Udiggit

Has digital photography era actually degraded the photography?

I see people with digital cameras clicking hundreds of photos out of which none of them are worth preserving.
I have answered questions where people hold a digital camera and expect it to do everything on its own.
My neighbours use digital camera and their images are now lying in the card, hard disc, few on internet servers and a lot of them have been lost too.

My impression of the general population is that when the digital cameras were not in existance, people valued every frame and worked hard to create something. Those who had point and shoots, tried to learn and get the best out of it. A single roll of film gave prints worth keeping for long time.

Now I see people buying the costliest camera they can hoping to create photographs like Ansel Adams without even reading the instruction manual and understanding how to switch off the camera.

Do you also feel that digital has actually degraded the quality of photography ?

Before digital nobody took a bad photograph, ever, even with a compact or disposable. Even though there were cameras with programme modes and aperture priority from the mid 70s, until digital not one single person actually used them.

Do you not remember seeing people at partys holding a tape measure from the focal plane of their disposable cameras so they optimised the depth of field for the fixed focus lens? I know I do.

I have a film EOS camera, and it can shoot 8fps with the PB-E2 attached. Of course I never use that mode, as that is cheating. As a true photographer every frame has to count. I refocus after every shot (I actually asked canon to take the USM motor out of all my L lenses) and only ever meter with a hand held unit, and even then it’s a Cds unit, as these modern, accurate, reliable units are also, to the true photographer, cheating.

I show every body all my pictures, even the ones that didn’t work, as only then can they get a true idea of my talent. To cherry pick would be cheating.

I insist on contact prints only, as enlargements: yup, cheating, I can also minimise the risk of some unscrupulous printer dodging and burning, or even worse grading the print per slide, no no no, it has to be as it was on the film or thats cheating.

I don’t get all these cameras with auto modes? Why do folk want a camera that focuses manually, even racking moving subjects? Half the fun is wasting half your shots. And built in exposure meters? Sacrelige. Whats wrong with sunny 16 thoughtfully applied (remember your filters now)?

And so to the worst bit: Digital. Who in their right mind wants to see a goal on a website moments after its been scored? Whats wrong with carrying chemicals and dark box everywhere with you? Keeps you fit.

And yes I am kidding.

Digital is great. IMHO film is better for many applications, including landscapes, but for most people, most of the time, digital is great.

Yes folk can overshoot, but that’s their call.

The folk who take it seriously will still carry a tripod, will probably use manual mode, will understand the effects of the aperture and shutter, will understand hyperfocal distance and perspective.

I think it absolutely hypocritical that traditional photographers who have bitched for years about not being seen as ‘art’ now take a snobby stance against digital users.

Most of the great photographers used the best technology available to them at the time. Could Robert Capa have taken his civil war shots with a plate camera? Was Cartier Bresson cheating by not using a large format camera? What about all the vietmam pictures taken in OH MY GOD colour on Nikon F’s with OH MY GOD a light meter!

The skill is in knowing how to work your camera (i.e. get it to take a picture you like) understanding how to compose an interesting image, and knowing what to throw away and what to keep.

I learned on film, the hard way, the expensive way, but it made me what I am and didn’t diminish my love for the craft of ours.

If I had at the time the opportunity to view my images straight away, to see the effects of zooming with my feet, the effects of the aperture, the effects of deliberately under or over exposing, the effects of spot metering, would I have taken it?

Erm, Yeah!

Now that I have a digital SLR do i still dig out my film body and find a dark corner to load a roll of velvia? Do I still bump the meter iso slightly lower to over saturate? Do I still pick my location based on the time of day and where the sun is? Do I still check the tide tables and shipping forecast? Do I still lug my tripod and ball head and spirit level and cable release and filters up a hill in time for dusk? Do I still get excited when the processed box of slides drops through the door? Do I still leave my scanner on 16x pass, 16bit, 7200dpi and go back the following morning?

Yes.

Do I take my digitised shots into photoshop for tweaking?

Yes.

I am so fed up with the whole digital vs film and digital is bad doctrine.
It’s such a diverse discipline that you know what: each to their own.

The folk who don’t read their manuals? Fine. Up to them.
If they are getting better results then the problem isn’t them, maybe it’s your technique.

Why does it have to be a chore. I enjoy the whole manual bit, and my methodology is the same whether I’m on digital or on film. I get some hits, some misses, the hits make me glow more than the missed hurt.

I used to go to a camera club and there was one bloke there who’s first question to any new member was “What kind of camera do you have”

Not:
“What kind of photography do you do?”
“Who are your influences?”
“Can you show me some of your work?”

And as he always had the latest and best gear (though as I recall quite dull images) he would follow it up with “ha ha ha, you can’t take decent pictures with a XXXXXX”

My advice: concentrate on enjoying your own photography, however you do it. Cameras have never been better in technological terms (no matter the format) and never cheaper in real terms.

Digital Photo Frame LAV029S 2.5 screen