David Sallitt
(K=355) - Comment Date 8/21/2004
|
Hmm. No doubt the photographers who used view cameras in the 1920s said the same about the upstarts of the Bauhaus who used those new-fangled 35mm cameras :)
If digital brings more people in to practice and learn the new craft skills it can't be bad for photography. If the pictures are for people's own consumption that's fine; as soon as they try to put them in the public domain they'll realise there's a lot more to it, and either learn to do it properly or give up. People have been taking gratuitous pictures that mean nothing except to them long before digital appeared. The new technology just means they have to pay more, to do what they did before for less - the only difference is the camera and accessory makers have a nice new burgeoning profit centre, that's all.
There's no such thing as the perfect photograph anyway. That's why we join groups like this one.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Richard Dakin
(K=12852) - Comment Date 8/23/2004
|
Maybe in the short term. But IF we can learn from correcting our mistakes in PS, and then apply this knowledge to our subsequent photos, will this not make us better photographers in the long term. Pretty big IF I know.
|
|
|
|
A.T. Sarazin
(K=1336) - Comment Date 8/23/2004
|
Why does it bother you so much, anyway? Art is about making something important to you and enjoying the process. Why is there this attitude among some people that they have to tear down the work of others just because they don't use the same process? It isn't a healthy point of view.
|
|
|
|
Mike George
(K=3429) - Comment Date 8/23/2004
|
Interesting question. I actually think technology is making me sloppy. I have both a Digital Rebel and an ELAN II. I have 2 fully manual oldies, a K1000 & a Koni-Omeda Medium format. The newer ones have settings that I can select and just go to town, not thinking just shooting and getting good shots. The key to me of photography is see the shot and take it. Not so much the technical end, but what is making a good shot, how to deal with people subjects and so on.
If one was to get technical, is playing around in photoshop, any different that altering a photo in the darkroom. Cropping, color correcting with filters, soft focus, all done in the darkroom. Is this any different than doing so in a digital darkroom? I am a firm believer in the idea that anyone can take a photograph. Not everyone can take good photographs, fewer still take shots that inspire people and remain in our thoughts. I even believe you have to have an eye for this, and film or digital, often this isn't a teachable skill. You can give examples to folks but if they don't see that instant to take the shot, the media is irrelevant.
Just some random thoughts from an amateur.
|
|
|
|
Tony Diana
(K=13396) - Comment Date 8/25/2004
|
Creo que la cuestión que plantea el amigo Johnny Brown nos lleva a otra pregunta. ?La fotografía es un veto cerrado y elitista, a modo de religión, siendo la fotografía en si misma el objetivo, o el objetivo no es sino la imagen? SI el objetivo es la imagen, cualquier medio para llegar a ella nos es válido, pero la pregunta inicial encierra, segun yo lo veo, una cuestion preocupante: no se debe de considerar a la fotografia una religión con un protocolo único y excomulgar al que de el salga, creo que todos sabemos como acaban esas cuestiones
|
|
|
|
Steven .
(K=203) - Comment Date 8/25/2004
|
I learn so much from my mistakes with film photography. I think if I shot digital I would not learn. I tried digital once and I didn't like the results. I think learning from film also would make digital shooters better and more aware of what photography is.
|
|
|
|
Gerard Calona
(K=234) - Comment Date 8/26/2004
|
If a Person has a real desire to improve their photography they will learn and learn whatever tools they use. If you are passionate enough about any hobby or calling then nothing will stop you from continuing to seek more and more knowledge and to improve. Happy snappers with no more desire than snapping the kids, holidays, friends and functions, verily, they have their reward. As previous posts remark, why should it bother you?
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=24628) - Comment Date 8/26/2004
|
yes, it makes people sloppy.
"just make a hundred shots and throw away the bad ones, it's free", "I'll fix it later in PS", etc. etc. are all excuses to not pay attention to what people are shooting.
To the starting generation who've not used film (at least seriously) the camera is not the place where the image is created, that's the computer.
They have no idea of nor interest in photography, seeing it only as picture taking before using the computer to make something.
This attitude leads to PJs who compose images on the fly to suit the story instead of adapting the story to the reality of the image.
It leads to people who THINK they know a good photo from a bad when instead they know only what their camera gives them and think that's good.
|
|
|
|
Richard Thornton
(K=26442) - Comment Date 8/26/2004
|
It's interesting to note that as more and more automation has been introduced into photography, the photofinishers and labs tell us that, in their opinion, the photographs are no better. Digital, in one way, just makes it a lot easier to produce a photograph ? good or bad.
There is a school of thought that suggests that handling a film camera with manual settings FORCES the photographer to become more involved with the image and thus a better photo is produced.
After a couple years totally digital, I have once again started shooting film with manual cameras because, despite the cost and inconvenience, I like that involvement.
|
|
|
|
Laura Spell
(K=24080) - Comment Date 8/26/2004
|
You made a good point! However the trend to towards more digital. I suppose we should all learn to accept that, since many companies are no longer making film cameras, and at least one film company in UK has stopped producing film.
|
|
|
|
craig auge
(K=488) - Comment Date 8/26/2004
|
in my opinion digital dosn't make you sloppy but it sure the hell makes it hard to be honest. As film dies so will the truth.
|
|
|
|
Harvey Guikema
(K=313) - Comment Date 8/26/2004
|
Perhaps initially you are correct. Part of that is learning the medium. When I first started with 35, I had the same attitude. As I improved, the quantity of shots diminished and the quality improved. With digital, as I learn how the medium responds, the quantity of images now is diminshing and the quality is improving. I think it has to do with our personal learning curve.
|
|
|
|
Matej Maceas
(K=24381) - Comment Date 8/26/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Tony Diana
(K=13396) - Comment Date 8/26/2004
|
Pienso que una persona que haga una fotografia mala y no tenga intención de aprender, no hara otra mejor, pero si tiene intencion de aprender, seguro que mejora cada dia, sobre todo porque puede que PS se genial, pero lo divertido es estar en la calle o estudio tirando fotos y el PS es maravilloso, pero aburrido
|
|
|
|
Danny T.
(K=186) - Comment Date 8/27/2004
|
To my mind, the "problem" (if there is a problem in the first place) is not so much in the kind of camera we use, but in the omnipresence of computers and "digital everything" in the 21st century. There will always be those who feel that digital and photography do not mix, just as there are those who stick with their vynil LPs and frown at CDs. The "problem" runs deeper than the kind of camera - computers are taking so much of our time, taking us away from wandering the streets or hills and actually shooting, away from visiting galleries with real photographs on the walls. They are opening a whole new world in the same time, but not everyone will be happy to make a move to this new world. And many will be uncertain about the whole lot, just like yours truly.
|
|
|
|
Ricardo Memez
(K=30) - Comment Date 10/12/2004
|
I would call them computer image designers - for want of a better description (perhaps suggest digital manipulators?) As I postulate on my own website (www.photogravurephotojournal.com) digital is NOT photography at all. I believe there is a growing consensus that agrees with this and further there are a increasing number of professionals who are concerned at the sloppiness and tardiness that so called digital photography is creating.
