Has digital created better photographers (old skool)

[RockstarPhotography]

I grew up with film. Both my father and grandfather were photographers. I held onto film as long as I could but eventually made the jump into digital with an entry level dslr (d3000). Now, all my older glass worked on the d3000, although it didn't auto focus, and my primes didn't even meter. I think this made me a better photographer. With the ability to shoot a shot with my prime, and not having any metering capabilities I would put my setting where I think they should go and shoot. The more I did this the closer I would come to nailing the right exposure. I can now pretty much nail my exposure without the need for an in camera light meter at all. It really made me learn the light. I can walk into an environment now and know what setting I need (or at least 1 stop away). I know digital has created MORE photographers. But has it made us old school guys better photographers as well?

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Awesome! Another "vs." thread.

 

[RockstarPhotography]

Awesome! Another "vs." thread.

how is it a vs. thread? I'm not comparing film to digital. I'm basically saying, with everything that was learned using film, and switching to digital, having an instant image to look at. Has it made you a better photographer?

 

[camz]

Well I think it's obvious that the tools provided for the digital market makes things alot easier to work with , thus a more forgiving learning curve, thus the content is easier to absorb. Making one a better photographer....well maybe if you compare it with using film, however since everyone is using digital nowadays, everyone's curve increases and moves forward in sync. So content wise I believe it is a yes...context wise no...as you still need an eye for it and this is what separates photographers.

It's not the equipment.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Your original post comes off as another elitist thread created to spurn controversy and drama.

Given that, I will answer the question in your second post.
Has digital made me a better photographer? No.
I am better at it now because I am more immersed in it through clubs, reading about, and looking at photography on the intertubes.
I am better because I have a larger network of people to show my images to and get varied opinions, than when shot film.

 

[RockstarPhotography]

That's cool guys. I shouldn't say better photographer maybe, because really thinking of it, i'm not a BETTER photographer. I just learned to see the light around me and know what to shoot in it. Maybe more efficient photographer would have been a better wording.

i COMPLETELY agree with either you have it or you don't. I never learned of the "rule of thirds" until way after I was shooting and was told I utilize the "rule of thirds" very nicely. It's just the way I saw the image. As with any art, it can be learned, but I believe will be on a back burner to those that can really see it.

 

[Derrel]

Yes, I feel that digital SLR capture made me a better photographer. I had about 27 years' worth of film-based experience before making the transition to digital and autofocus in the SAME camera, the Nikon D1 d-slr about 10 years ago. I really feel that after about three years with a d-slr as my main capture tool, that my photography improved substantially. Prior to the D1, I had never owned any autofocus cameras or lenses, only manual focus Nikon stuff. The D1 did light meter and functioned with the manual focuys lenses I had, so I transitioned from Ai and Ai-S lenses to AF lenses in many categories, but not all. Still, to me, digital SLR capture leads to BETTER results than shooting film does, at least in small-format, ie 35mm size. Better image resolution with digital, wider dynamic range with digital, much better HIgh-ISO performance with digital, cleaner images with digital (no scratches from processing or storage damage on negs/slides),and better prints with digital.
My experience probably parallels that of many other shooters who like digital capture better than film-based capture. I do not miss film, except in a nostalgic, romantic sort of way. I do not miss damaged film, dirty, dusty film, stinky darkroom chemicals, 12, 24, or 36 frame rolls, the need to carry LOADS of film for extended trips,etc. I also prefer digital's ability to show me the exact results of flash, lighting, panning, focusing,etc. Instantly.

