Posted by David Prichard on October 20, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Recently I had a discussion with a photo editor in the south. It was his conviction that digital photography, setting aside technical improvements, has improved the calibre of photography generally. It isn't a position I fully agree with.
To my mind the coincidental developments in digital photography and the more readily available presentation of the digital images is not an indication of a general level of improved photography. With the advent of the Internet we see a lot more good photography which, due to publication costs and the like, wouldn't have been seen before.
Many will recall when digital graphic design programs came out employers would load it on the computers of secretaries or communications officers only to get publications that resembled ransom notes as the staff had no design training; that somehow the computer knew how to design.
In teaching a photography course for the city I find it seems the students have a similar perception of digital photography, that somehow the absence of film in favour of a computer that has a hunk of glass on the front will make them better photographers simply due to technology.
It is an issue on which I'm divided, while there is an argument to be made that digital has improved photography, so have many other advances over the years. I find that many digital users believe that the technology, in and of itself, makes them better photographers than they would be with film.
I'd be interested in others perceptions as to whether they believe digital has raised the overall calibre of photography.
I feel that digital has made it easier to get good photos when you know what you're doing, simply because the opportunity for in-field image review and correction helps prevent mistakes you can't correct once you leave the site. Along the same lines, I think digital helps students learn the mechanics of photography more quickly because of the instant feedback. But in either case, good photography depends on study, a critical eye and an informed trigger finger.
Over and above that, I think increased access is the real factor behind the perception that digital has improved photography. Yes, it's easier to find good photos and there are many more sources. But that's due to the role of computers in general and the internet specifically in bringing otherwise anonymous photos "out of the closet," so to speak.
Posted by Zack Schnepf on October 20, 2007 at 1:34 PM
My simple answer is yes. I think that digital photography has put more creative tools our hands, I feel I have much more creative control over my images now. Digital technology has progressed to allow virtually noise free images that have tremendous clarity as well. That being said, the technology is only a small part of what makes a good photographer. It is really the creative mind that allows for excellent photography, regardless of medium. In the hands of a creative photographer digital technology only adds creative freedom.
I too think digital has improved photography.
Improvement requires 'trial and error' testing/learning and digital has greatly reduced the time required to review work and make adjustments and this has allowed some pontentially great photographers to blossom into really great ones.
Digital has also allowed greater experimentation, it has allowed for more creative exposure and composition due to not being limited by the 'get the safe shot' attitude involved in film photography, we can now try out in the field and review on the LCD screen to see if a comp or an exposure works.
Posted by Gary Minish on October 20, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Digital has absolutely improved photography, for a lot of reasons. One is simply about numbers. Because of digital technology there are millions more cameras in more hands than ever before. The more photographers there are the stronger the odds that more of them will have exceptional technical and artistic talents. The result is a higher volume of excellent photographs. Zack hit on another factor. The technology has removed more and more of the complicated technical part of the process (exposure calculating, film developing, etc.), which makes it a much easier tool for right brained (creative) artists to use. The more creative feedom and the more creative people using the medium, the more amazing photographs will be found. The third largest factor is the extension of the photographic processs from the camera to the computer. The technical and artistic possibilities for improving photos after the shot are tremendously more varied and powerful than were ever available in the darkroom. That means the same photographers that were very good with film are producing even better final images than they produced before. In fact even those photographers still shooting film are benefitting from digital because they can convert their exposures to the digital medium and do much of the same post processing. A whole lot more people, with a lot more powerful tools and much more creative freedom simply has to result in a whole lot more amazing images! Of course along with that comes an infinitely greater quantity of poor and really lousy images, but digital technology makes it easier to sort through it all so that's not too big a problem
Very recently I was reading a National Geographic magazine and enjoying the usual stunning photography when all of a sudden I realized that many of the photos I've seen on NPN are more impressive than those in the magazine. I started doing detailed critiquing of the photos to see why and came to the conclusion that Natural Geographic's strict policy of no digital post processing has put a cap on their ability to show the "real" essence of the scene. Sunsets and sky photos have no foreground detail (only dark shadows) or they have obvious shadow gradients from graduated density filters. If colors in the highlights are correct, the colors in the shadows are off and vice-versa because they are certainly not allowed to do selective color adjustments. There is also a clear lack of long, detailed panoramas. A recent addition has a multi-frame panorama that they felt was important to include but it was simply printed as overlapping individual photos with no stitching or exposure blending. It was actually kind of sad Reading National Geographic used to be the highlight of my month but now it tends to gather dust on the bookshelf while I browse NPN
Posted by Basil Greber on October 20, 2007 at 7:19 PM
A lot has been said, and I agree with most of it. My short and simple impression is that digital has made experimenting free. While you'd need to burn some film before digital, and had no instant feedback, you simply experiment as much as you want now, with immediate feedback for correction, and it costs nothing (well, the price of your camera divided by 100'000, due to shutter wear, maybe...).
Of course, experimenting is not everything, but I think that in the end, the really excellent photographers profit as much from digital technique as do the "dudes with a camera" (my category ).