Digital is, philosophically speaking, simply an inferior copy of the original (if we apply some Platonic ideals) or a simulcrum, or hyper-photography.
Further digital is a entirely new medium - so those who call digital 'photography' should refrain from describing it as such.
|
|
|
|
Deb Mayes
(K=19605) - Comment Date 10/13/2004
|
Were Leonardo's pencil drawings inferior to his paintings? Or was the same artistic sensibility at work behind both?
And if photography is "writing with light", is one medium really more valid than another?
While you *can* technically spend hours on a computer perfecting a photograph, sooner or later it will dawn on the computer geek that it's not a very efficient use of his time, and it's simpler to get the picture right in-camera if at all possible. So is digital making us sloppy, or are the photographers who adopt digital simply suffering through a learning curve?
I guess I just don't understand this need to lump everyone who uses digital into one all-encompassing group, or to pass judgment on them as not being "true" photographers, or even what gives us the right to pass the judgment. I personally always hated those big-eyed dolls, but by golly, there were people who loved them.
|
|
|
|
Pat Ziegler
(K=21363) - Comment Date 10/13/2004
|
It takes more time and effort to touch up the photo after the fact. How can that be lazy? I think photography is about the image and not about how it got there technically. I strive in the field to get the proper exposure. Shooting nature and wildlife most times things happen unexpectedly and there is no time to ask the subject to hold still while you focus and meter. By the way, many, many photos where saved in the darkroom way before Photoshop came along. Manipulation has been around as long as film has.
|
|
|
|
Ricardo Memez
(K=30) - Comment Date 10/13/2004
|
I agree with the two replies since I posted originally. But I beg to differ on some points... The overlaps between digital and film are being blurred too much. Manipulation was around yes but now it is different and the implications are even more diverse. What is wrong is the way digital hangs on the back of traditional film photography as if it was that sort of photography, hence it cannot be justified as a photographic medium - unless we actually begin to redefine what photography means, because if some of the new gadgets and ideas are to be believed, they will soon be doing your photography for you, taking thousands of images a day (so that you can for example look through the images to see what sort of day went by and find exactly where the car keys were mislaid! Now thats an example of how digital is making everyone lazy - and at the same time leave us all even more technologically bamboozled and fazed!) I enjoy digital to an extent but I often wonder, especially when we consider some of the innovations that are on the way soon, what the hell 'photography' will mean in the future.
|
|
|
|
José Azevedo
(K=9681) - Comment Date 10/13/2004
|
This question involves so many things and concepts that a short answer is not possible.
As with everything in life, there's a learning curve to photography. Those who know it from the basics have more knowledge to achieve precisely the results they want from it. Their minds have been exposed to images in an analythical way, not only a contemplation state. These are some of the factors that give them a lead on producing better images - provided they have the VISION, the EYE to SEE a great image in front of them. For technique without VISION means only well exposed bad images...
Those who've just picked a digicam and started shooting will have a gap on their learning curve. But this gap can easily be filled should they decide their passion for photography is growing. Digital is very important to develop photography this way, I believe. It exposes more people to the craft on a cheap way. It provides an easy access to it. Should the initiant have VISION, EYE, he'll be able to produce nice images and will get addicted to it more and more. My 8 years old son, for example, shoots some very nice images because he has a creative mind, is not afraid to dare and has a unique vision. My 10 years old doesn't, at least by now. And both have absolutely no idea of the process. And if it weren't for my digital Canon S100 they wouldn't be shooting today. Wether they'll become better photographers or not I believe it's up to their personal interests on photography.
Digital is only a media, not the image. When I scan a negative, it becomes digital. Does the image loses any characteristic when changing media? No. It's still the same image only on another media. and digital quality has improved A LOT on recen years. Just take a look here at Usefilm as more and more images are shot digital.
I believe the point here is not Digital x Film but Automation X Manual. Auto cameras and zoom lenses may be very convenient but they certainly make anyone sloopy. Because you don't have to think to compose, to expose, to know what you want to do, what you want (and if you want) to express with that image you're registering. There's not much visualization, just a register.
My concept of photography involves more, requires the visualization of an image and its realization. Here there's a craft. The more control you have over your tools, the better the results will be. But they all depend on your VISUALIZATION and tools available to realize it, not on the media.
Motor drives also make you sloopy. The sports guy with a Nikon F2 with an MD2 and a 250 databack will spend more film than the other with just an F2 and the same lens. But he won't necessarily get the better shot provided the one with the camera only have a better sense of momentum/decisive moment.
After all, who takes the picture? Not the camera, certainly. The sloopyness factor depends much more on the compromise of the one behind the camera than on anything else. If you know how to use your tools (be them an auto everything super Nikon F6 or else or an old faithful F) to create the image you've visualized, it really doesn't matter if your media is film, digital or paper (pinhole = NO FILM...).
What counts is the impact the image has on your audience.
As for myself, should anyone get interested to know, on my return to photography I chose the camera I was always attracted to and allow me to have control over the images I'm capturing: a Nikon F2A. I began chooting on the 70's with cameras borrowed from friends or their fathers. I used Nikon F, Canon FTB, Nikkormats, Olympus. I was so into it that even when batteries failed I kept on shooting without the meter but with great results. I knew what I was doing.
My first camera was a used T90 which I loved it for its meter accuracy and options, grip, precision. And hated the fact it depended on batteries and had to change its shutter twice during the 9 years I used it. Also, it had more features than I could ever remember of when shooting. And I never missed any of those during these 9 years...
After that I decided to keep things low profile, sold the Canon system, bought a lovely Pentax 280P (point and shoot with a nice lens and useful features) for me, an Olympus superzoom 3000 for my wife. Later, a Nikon Coolscan III (LS30) was added to my Mac. About two years ago I decided it was time to get closer to digital and ended up with my nice Canon S100. The photography virus kept growing and last year I decided it was time to a comeback. After searching for some time I ended up with a mint F2A and a few lenses. I posted images of them on my page here at Usefilm.