 

[RockstarPhotography]

Yes, I feel that digital SLR capture made me a better photographer. I had about 27 years' worth of film-based experience before making the transition to digital and autofocus in the SAME camera, the Nikon D1 d-slr about 10 years ago. I really feel that after about three years with a d-slr as my main capture tool, that my photography improved substantially. Prior to the D1, I had never owned any autofocus cameras or lenses, only manual focus Nikon stuff. The D1 did light meter and functioned with the manual focuys lenses I had, so I transitioned from Ai and Ai-S lenses to AF lenses in many categories, but not all. Still, to me, digital SLR capture leads to BETTER results than shooting film does, at least in small-format, ie 35mm size. Better image resolution with digital, wider dynamic range with digital, much better HIgh-ISO performance with digital, cleaner images with digital (no scratches from processing or storage damage on negs/slides),and better prints with digital.
My experience probably parallels that of many other shooters who like digital capture better than film-based capture. I do not miss film, except in a nostalgic, romantic sort of way. I do not miss damaged film, dirty, dusty film, stinky darkroom chemicals, 12, 24, or 36 frame rolls, the need to carry LOADS of film for extended trips,etc. I also prefer digital's ability to show me the exact results of flash, lighting, panning, focusing,etc. Instantly.

I miss the darkroom smell!!!!!....I still shoot some film from time to time for my own enjoyment, and fire up my darkroom once every 3 months or so (i convert my bathroom). to me, it's a much better smell then a computer running hot!..lol

 

[j-dogg]

I do not miss film, except in a nostalgic, romantic sort of way. I do not miss damaged film, dirty, dusty film, stinky darkroom chemicals, 12, 24, or 36 frame rolls, the need to carry LOADS of film for extended trips,etc. I also prefer digital's ability to show me the exact results of flash, lighting, panning, focusing,etc. Instantly.

Hit the nail on the head. Ever since I bumped up to the Canon 5D I find myself shooting less film, I still shoot it but for the same reason. I tell you the last wedding I shot was on a cruise ship and I was on pins and needles sending my Neopan 1600 through the xray scanner to get through security. I carry two AF Canon film bodies with me and when I want to shoot them I hit the subject with the 5D first to nail exposure etc. then put it on the film.

 

[molested_cow]

Derrel, from your description, digital did not make you a better photographer. It just makes it more convenient for you to be a good photographer. Your knowledge, skills and sense for the art came from your experience with film. Digital technology made it easier for you to apply those skills.

For me, I too started with film, only started to play with DSLR recently. I totally agree with the convenience and precision factor. In terms of image quality, it doesn't really defer much from film since I am using the same set of lens. So far, I haven't felt that I am better as a photographer other than the convenience factor. I think what will make me become better, is to venture into unfamiliar(to me) territories of photography, like learning lighting set up, macro, commercial, wedding, event etc. From these I will pick up different variety of perspectives and technical skills. I can do it in both film or digital, just that digital will make it more convenient and cheaper.

I also don't think the learning curve through digital is faster. In fact, I feel that I learn quicker being through the film route because everything I learn, I learnt it the hard way.

 

[table1349]

Did digital create better photographers? NO. 30+ years of film taught me to be a photographer and film made me pay attention too details. Paying attention to details made me a better photographer. Digital just allows me to do some things easier. I still have a light meter in my pocket and use it when the situation calls for it. I still try to get it right in camera the first time. If digital made it easier we wouldn't have the multitude of questions we have in this forum that any film photographer learned right away.

 

[dxqcanada]

... But has it made us old school guys better photographers as well?

The advances in technology has given "old school" photographers more tools.
Tools, that can be utilized with learned skills, may produce better pictures.

Film/Manual Focus/No TTL metering -> TTL metering -> AF -> Digital Capture -> Instant image viewing -> HDR -> etc...

Sometimes these Tools can cause an "old school" photographer to lose learned skills.

If anything ... I would say the Digital camera has accelerated my skill building due to the fact I do not have to wait for my film/prints to get developed (to know when I have have done it right/wrong) ... and EXIF data helps when I forget what settings I was using.

 

[terri]

"Photography is a marvelous discovery, a science that has attracted the greatest intellects, an art that excites the most astute minds – and one that can be practiced by any imbecile."

-Nadar (Gaspard Felix Tournachone), year: 1856

It's never been the tools at hand making you great, and never will be. If you want to continue these discussions arguing otherwise, that's always okay - just keep it civil as well as real. Thanks!