]

I'd say higher education and paying attention to the photographic community have hurt me more than anything as odd as it seems.

Then again, I'm young enough that I've always shot digital.

 

[gsgary]

The one thing digital has done for me is make me go back to film 100%

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[Ysarex]

This is aimed at the more senior members on the forum, those who remember the days when an image was primarily created in camera. Granted there were some things you could do in the darkroom, or by your choice of film, but by and large it was in camera.

I'm a senior member. I remember decades of working with film. I reject your premise as faulty from the start. With film an image was not primarily created in camera. What was done in the studio and in the developing tank and in the darkroom and in the pre-press shop carried equal or greater weight.

I started a book this weekend on creating in camera as opposed to relying so much on editing software, and it made me think. I went back and pulled out some old photo albums, and realized that I had actually created some decent images where the only options available on the camera were aperture, focus and shutter speed. Now even low end camera's have dozens of options and controls, yet it seems many are less creative in camera, relying instead on software after the fact to "create" something. Comments?

"Many" are the same now as "many" were -- with limited skill behind the camera, in the studio, and in the darkroom (and writing books?). Assuming you had film in your camera what would you do to create something better in the camera from this scene?

That's the JPEG embedded with the raw file -- unedited except to re-size it.

 

[AlanKlein]

Wait for better lighting. Digital or film, that shot is boring. The point is that neither film or digital is better in getting meaningful shots. Content, lighting, perspective, etc. can rarely be helped with post processing other then some simple adjustment to color, contrast, etc. I find that when I'm shooting medium format film, I'm more deliberate than when I shoot digital. I use digital but mainly to record vacations, trips, parties, etc. But that's me.

 

[Ysarex]

Wait for better lighting. Digital or film, that shot is boring.

You're not seeing the potential. How about a digitally processed version with a red filter to darken the blue and separate out the clouds in the sky for some drama?

The point is that neither film or digital is better in getting meaningful shots. Content, lighting, perspective, etc. can rarely be helped with post processing other then some simple adjustment to color, contrast, etc.

How about like this?

I find that when I'm shooting medium format film, I'm more deliberate than when I shoot digital. I use digital but mainly to record vacations, trips, parties, etc. But that's me.

 

[smoke665]

What was done in the studio and in the developing tank and in the darkroom and in the pre-press shop carried equal or greater weight.

Having spent most of my college days working my way up in a local newspaper and print shop, I got a lot of first hand experience in the dark room, pre-press room and as a press operator. By the time I graduated I was one of only a few in the place qualified to run full color. After college I spent 10 years in the publishing business as the owner of 3 weekly newspapers, and my own print shop. So, yes I understand a little of what you're saying, but garbage in still got garbage out. If the print wasn't good going in, we just didn't have time to screw around with trying to pull something out (unless it was 1 am in the morning of press day, and we didn't have another print). Now I probably wouldn't recognize most of the process in the press room. They have used technology to "become more competent" in their business. I suspect most of the photographers who have been in business for any length of time have done the same. Unfortunately I also suspect that the digital age has allowed an easier entrance of those who "assume" that all they need is a camera and business card, and allowed hobbyist like one of my friends to spend thousands on equipment when all he does is "point and shoot".

 

[Ysarex]

What was done in the studio and in the developing tank and in the darkroom and in the pre-press shop carried equal or greater weight.

Having spent most of my college days working my way up in a local newspaper and print shop, I got a lot of first hand experience in the dark room, pre-press room and as a press operator. By the time I graduated I was one of only a few in the place qualified to run full color. After college I spent 10 years in the publishing business as the owner of 3 weekly newspapers, and my own print shop. So, yes I understand a little of what you're saying, but garbage in still got garbage out.

And so nothing has changed. If you screw it up at the camera end it's screwed up. You can't make a critical error with the camera and expect to fix it, however, the camera alone is rarely enough to get it right. It wasn't with film and it isn't now.

If the print wasn't good going in, we just didn't have time to screw around with trying to pull something out (unless it was 1 am in the morning of press day, and we didn't have another print). Now I probably wouldn't recognize most of the process in the press room. They have used technology to "become more competent" in their business. I suspect most of the photographers who have been in business for any length of time have done the same. Unfortunately I also suspect that the digital age has allowed an easier entrance of those who "assume" that all they need is a camera and business card, and allowed hobbyist like one of my friends to spend thousands on equipment when all he does is "point and shoot".

Digital may make the cost of entry a little easier, we have the new category fauxtography, I think more a result of the collapse of the chemical barrier rather than the advent of digital tech. Back in the film days we used the term, "uncle Charlie." When a young bride was looking for a wedding photographer Dad would often look at the cost and blurt out something like, "hey uncle Charlie has a nice camera."

What I'm reacting to in your original post is the "get it right in camera" myth that is suggested by your book. It's important to use the camera competently and correctly. That however will rarely get the photo "right." B&W photographers of the previous century didn't spend a huge effort learning to master the Zone System in order to avoid learning to use their cameras. They needed the Zone System because the camera alone wasn't enough. That hasn't changed.

You didn't answer my question above. Alan says wait for better lighting. Walking away isn't getting it right is it. Lighting is the problem with that photo. It's side to just beginning to be backlit. If you want to "get it right" in camera what do you do? Let's assume you're shooting transparency film. What can you do in-camera with a scene like that if you have a film camera loaded with Fujichrome? How if at all does a digital camera change the problem and/or solution?

Joe

 

[smoke665]

You didn't answer my question above.

If I had taken it using film it would have been B&W, because all my supplies film,paper, chemicals were bought in bulk. Color separations where to expensive at that time for newspaper work. That said, had I taken this shot back then, I would have overexposed, to increase contrast and capitalize on the reflections leading into the trees. Maybe something on the order of.this.

I would also have also tried an underexposed shot, though I think this look is better. I'm not sure the author was saying everything occurs in the camera, I think his statement was more to the effect that the availability of technology allows some to be "less careful or lazy" in getting everything right in camera, because they know there is so much that can be done to correct flaws later. I think he's using the term "more competent" as being able to make use of all the tools available from camera through computer, not as one replacing the other.