Why the F2A? It's a tank, has resale value, I know it and its controls, it works with or without batteries, the sound of its shutter is a pleasure, it's heavy and steady on my hands, it has focusing screens options, it has a depth of field preview button, the mirror is lockable, it's a precision mechanism that stays as a tool for those who want to use it, never trying to stay between me and an image. Also, it forces me to think, visualize an image instead of just shooting. For those moments I have my Pentax 280P and the Canon S100.
As Murphy's laws are true, after that I haven't had much time to dedicate to shooting... Work is keeping me from it. That's why, every week, I give luck a chance on the lotto ;-)
Hope to have added to this discussion.
Regards to all,
Jose Azevedo
|
|
|
|
Daniel Taylor
(K=3495) - Comment Date 10/21/2004
|
"Since digital photography and digital editing softwear came on the market, more and more people have been taking photographs. Back years ago if you were a pro and you wanted to take a colour photograph you would set up your camera perfectly, using the correct film and settings to get the colour and photography just right."
With all due respect, I can't help but laugh at that statement. For one, you're assuming that every scene can be captured in a "perfect" way. In fact, for every subject and context there are countless possibilities. For two, you're assuming that "film pros" some how managed to make "perfect" decisions on their first try before clicking the shutter or seeing a print. In reality old pros probably burned through more film than many of us could imagine while exhausting favorite sites and subjects.
You do not become a good photographer by reading some books and then making careful, "perfect" decisions for every frame of a 36 exposure role of film. You become good by taking pictures until your fingers hurt, carefully reviewing and learning from each of them, and then trashing the bad ones and starting all over. This was true before digital was a twinkle in an engineer's eye. To become good you must develop your vision, and that takes serious practice. Same as with music, painting, poetry...any art. Digital just makes it easier to practice.
"Today anyone can do the same thing just by pointing and cicking and editing out thier mistakes later because they are to lazy to correct the mistakes at the time to get a perfect photo."
For all the hype of image editors, only minor mistakes can be corrected digitally. You can correct exposure only if the mistake is within a stop or two. You cannot correct poor focus or motion blur, nor can you really change DoF. You can modify color and tonal response to some degree. You can correct color balance. You can crop. And you can edit out distracting elements. Pretty much what old film pros did in their darkrooms.
Most importantly, you cannot edit bad artistic decisions. You can't digitally fix a poor subject or a subject captured poorly. You cannot edit out bad lighting and replace it with good lighting. You can't fix your focal length, framing, or perspective decisions. A snapshot before Photoshop will be a snapshot after.
"I think its jsut bring up a genaration of sloppy photograhers who correct thier mistakes after they push the button...so would you really call them photographers? or computer image designers?"
I think a closer look at the galleries of "sloppy" young digital photographers will reveal that they're not that sloppy at all. They're developing pretty good eyes because they're practicing constantly.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=24628) - Comment Date 10/21/2004
|
"I think a closer look at the galleries of "sloppy" young digital photographers will reveal that they're not that sloppy at all. They're developing pretty good eyes because they're practicing constantly. "
Not really. It's the expectancy of what's good that's degrading to the point where those mediocre images are considered decent and maybe even good.
I've seen it in practice. People shooting digital in numbers rejecting every picture taken on slide film for being too sharp, too saturated, wrong colour ballance, etc. etc.
Looking at their work it's clearly undersharpened (to avoid getting jagged edges), undersaturated and with incorrect colour ballance.
Even if they learn to compose they loose all sense of what good exposure and colour are.
To one I showed a photo I'd taken on Provia 100F of a subject he'd photographed on the same day using a D30.
Even seeing the subject in similar light looking nowhere near his results he still wouldn't accept his colours were incorrect...
|
|
|
|
Mark Beltran
(K=32612) - Comment Date 10/22/2004
|
That's why I think everyone should take photo 101, starting with a basic film camera, film processing, and darkroom printing. Only then do you begin to appreciate Photoshop! The "old school" photographers carry it over to digital, and are not so sloppy if at all.
When you have only a few 4x5 cassettes, or just 24 exposures in your final roll, you tend to not be so haphazard in your exposure choices. Try speed loading an M2!
|
|
|
|
Daniel Taylor
(K=3495) - Comment Date 10/23/2004
|
"Not really. It's the expectancy of what's good that's degrading to the point where those mediocre images are considered decent and maybe even good."
We must be hanging out at different galleries. Because where I go to view images, the expectations are going up because of all the digital submissions.
"To one I showed a photo I'd taken on Provia 100F of a subject he'd photographed on the same day using a D30.
Even seeing the subject in similar light looking nowhere near his results he still wouldn't accept his colours were incorrect..."
I would have to see the two images and the subject under nearly identical lighting, but to be blunt it's a rare day indeed when Provia 100F renders color correctly and a D30 doesn't. I loved Provia, but it has exactly one color temperature at which it's balanced, and it's designed with an aggressive color/tonal response. A D30 can white balance on the fly, and has a color/tonal response designed to be *accurate*. Unless your friend had his white balance all screwed up, the D30 should have spanked Provia from the point of accuracy.
Now Provia may make the better artistic choice in certain situations, but that's another issue....
"When you have only a few 4x5 cassettes, or just 24 exposures in your final roll, you tend to not be so haphazard in your exposure choices. Try speed loading an M2!"
And when you have a histogram at your disposal there's no excuse for having a blatantly wrong exposure other than laziness.
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13275) - Comment Date 11/4/2004
|
Not necessarily sloopy..but 100's of nice images deleted.
|
|
|
|
Gary McGowan
(K=56) - Comment Date 11/5/2004
|
When I was a youth, my father made me shoot ducks with a single shot shot gun. It made me very patient and a much better shot. I wasted fewer shots. Now however, I have a semi automatic shot gun. I still shoot with patience, but I have more ducks to show from my hunting experience. My two boys have only shot with semi-automatics, but they still get a fair amount of ducks. The only thing is is that they shoot far more shot into the air. They still get to eat tasty roast duck.---------- Interesting!
Gary
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
(K=15354) - Comment Date 11/5/2004
|
Daniel,
If you?re not getting correct colors using provia then either you?re not a good photographer or you?re lazy. Sorry to be blunt here but I have been shooting Provia a lot and I have yet to have it render the colors incorrectly.
To answer the original question, I will say this... Yes digital is producing sloppy photographer and digital if used correctly it is a great learning tool.
|
|
|
|
Daniel Taylor
(K=3495) - Comment Date 11/5/2004
|
Chris,
"If you?re not getting correct colors using provia then either you?re not a good photographer or you?re lazy."
Does that include indoors under Tungsten light? Under flourescent light? How about early morning? Early evening? Twilight? Overcast skys? How about shooting night scenes lit by HID lights?
Provia, like all films, has exactly one light source color temperature at which its colors are "correct". Varying light can produce interesting and beautiful effects, but it can just as often produce images which are clearly not color balanced and which have to be corrected in post processing.
