Has Digital Made You More Competent Or Lazy

[gsgary]

One day I want to meet these lazy people who can take snapshots in the camer and spend hours in editing fixing them up. Because I really don't think that person actually exists in the photography world.

It's a boogyman of digital that many think and talk about happening; they say that "in camera doesn't matter in digital and you'll just edit it." And yet what we see is people taking reviews of histograms to perfect exposures; we see them composing; getting shots right in camera; shooting in RAW etc....

When one looks at "photographers" as a hobby or professional group people are still getting it right in camera; they are still perfecting things. If anything the lesser dynamic range of digital compared to film makes getting it right in camera even MORE important than before = especially with regard to highlights where digital is weaker than film (and despite huge advances in shadow detail restoration the highlights are still, far as I'm aware, a dangerous area to overexpose).



Also film cameras had auto mode; they had priority modes and AF and all those other fancy things digital cameras have now. Barring the medium aspect if we'd kept with film at the forefront they'd likely have most of the fancy features digital have today.






For me digital made me a photographer.

Most of the film cameras that don't have the fancy features are the ones that still command a high price because those feature are not needed

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[pgriz]

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 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?

Senior as in age, or senior as in ability? Heh. My first photos were probably taken around 1958 or so, with those kid cameras that had two setting: Bright and Cloudy. Thanks to the wide latitude of negative B&W film, many of those were quite usable. Over the years, went through several box cameras, then a 35mm Practica from about college years, to a Minolta, to a film Rebel, to various P&S digital to a Canon T1i (which is still my main "real" camera), and lately, my LG4 smartphone. Along the way, experimented with Polaroid, various darkroom techniques, video, micrography, astrophotography, IR photography... Pretty much everything I knew was self-taught, which resulting in a rather eclectic mix of pretty deep knowledge in some areas and abysmal ignorance in others. Taking a few real photography courses in my 50's (in a photography club), showed me where my ignorance was especially obvious. And that was in the area of flash photography. The use of digital allowed me to experiment in ways that I could never do (economically) with film. The horrible, deer in the headlight style, was in the space of a few months replaced by technically-competent images where I learned to balance the various light sources, finally understood how (and when) to use fill light, and started on the way of combining various flash units with modifiers to craft a reasonably well-balanced image (from the point of view of light control). That knowledge in turn opened my eyes to seeing light sources even in natural light (ie, reflective surfaces, light toned by reflection from a wall, etc.).

Having the ability to see instantly the results also opened me up to experimentation with dark filters (the 10 stop neutral density filters) and use that to learn how to use the different motions (or lack of) in a scene to create new images (well, new to me). Using digital, I've learned to focus-stack, or do extended dynamic range images. In the past 10 years, digital has allowed me to learn more about the technical side of image-making than I have in the previous 40 years or so. On the compositional side, I always had a reasonable eye to framing images, so that has not changed dramatically. What is changing is that I now use the smartphone to take my snaps, and I use my DSLR when its capabilities are needed. One of these days, I keep promising myself, I'll get into the Photoshop post-processing...

 

[Overread]

For me digital made me a photographer.

Most of the film cameras that don't have the fancy features are the ones that still command a high price because those feature are not needed[/QUOTE]

Yes but one day someone will give Lieca a calculator and they'll catch up to the modern computing times

 

[gsgary]

For me digital made me a photographer.

Most of the film cameras that don't have the fancy features are the ones that still command a high price because those feature are not needed

Yes but one day someone will give Lieca a calculator and they'll catch up to the modern computing times [/QUOTE]
I don't want them to catch up

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[smoke665]

digital has made photographers lazy or are those that seem to hate on digital too lazy to learn digital and all that it entails

Not necessarily. My first experience with programming was Fortran, using key punch cards, that ran on a computer that filled a large room. Over the years I learned and adapted to the point that technology exceeded my capability, not my willingness to learn.

Being able to review the shot as soon as I take it has increased productivity

Good point. I was fortunate to have a decent darkroom, so the lag in processing was shorter. I'll admit that I still took multiple exposures to be sure I had a decent negative.

In many ways a modern digital camera made life easier for some of us, but it also raised the standarts and expectations for others..

Good point. I hadn't really thought of this but it has raised the standards.

Also film cameras had auto mode; they had priority modes and AF and all those other fancy things digital cameras have now.

Hmmm, the manufacturer must have forgotten the auto mode, priority, and AF on mine. My old Pentax Spotmatic had an on board light meter (needle) that worked (maybe). The K series featured a lot of upgrades, but still no auto functions.

 

[Ysarex]

Hmmm, the manufacturer must have forgotten the auto mode, priority, and AF on mine. My old Pentax Spotmatic had an on board light meter (needle) that worked (maybe). The K series featured a lot of upgrades, but still no auto functions.