Further, Provia is more saturated than real life. Again, this can be wonderful as an artistic choice, or it can render a scene poorly. Granted Provia is not as aggressive as Velvia, but pit it against a DSLR on certain subjects (like skin tones) and the DSLR will bury Provia, especially under some of the light sources I listed above.
This has nothing to do with competence or laziness. Short of a huge array of color filters and a color temperature meter, you're not going to control how accurate or inaccurate the colors are on Provia in scenes with uncontrolled lighting. But with a DSLR you can.
Provia may make the better artistic choice in some circumstances. But if it captured colors correctly where a D30 was way off, then something was set wrong on the D30.
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
(K=15354) - Comment Date 11/5/2004
|
I agree with you about the different light sources but under those sources I would not use Provia. Maybe this is what Io meant by lazy, the film shooter that would try to use just one film type for all shots that would make them lazy. I agree that with digital it just a matter of white balance and such which does give the dslr the advantage. I do have a huge problem with people who insist that digital is the better then film. I feel that both are equal and both have there place in photography. Digital is not better them film and film is not better them digital period. Personally I don?t think you can judge an image at all on the computer screen and it must be viewed in print to judge.
Anyway I am digressing here from the original question and I don?t want to start another film vs. digital debate as I am sick and tired of those.
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
(K=82213) - Comment Date 11/6/2004
|
I've just read through this entire thread, and then went back to the original question. I was an early adopter of digital, too early. All it did was drive me back to film. My experience would probably be different today. But I would agree with another commenter who said that there's not all that much you can correct with the computer and graphic software. You can correct exposure to some extent, compressing or expanding dynamic range (although I'd rather start with a good scan of a negative than a digital image). You can certainly change colour balance and saturation. And you can rotate, tilt, correct splayed verticals, and a few other gross errors. "Sharpening" if you'll forgive the comment, is a pretty blunt instrument. But once you realise the time it takes to learn how to do it, and then to do it in each particular case, there's a pretty strong incentive to get it right the first time--in the camera. Who wants to spend more time slaving over a hot computer when you could be out there taking pictures? And no amount of computer skills can compensate for pressing the shutter too early or too late, or pointing the camera in the wrong direction! {grin} My biggest problem is with so-called enhancements of the image, removing items (telephone lines?) and adding items (more attractive skies?). This may produce nicer looking pictures but to me, it ain't photography. If you become addicted to that kind of computer modification of the original image, I feel it severs your link with reality, stops you from seeking what is there, so that instead you seek to impose your view of how it should have looked. That seems basically to be a very dishonest approach to the beauties of the world around us, and I have a real problem with that.
|
|
|
|
Nick B
(K=870) - Comment Date 11/12/2004
|
Why blame the medium?
It doesn't matter which one you're using but importantly is the ability to bring out that 'true image' in your mind before you even start to press the shutter.
What is true image then? Does it mean that we have to photograph the scene in its intirety? But no two photogrpahers would take the same shot of the same scenery. Why is that?
Great photographers I know have already formed the image in their mind before they even point the camera.
What's this got to do with film and digital? My point is, everything depends on the photographer and not on the equipment.
If he or she couldn't bring out his/her pre-conceived image on print then it's either for that person to...
a) develop an eye for composition
b) achieved technical skill with the camera
Even if you have perfected the technical aspect of photography and the photo couldn't convey emotion then it's just another wasted shot.
However, if converting that color photo to BW would bring out the feeling when you took that shot then using image editor is a necessary tool.
Just an opinion.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Scott McFadden
(K=5643) - Comment Date 11/13/2004
|
Sometimes we can get sloppy but if its not one thing its another.
As for producing prints both have distinct features ,Which to me provide variety I would never have had.
Earlier the subject of leonardo da vinci's "artworks" were brought up , though chances are that if you were to look upon his personal history you'd know most of his "art" was in fact not meant to be so.
Plans for strange craft political views and early statistical measurement tools suggest a much more profound suggestion that the "art" was in fact of a millitary advisory Capacity.
|
|
|
|
David Warren
(K=3080) - Comment Date 11/14/2004
|
A photograph is an image right? I believe that no matter how an image is made, if it's beautiful that is the end result.
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
(K=15354) - Comment Date 11/14/2004
|
The final print is not the point here. Digital is make a lot of photographers sloppy because with film you had one change to get the shot or should I say it cost something to take that one chance. I have seen too many that are shooting digital take many shots of a subject while at the same time changing the settings as they go along. They have no interest in learning exposure, DOF, Hyper focal and such. It's all just take shots till you get what you want and delete what you don't want.
I have nothing against digital, in fact I will switch myself when the cost is worth it but I think the digital mentality is hurting photographers.
|
|
|
|
Adam E. J. Squier
(K=9803) - Comment Date 11/14/2004
|
Chris, the point about changing settings as you go isn't quite right -- at least if you're shooting negative film. With negative film, you can be over or under full stop and still get a good image. With digital you can be over .3 and under .5 of a stop. That's it! That's a tighter range than slide film.
When working quickly, it's great to take a few shots while chimping the histogram to know you've have a printable image.
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
(K=15354) - Comment Date 11/15/2004
|
Either way is correct. The pro photographer is not an issue here, the general shooter is and they are becoming lazy because of digital.
|
|
|
|
Richard Thornton
(K=26442) - Comment Date 11/16/2004
|
I spoke too soon! All that talk about involvement with manual settings and so forth caused by my giving in to a fit of nostalgia for the good old days. Now, I find I don't use my Leica and always seem to grab the digital Nikon for all purposes.
I've had 40+ years of grounding in the fundimentals. Now, call me lazy as I enjoy autoexposure, autofocus and Photoshop!
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
(K=15354) - Comment Date 11/16/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony Gargani
(K=4524) - Comment Date 11/17/2004
|
Is film making 'us' COCKY?
I re-read the original poster's question, and want to clarify that the above is not specifically aimed at him. It is aimed in a general sense at the overall *feel* I get when I come across these discussions...
The air of superiority emanating from the 'film-only' or 'film-is-BEST' crowd is thick and pungent at times.
Is digital a threat in some way to film (shooters...)? There is almost a defensive posturing that takes place whenever this subject comes up. Why are thousands of 'snap-shooters' using digital any concern of 'pro-film shooters'?
Isn't that generally where the talk ends up? All "these new photographers snapping away and editing everything in PS!" Do you seriously believe that people who are TRULY interested in photography or becoming better photographers take that approach? Have I missed something perhaps? Does anyone really think that a person who "sprays and prays" with a digital can even begin to approach the level of someone who studies the art of photography and gains an understanding of exposure, compostion, etc.?
I honestly do not believe that pros or serious amateurs that use digital take that approach at all. I know that I don't, and I shoot almost all digital these days. I think this fear of digital making us "sloppy" is a straw man being setup by people who are nervous or intimadated by digital technology and fear that it actually is at a point that it equals or exceeds the quality and usefulness of film.
If you don't want to work sloppy (whether with film or in digital)then by all means-DON'T WORK SLOPPY! If others chose to work "sloppy", so be it.
In the end, as has already been said, what difference does it make? The image will stand or fall on it's own no matter what the media it was created on or with. Can't we just respect each other based on that?
I'm sure that painters reaction to 'photograpers' was similar-sheeesssh, these guys with their glass plates and 'tricks' sure are sloppy! Not to mention the transition from large format, to medium format, and oh man-35mm! In neat little canisters that could shoot up to 36 frames! How about auto exposure? Autofocus? MULTIPLE FRAMES PER SECOND!!!! (boy that's scary).
Anyway...
Yes-overt and blatant digital manipulation of images (whether scanned film or digital)turns me off. But making 'reasonable' corrections of 'mistakes' (underexposed for instance)to me just isn't a big deal...
OK now-group hug....
|
|
|
|
Zoe Wiseman
(K=822) - Comment Date 11/17/2004
|
Johnny...
YES! Digital is making people sloppy. People, not photographers. A true "photographer" can make a good image from any medium. but, I digress...
When I look at some digital shots I wonder if whoever took it, took the care to meticulously set up the image before clicking the shutter... or if they just clicked and clicked and clicked until the "one" image appeared. Instead of pointing the camera ONCE and ending up with the desired result.
I shoot all my fine art with film and haven't ever considered using a digital for it... I have 7 film cameras and one Nikon D70. As an experiment I tried out my D70 shooting a nude and when I got the result I was extremely disappointed. Light just doesn't hit the computer chip like it hits the film. It's completely different. The only thing that is the same is the composition, it seemed that my style didn't even look like me after shooting with digital. But, still, I only had to shoot 5 frames to get my desired result because I'm so used to shooting with film.
I don't have all the answers of course... but I do think that after handling the D70 after working with film ... I can see how it could lead to laziness. And maybe boredom. But, that's just me... and a lot of people adore their digitals.
I would just love to see more imagination put into some of the digital images I have seen. But, I could also say the same for film.
What I will miss with the fading of film... are photographers who have worked in darkrooms. because without this valuable darkroom knowledge you can see it when someone has no idea what to do when they venture into photoshop. it's because they missed valuable training inside the dark with the chemicals. maybe it's the chemicals that lead to greatness? kind of the same as if someone tried to paint in a computer software program that had never even done sketches on paper with pen and ink. somewhere the soul is missing.
Zoe
|
|
|
|
Matej Maceas
(K=24381) - Comment Date 11/17/2004
|
Hi Anthony,
I partly agree with the strength of the image being independent of the media, but only as far as the content of the image, in an abstract sense, goes. If we define the image as a physical object, i.e. if we consider (large) prints, the specific type of media used has a very strong influence on the quality of the result. This is one of the reasons why I care about the process. With this is also connected my slight frustration over some of the side-effects of digital technology: namely that so many photographs seem to be made 'for the web', rather than with a print in mind. Technical quality (not to mention the physical existence or non-existence) of the photo seems to be becoming unimportant to an increasing number of photographers (and by technical quality I don't mean megapixels or scanner resolution).
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
(K=15354) - Comment Date 11/17/2004
|
Anthony,
I am in no way anti-digital or strong pro film but I am pro photography and I do see from personal experience that the use of digital is in a way making the photographer lazy. It?s is probably the same way AF, in-camera metering and other advances in the 70?s and 80?s made others lazy. I am not trying to promote film is better or digital is better as both have there uses. I agree with Matej that most people that use digital never make prints and photograph only for the web and sites like this. To me an image is not finished until it?s printed, be it digital or film, inkjet or wet.
|
|
|
|
Pico diGoliardi
(K=540) - Comment Date 11/20/2004
|
Digital technology does not make photographers lazy or sloppy; it simply permits more nominally qualified people to make pictures.
When the camera came about I am certain there were people who made no effort to learn the painterly qualities they loved, and suffered to the end of their patience trying to do the same with a camera. Impossible in most cases because painters can make light that does not exist. Today we find people who choose to make a picture casually, then try to make it like a real photograph in Photoshop and they will remain frustrated or ingorant to the end of their patience.
So be it.
|
|
|
|
Andew Gondokusumo
(K=833) - Comment Date 11/25/2004
|
From my point of view it depends on how you look at the problem. If you just click on the shutter and not think on the setting and all that and just fix your mistake in the photoshop, it might be true that didgital is making you lazier (or whatever the word is). But if you take from the other side, for example you have a digital camera and you have a film camera, you can learn the setting and the composition in your digital camera then maybe go back to back to your film camera and learn to get the right setting in film from your expiriwnce in digital. Well anyway technology these days make our life easier. It's like saying power window in your car make you sloppy and you should opt for the old type of car window to make your muscle works harder.
Anyway that's just my personal opinion.
Andrew
|
|
|
|
Andew Gondokusumo
(K=833) - Comment Date 11/25/2004
|
From my point of view it depends on how you look at the problem. If you just click on the shutter and not think on the setting and all that and just fix your mistake in the photoshop, it might be true that didgital is making you lazier (or whatever the word is). But if you take from the other side, for example you have a digital camera and you have a film camera, you can learn the setting and the composition in your digital camera then maybe go back to back to your film camera and learn to get the right setting in film from your expiriwnce in digital. Well anyway technology these days make our life easier. It's like saying power window in your car make you sloppy and you should opt for the old type of car window to make your muscle works harder.
Anyway that's just my personal opinion.
Andrew
|
|
|
|
face less
(K=85) - Comment Date 11/28/2004
|
i have mixed feelings about this. i feel that digital photgraphy can be considered an art in itself though on the contrary, may also provide lazy, inexperienced photographeres the chance to correct their mistakes. i would consider this "cheating".
if you look at things from a broad prospective, photography, as an art, is a way of self expression. no matter what editing is done to a photo, as long as it's done by the photographer, it still is an expression of one's self.
furthermore, PS and other image editing programs have allowed many to learn from their mistakes and taught them hopw to fix them on the field, with their 35mm cameras.
though i strictly use film, i feel that the addition of digital technology to photography is both an important step forward and a setback.
|
|
|
|
Sue O'Shields
(K=12325) - Comment Date 12/2/2004
|
Well, I gotta say that I've always been a shutter slut and I've always been sloppy. I started out with the K1000, then got an Elan7, and have now plunged into the digital world with the 20D. My budget will probably work out to be the same cuz what I spent on less-than-expectation images will now be spent paying off the small loan.