Drop in a sensor and slap an LCD on the back and you have a 2000 vintage digital camera.

Joe

 

[smoke665]

Drop in a sensor and slap an LCD on the back and you have a 2000 vintage digital camera.

Joe

Little after the time period I was referring to Joe. The K1000 (one of the last of the film camera's I owned) came out in 1975 and was a completely manual camera, ceased production in 1997. I still have a Canon AE-1 program that came out in 1981 that I think might be one of the starting points for automation.

 

[Solarflare]

Thats an extremely trivial to answer question in my case: more competent.

Because when it was still film, it was too much of a hassle and I didnt photograph ever.

 

[smoke665]

Because when it was still film, it was too much of a hassle and I didnt photograph ever.

That's unfortunate because you missed out on some great experiences. I've always believed that if something is worth doing there are no hassles that will stand in my way. I've spent weeks hand crafting furniture, I've spent weeks creating carvings, and weeks creating other artwork, I never considered the work that went into any of it as a hassle but a necessary part of the process. While I've since moved on and embraced digital, I don't regret any of the film experience.

 

[chuasam]

Film was fun though. I kinda miss the parties in the darkroom. Music blasting, dancing and goofing off during washing the prints. Smell of chemicals. The invented dances we did whilst processing the film.

 

[Vtec44]

I think digital has lower the entry point and made it easier for everyone to try out photography with higher end equipment at relatively no recurring cost. However, I believe it's the same reason why it made me try much harder. The question I always ask myself is that everyone can get the same shot, why should people pay me to photograph something? So, I have to try harder to make my photos better. My primary source of income is wedding photography, and my shots have to be better than all the people that brought their DSLRs shooting over my shoulders. lol

BTW, I still shoot 35mm film regularly.

 

[smoke665]

That's what the red light outside the door was for. If it was on no one came in! LOL Lot of good memories

 

[Moly]

Having cut my teeth so to speak in a darkroom processing honest to god actual film I have to admit to still not being able to buy into the ethos of firing off thousands of digital images. It all just seems so "arbitrary" when back in the day a single roll of 36 exposure film was not an insubstantial investment if bought in bulk and stored in the fridge. One day, one day.

 

[Ysarex]

Having cut my teeth so to speak in a darkroom processing honest to god actual film I have to admit to still not being able to buy into the ethos of firing off thousands of digital images. It all just seems so "arbitrary" when back in the day a single roll of 36 exposure film was not an insubstantial investment if bought in bulk and stored in the fridge. One day, one day.

I cut my teeth in a darkroom processing honest to god serious film that came in single sheets. Those wimps shooting roll film and especially that dinky little 35mm sh*t had no idea what it meant to work for a photograph. Load up a dozen 4x5 sheet holders (24 exposures) and try sticking those in your pocket. Once out in the field then that was all you had, 24 exposures, you couldn't just reach in your pocket and grab another roll of film. We used to chuckle at those fauxtogs with the Nikon F2s hanging around their necks, as if they had a clue!

You see it's all relative. Notice I didn't mention 8x10 sheet film holders; we can notch it up some more.....

Tools matter, that 4x5 camera isn't a good tool to photograph sports action, but still the focus shouldn't be on the tools. I don't shoot 8x10 anymore (I did very little). I don't shoot 4x5 anymore (I did a lot). I sold all but one of my medium format cameras and stopped shooting 120 roll (my mainstay for decades; I'm going to die before I finish scanning it all). My darkroom is gone. I still have a 35mm film camera but use it infrequently. I use digital cameras now, but my digital cameras didn't come with a requirement to shoot thousands of images every time I use them. Over the course of 40 years I've changed tools when the new tools made my life easier, made getting the photo easier, and/or produced equal or superior results, but I'm still the photographer. My cameras don't take photographs.

Joe

 

[Moly]

Having cut my teeth so to speak in a darkroom processing honest to god actual film I have to admit to still not being able to buy into the ethos of firing off thousands of digital images. It all just seems so "arbitrary" when back in the day a single roll of 36 exposure film was not an insubstantial investment if bought in bulk and stored in the fridge. One day, one day.

I cut my teeth in a darkroom processing honest to god serious film that came in single sheets. Those wimps shooting roll film and especially that dinky little 35mm sh*t had no idea what it meant to work for a photograph. Load up a dozen 4x5 sheet holders (24 exposures) and try sticking those in your pocket. Once out in the field then that was all you had, 24 exposures, you couldn't just reach in your pocket and grab another roll of film. We used to chuckle at those fauxtogs with the Nikon F2s hanging around their necks, as if they had a clue!

You see it's all relative. Notice I didn't mention 8x10 sheet film holders; we can notch it up some more.....


Joe

Ahh....memories of daguerreotypes.......now that was REAL photography.