But you know what? I probably enjoy photography more now than ever, and I probably feel more enthusiasm for improving my images more than I used to. I used to build up my hopes waiting for the film only to have them dashed when I didn't feel some satisfaction with most of the images. With digital, I can maintain a positive feeling longer, knowing exactly where I went wrong to begin with. This makes me strive harder because the frustration and disappointment doesn?t degrade my will to learn.
But that?s just me. Always been and always will be sloppy. I just know how to clean up my mess sooner.
|
|
|
|
Sue O'Shields
(K=12325) - Comment Date 12/2/2004
|
Well, I gotta say that I've always been a shutter slut and I've always been sloppy. I started out with the K1000, then got an Elan7, and have now plunged into the digital world with the 20D. My budget will probably work out to be the same cuz what I spent on less-than-expectation images will now be spent paying off the small loan.
But you know what? I probably enjoy photography more now than ever, and I probably feel more enthusiasm for improving my images more than I used to. I used to build up my hopes waiting for the film only to have them dashed when I didn't feel some satisfaction with most of the images. With digital, I can maintain a positive feeling longer, knowing exactly where I went wrong to begin with. This makes me strive harder because the frustration doesn?t degrade my will to learn.
But that?s just me.
|
|
|
|
Justin Roberts
(K=382) - Comment Date 12/5/2004
|
There are two sides to the digitlisation of photography, the taking and the image management, (a horrible phrase I know but now that we have pictures stored as computer files we need to expand the photographic lexicon a bit.)
Personally I use both for image capture, digital for school work where everything is tuned to 'harvest' images in a very quick and efficient manner but for weddings and personal work it has to be film for the sheer empathy it induces with the camera, something the cold, hard, inpersonal digital cannot match.
But for image management then everything is scanned which leaves all my options open from manipulation to printing whilst still leaving me with a negative to archive.
But has the quality of photography declined? Yes I fear that the rot has set in. Being involved with the local camera club I get to see a lot of work done by knowledgable people and to be frank I think the standard has declined as more have moved to digital capture. Certainly the prints nowadays are nowhere near as good as when the majority of work was done by a wet process. Inkjets, unless handled by someone who knows exactly what they are doing, are often pretty poor analogies of the real thing.
Justin.
|
|
|
|
Pico diGoliardi
(K=540) - Comment Date 12/5/2004
|
> Justin Roberts (K:207) - Dec 5, 2004
>There are two sides to the digitlisation of >photography
Are we really concerned about digital photography? Do I misunderstand the address of this group. Is it not about film alone? If it is really about digital then I shall leave.
|
|
|
|
Alastair Bell
(K=29571) - Comment Date 12/19/2004
|
Interesting question. In the hands of a novice, undoubtedly. They will take a hundred or more shots discarding the ones that are bad (I've been guilty of this myself!). But that philosophy isn't all bad either. Digital gives us the freedom to experiment more with what we are taking. I will take a shot and almost immediately review it. If I don't like it I will reshoot in a different way. Similarly, if an object is difficult to catch then digital is a way of ensuring the desired shot has been achieved before leaving the scene. Is that bad? If so spank me and tell me to stand in the corner! ;-). Some people may well call my approach lazy but it works for me and ensures I am never too disappointed when I finally have my prints available to view en masse. I am equally sure that this argument raged when photography moved away from glass plates and on to celluloid. Claiming that digital is an invalid media for photography is like claiming we should all be using glass plates, pin hole cameras and daguerrotypes! Good photography isn't about the technology used to produce an image but more about the image itself and the way it interacts with the viewer, just as a good movie is not about the technology used but more the story and acting and the way that interacts with the observer. Similarly the whole PS/no PS argument rages is somewhat irrelevant. If the end result interacts with the observer the image is a good one. You may then ask what differentiates photography from other art media such as oils, watercolours etc? Only that photography has as its base an exact representation of an instant of time in a real world whereas the other forms do not.
Photos are not about technology, they are about people.
|
|
|
|
Scott Lewis
(K=503) - Comment Date 12/30/2004
|
I was out shooting a few weeks back in the same place and same time as some one shooting digital. I shot 3 frames in the time he filled an entire chip. He then deleted them all and started again. A few days latter I got my slides back and was happy with the results, I wonder if he kept any of the hundreds of shots he just clipped away. He seemed more intsted in getting a good shot thrugh luck than anything.
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Wilson
(K=591) - Comment Date 1/4/2005
|
i have use editing software with film and i have made prints straight from digital...it can go both ways.
|
|
|
|
Lars Tjernagel
(K=1535) - Comment Date 1/4/2005
|
I started out in photography using digital; however, I started with a DSLR and not a digital point and shoot.
Whether or not one uses a digital camera or a film camera in my view is irrelevant. It ultimately comes down to the individual and what they are trying to show in their photos. Yes, many people that use digital (not all of them) do as mentioned in some previous threads whereby they take hundreds of photos and then delete the majority if they don't like them. On the same point, I know many film photographers that will take 5 or 6 rolls of slide film, review the slides, and discard the ones they don't like to the trash can later!
Back to my point on myself starting photography with a digital camera. When I started, I had absolutely no idea what I was doing. I had no idea what was meant by aperture or exposure. I shot my first couple of hundred photos on full auto before I started moving to the manual settings on the camera. I really was completely clueless!
Use of digital has given me the opportunity to learn about photography without the additional cost of wasting a lot of film and spending a lot of money developing that film. Yes, if a picture came out bad, I could just delete it. However, I kept the majority of my digital images so that I could go back and see what I did right and what I did wrong and make corrections.
It took a while, but I finally started learning more and more. So much so, that I turned around and bought a film body and started working with film as well as digital. I can honestly say that moving to film was not a difficult step for me because of the 3 or 4 thousand photos I shot with my digital camera. I understood better what was happening and knew what to do when making adjustments. To this day, I still readily admit that I have much to learn. I have always been open to criticism on what to do different and how to correct. It is having an ?Open Mind? that I feel is what has made me a better photographer in the long run.
My point as made above is that it ultimately depends on the individual photographer. Whether digital or film, it is all in what you are trying to capture and show and this is what one should look at. The medium used is not relevant when the end product in itself is the photo that is displayed. A bad photo is still a bad photo whether it was taken with a 35mm, Medium Format, or Digital Camera :)
|
|
|
|
Matej Maceas
(K=24381) - Comment Date 1/4/2005
|
"A bad photo is still a bad photo whether it was taken with a 35mm, Medium Format, or Digital Camera :)"
Ahhhh, but a good photo that is enlarged onto fibre paper from medium format film is better than a good photo digitally printed from a sub-35mm chip :)
|
|
|
|
Lars Tjernagel
(K=1535) - Comment Date 1/5/2005
|
" Ahhhh, but a good photo that is enlarged onto fibre paper from medium format film is better than a good photo digitally printed from a sub-35mm chip :)"
How true :) Can't argue with that!! My next big purchase is going to be a medium format camera for that very reason!!
However, that is like the old saying of trying to compare apples to oranges.
A better argument for that would be to compare a photo on slide film taken with a medium format camera, against a medium format camera with a digital back that has a full size CCD.
One could also say that a good photo taken from a medium format camera and enlarged on to fiber paper will also look better then a photo taken on the small little 35mm slide :) I am sure this argument went around when 35mm film came out.
The argument can go back and forth forever !!
|
|
|
|
Tyler Robbins
(K=904) - Comment Date 2/27/2005
|
Not at all... an example. I have a 20d, I just got ita month ago, it has been great and a lot of fun to use and expand my horizons with. I have a couple of AE-1s and a minolta x370 not to mention a couple of yashica tlr cameras that I use regularly. Granted I have produced some projects with my 20d from start to finish, and the flexibility of never touching an enlarger has been liberating, wide format printers are great tools, but are they cheating? No way, there are profiles to set, monitors to calibrate, test strips, media profiles, countless things! Sure sending some jpegs to a one hours is easy, same goes for a roll of film. I still work in a darkroom never the less, It fills a niche, but when it comes to color projects, hell even if I shoot film, I'mm still probably print it digitally, large color prints (I'm talking bigger than 16x20) are a pain in the ass. Large black and white, not so much, I still prefer to shoot black and white on film for the most part. Another thing you shouldn't discount is that a digital camera can take the place of polaroid proofs. I can set my 20d to the propper iso, shutter speed and f/stop and take a shot and get pretty simular results on my ae-1, or my yashica. Sure the shot won;t look the same due to differences in the lenses, but for checking exposure it works pretty nice, I know ahead of time if my film shoot needs some rethinking. I could spot meter all the places in question, but a digital preview helps save me a little frustration from time to time. I am strating to ramble, but the bottom line is, digitals are sophisticated tools, but a crappy shot in digital isn't going to be improved much in photoshop. And a deliberate careful pace with film can cause you to lose a lot of shots. Film isn't precious, shoot as many frames as you can, shoot how you feel it should be shot. I used to think digital was a threat and I couldn't embrace it, but I have grown to like it a lot, it's not all I use though. I like my 6x6 for portraits, my 35mm for b&w and a roll of chrome now and then. Digital fills a gap for me, it allows me to work smarter and faster, and at time cheaper (ignoring the cost of the camera itself) I print ra-4 from time to time, I print b7w a lot, but I like big prints, and going through gallons and gallons of dektol and fix won't be possible for me once I am no longer a student. It's not about being sloppy, it's about what is most practical for you to use.
|
|
|
|
Pete Dawes
(K=272) - Comment Date 2/27/2005
|
I originally posted this on a different web site, but it fits well here:
I think that what we have to hold out for is an increased awareness in the "general public" as to what constitutes Artistry,
Perhaps because of TV adverts, perhaps because of certain modern film emulsions, a lot of photos I see nowadays, even in my camera club, rely for their impact on what might be called PUNCH. (WOW! OW, IF I AM NOT BLIND NOW I SOON WILL BE.)
Just as the amount of mexapixels in a camera indicates how good it is, so does the level of saturation in a photo show how good it is. A recent example at the club featured a large free standing rock/cliff, surrounded by an angry sea. The guy who took it claimed he had only tweaked it to reclaim its original colours.
"What? Even though the sky is a normal sky blue, the cliff really WAS vermilion? And the sea really WAS cyan, with pure white waves?" (Either he needs glasses, or I do..)
And that is the problem, and that is why Photoshop is far too often a dangerous tool. It is possible for people to ruin a photo in even more ways than they could ruin it with their digital camera. (Or their film camera...)
I have Photoshop elements, together with 4 or 5 other similar programs. I intend to use them very rarely, and then only for remedial work.
|
|
|
|
Lars Tjernagel
(K=1535) - Comment Date 2/27/2005
|
So what? Who cares if a person decides to change the "appearance" in their photo to enhance the colors? What is the big deal?
Maybe you don't like it, but that is you. That does not take away from the fact that art & photography is about self expression. If a person wants to enhance their photos to a point that you personally do not agree with, that is not dangerous...that is self expression.
However, if a person does as you say and claim that the colors match the actual setting and they do not, then that is misrepresentation. Misrepresentation of ones work may be another issue all together. In addition, if the photo is bad, then the photo is bad. No amount of enhancements is going to fix that.
I do not think one can ruin a photo in Photoshop. What one does is change it to something that is ones own vision. Something like that should never be discouraged, but should be encouraged. If not, we will never see anything new and different. Just the same boring stuff we have seen over and over for the last 100 years.
|
|
|
|
Tony Tiger
(K=239) - Comment Date 3/3/2005
|
Anybody know what happened to Betamax video?
And have you noticed your collection of VHS tapes is getting smaller.
The ONLY thing that stops me going digital is, in 20 years time I would still like to browse my fave images. I no longer own the technology to view my daughters Christening (beta tape).
I guess it's my fault for not copying it onto the latest media.
It is worth bearing in mind that to view transparencies we only need the sun to rise, if that don't happen we're all in trouble.
|
|
|
|
Kurt LaRue
(K=5067) - Comment Date 3/7/2005
|
My two cents worth: If you're serious about photography, digital can be an effective learning tool. Digital is certainly more convenient than film and has the instant gratification factor. It allows you to try out different lighting (or other) techniques without the expense of wasting film. You can then apply your learning to a film format, which still holds the edge in image quality, all other factors being equal.
I sometimes use my cheap little 640x480 generic digicam as a "digital Polaroid" to get an idea of how an image may look on film.
I don't think film is going away anytime soon. Digital has a LONG way to go live up to an image captured on an 8x10 view camera with slow film.
Kurt
|
|
|
|
Richard Dakin
(K=12852) - Comment Date 3/7/2005
|
I don't think that digital is making us sloppy, it's just lazy people see a digital point and shoot as a reasonable alternative to film. Since they can then take unlimited shots without having to deal with the time and cost of developing, they can flood the world (including websites like this) with their ineptitiude. Some however may actually learn from their mistakes and become photographers. Then they will realize that taking a few good shots is actually easier than scrolling through a disk full of "mistakes" looking for the best image.
|
|
|
|
Joggie van Staden
(K=41248) - Comment Date 3/9/2005
|
Lazy people will be lazy/sloppy photographers. If they use film or anything else. A thinking, creative person will use whatever medium is available and produce something worthy. The problem is not the medium but the human mindset. Take a stroll through this website and you will find excellent images created with film - as well as really bad ones. On the other hand I have seen absolutely stunning digital photographs consistently posted by various authors. A computer doesnt make a writer better -creativity is in the mind!
For myself, digital cameras give me the ability to experiment endlesly, at a low cost. The more we practice the better (less lazy/sloppy?) we will get - not so? Just think wat Ansel Adams would have done with a Nikon D2X!
|
|
|
|
Joe Johnson
(K=7893) - Comment Date 3/21/2005
|
I find it difficult to 'find' or 'crop' into a mediocre photo for a good one. I think the interesting photo must already be present.
But setting up is problematic for action photos. As the crowd comes along, you just shoot. As the bug flies in, shoot. Rapid fire. And see what you get. I think some of what the pros carry is a bit for show or status. But ultimately, they have the right settings, ahead of time, the filters and lenses. There is care and thought ahead of time. I think as people get more involved, they too come better prepared for potential photos.
The digital darkroom is really the extension of the darkroom. If Ansel Adams spent hour after hour burning and dodging, that didn't make his photographs worse for it, but better. But he started with a great photo, from the start. I don't think you can find pearls in something without the pearl to begin with. It may not be the patiently composed Adams pinhole at just the right point of 'magic hour'. It may be an action shot that you never really specifically saw or composed. But I think it has to be there, rather than somehow 'put in'. And I think the PS is just the way one dodges, burn, unsharps, and the rest - today.
|
|
|
|
Joe Johnson
(K=7893) - Comment Date 3/21/2005
|
Quoting: My biggest problem is with so-called enhancements of the image, removing items (telephone lines?) and adding items (more attractive skies?). This may produce nicer looking pictures but to me, it ain't photography. If you become addicted to that kind of computer modification of the original image, I feel it severs your link with reality, stops you from seeking what is there, so that instead you seek to impose your view of how it should have looked. That seems basically to be a very dishonest approach to the beauties of the world around us, and I have a real problem with that.
----------------------------------
I think that's always been the practice. If you see the photo, but something is a clutter, you can remove the clutter to show what you honestly saw, without distraction. I think that's being honest. I think it has to be done with care. Perhaps you mean if some sort of inauthentic revision. Nature is true, authentic, because it surprises us in little details of which we are sometimes dimly aware, or not at all. So if we alter a photo, unaware of what we otherwise see, it might seem hollow, or barren, or 'untrue', in some way. That might even extend to the very medium itself. People have complained of dSLR photos are sometimes appearing 'cartoonish' for example, for the almost lack of noise/'grain'.
But I think I agree if the darkroom becomes a compositor, like someone faking a look with assorted layers for a motion picture. It's clever. But it is fantasy. Some, many even, may appreciate and approve of such composites as art, or even photography. But if they don't quite ring true, if the technology hasn't reverted back to the real, then I think you have a point in that such a photographer should take care to find a scene, and the light, and the composition and framing, and the rest, and get that photograph, instead.
|
|
|
|
Joe Ciccone
(K=3678) - Comment Date 3/22/2005
|
call them photographers as long as the end results
are photos.
|
|
|
|
Joe Ciccone
(K=3678) - Comment Date 3/22/2005
|
I agree with you 100%.....some just don't take well to change.
Hey if some of those die hards like, they can shoot digital, not peek until they get home.
If the shots didn't come out well they can go and reshoot tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Joe Ciccone
(K=3678) - Comment Date 3/22/2005
|
my suggestion..try it again, think you judged to quickly.....
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13275) - Comment Date 3/22/2005
|
I like digital fine, but FOR SURE, aftr many years in darkroom-wet printing is much harder. The times and methods are changing
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13275) - Comment Date 3/24/2005
|
I will restate my beliefs-Digital does not make us sloppy but perhaps lazy. That is one reason I still shoot slide film-make every frame count. lol
|
|
Kodachrome 64
|
|
Richard Dakin
(K=12852) - Comment Date 3/24/2005
|
Do you think Paul Simon will ever write a song about Digital????? Mama don't take my Lexar 1GB away from me ..........
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13275) - Comment Date 3/24/2005
|
He might.. But please don't take away my Kodachrome
|
|
|
|
Richard Dakin
(K=12852) - Comment Date 3/25/2005
|
|
|
|
|
Diabo
(K=2080) - Comment Date 3/25/2005
|
Sting wanted his MTV in a Dire Straits song, so it's very well possible that Paul Simon would be pissed off if someone stole his flash card.
|
|
http://www.usefilm.com/image/682692.html
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13275) - Comment Date 3/25/2005
|
Yes, I forgot it momentary. Tri X -greatest of B&W to me and many others.
|
|
|
|
Nate Davis
(K=192) - Comment Date 3/27/2005
|
For my shooting style, my fully manual Fujica ST801 is quite a bit faster in operation than my fully automated Canon EOS.
With my Canon on automatic, I have to compensate when there's a tricky lighting situation, using all of the knobs and dials. It's quite a bit more difficult than just simply turning the aperture ring over a notch (or whatever the scene requires), as I would intuitively do with any of my other cameras.
I would argue, at least, that my late-80's automation is more WORK than just working with an older-style manual SLR. I can't imagine it making me lazier, at least physically.
But that doesn't really answer the question. Digital DID make me lazier; I started out digital. Now I use strictly film, though it's an aesthetic choice and I don't really care what anybody else uses.
I suppose it's unfair to say that it made me lazier. I think it would be more accurate to say that the process was much, much less intuitive for me, and it required a lot more work on my part. Now I just see, understand, and shoot. The process takes care of itself.
|
|
|
|
Carolyn Lee
(K=1389) - Comment Date 4/1/2005
|
I'm more careful with exposure on digital. We all know it's hellish to try to fix blow highlights. Film has taught me to be very anal and it carried over to digital. I don't have the patience to fix careless mistakes afterwards, it's soooooo much easier to get it right first. Isn't digital suppose to make our work easier? My goal is always to cut down to curves and color adjustments. There are a few images to play with more with on Photoshop. But if I'm sloppy with all of my digital shots, I'll never have a life again! Digital is just another tool to me that comes with a learning curve, like anything else. People can choose to make themselves sloppy, not the tool.
Photography is also about my re | |