Basil
Posted by Mike Leakey on October 20, 2007 at 9:24 PM
I believe that digital has improved photography by lowering the barriers to a technically adequate photograph. I believe that in film days there were very creative people who were unable or unwilling to put the time in to learn the technical side of photography. Digital has significantly reduced the learning curve by providing immediate image review and exposure confirmation (ie the histogram). This has led to an era where the technical doesn't get in the way of creativity.
mike
Posted by William Vrolyk on October 20, 2007 at 10:03 PM
If you think of the calibre of photography improving in the sense of creative excellence I do not see any difference between a good SLR or a good DSLR. A camera is a tool, nothing more. The creativity comes from the photographer. The images I have taken with the Nikon D80 would have been identical if I had used an SLR with the same lens equivalent. The only difference now is that I am more successful. Thanks to the ability to see that the shot has "turned out" is now possible with digital photography. So I have hurdled the barrier of the technical side of photography. And I am free to concentrate more on the creative side.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by Art Clark on October 20, 2007 at 10:57 PM
On a personal level, yes going digital has improved my work! When shooting film, I was looking for a 1 to 10 ratio. Now my ratio is 1 keeper in ~200 and I still think I am keeping too much. I seldom use the screen except to check the exposure histogram. I have become much more critical of my work.
I agree with Will. Overall, there are many more technically sound photographs taken and published (here and elswhere) because of the immediacy of digital capture, yet, as Will states, 'the creativity comes from the photographer'. I do not see a concomitant increase in creativity as it relates to phographic art.
Since I am happily stuck in the 'stone age' of large format film photography and using digital processes to create my prints, I have found that waiting days for my processed transparencies to be returned is a boon. The time spent waiting allows me to become detached from the photograph. This 'gurgle time' removes the sounds, aromas and other environmental attachments and allows me to evaluate the image on its own merits. If the image 'works' from the creative standpoint I know that I was 'seeing'. If the image 'crashes', I know I was merely 'looking'.
While digital capture does lessen the steepness of the learning curve, the immediacy of image review may short circuit critical analysis of the photograph, and may hinder development of a creative style in the long run.
-PB
Posted by Bill Stice on October 20, 2007 at 11:08 PM
I think digital imaging has helped a lot. Digital cameras help in some instances but if you have a single chance at a great shot in most cases the digital camera doesn't do a lot better than a film camera. If you have the time to shoot and review each image in camera then digital certainly helps. I think the greatest addition is the toolset for digital imaging. I really appreciate the ability to take my film images and scan them or the digital images straight out of the camera and adjust them with tools that let me make the final adjustments to my desires. I have found over the years that the greatest disconnect with my images was in the printing process. In the past I had to attempt to communicate my desires to someone else with both of us having some built in biases. Today I can control the process from beginning to end. I shoot both film and digital and get as many good images with one as the other.
Posted by Steve Foss on October 21, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Digital has improved MY photography. I can't speak to anyone else's photography, nor can a useful generalization be made. The only generalization I care for is this: "Generalizations are always too convenient and sweeping to have value."
My photography is better with digital purely because of the ease of using LCD and histogram to affirm or contradict my estimates of exposure. What used to take a notebook, pen and the time to process film now takes a few seconds.
Such convenience CAN lead to laziness of technique, so I'm very careful that I don't let that happen. Still does, now and then, but on balance digital is a bigger boon than bane for me.
I think digital had helped photographers like those here on NPN. That means people who WANT to learn more about photography, and who want to take a BETTER picture, and digital does this because you get more and faster feedback.
But, digital does absolutely nothing for the multitudes of people who don't want to put any effort into learning how to take a picture, or into how to use the equipment properly. It seems that many, many people simply cannot believe that all this fabulous technology can't make their little camera take stunning pictures every time. If you talk with them about you, you find out that they want good pictures right now, with no effort and no outlay of $.
Posted by Jay Ryser on October 21, 2007 at 12:46 PM
I think one of the benefits of digital photography is the ease with which we're able to post pics for review and constructive criticism.
How easy is it today to post a photo on this forum and receive relatively immediate feedback, and then make subtle (or not so subtle) changes to the image based on that immediate feedback?
It's the ease of getting great feedback and suggestions and learn quickly from those with more experience that makes me thankful to be here. That wouldn't be possible without digital.
Another boon of digital is the ease with which we're able to share images with others. My father-in-law was a professional photographer and he has album after album, box after box, and drawer after drawer of great photos that no one is able to see unless you visit his house. Sure, he could scan his photos, but I doubt that's ever going to happen. I can share my images with family and friends around the world immediately.
Posted by Bill Chambers on October 21, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Yes and No. How's that for being non-committal? When you look back at Ansel Adams', Galen Rowell's, or John Shaw's (and many others) early work, it was drop dead gorgeous long before digital came about. I think Will's point of view has a lot of validity. Creativity is creativity, whether with film, digital, pen and ink, or paint and brush. What digital (and RAW files) has done for photography is to open great possibilities in post processing that were more limited before, and given free rein (literally "free") to experimentation without the worry of cost of film, processing, etc. Personally, I have more than paid for my D2X just in film savings alone. I would venture to say that digital has made it "easier" to obtain good results but it still requires a creative eye to be able to take advantage of the benefits digital offers.
Posted by Richard Wong on October 21, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Digital has allowed me to remember my mistakes and successes easier because the feedback is faster. Plus viewing images at 100% on the monior helps a lot with the technical side. The biggest thing for me is that it allows me to fine tune and present an image how I want it presented.
Posted by Michael Ginex on October 21, 2007 at 11:19 PM
Yes, of course digital technology has made it all so much easier to take and finalize a photograph. Besides the advantage of immediate review, we can now achieve success without the long learning curve necessary to master the art in a wet darkroom. The problem I see is the application of digital photography to graphic illustration, alluded to in David's comments, which has over time clouded the distinction between these two very different disciplines. When we as photographers say "great shot", we commend the maker because of his insight in choosing the subject and composition and his use of the digital process to optimize the image. But there are those who create images with the camera as a start, and then compose a composite with other elements photographic or otherwise to create an image they like. I have difficulty commending a maker of one of these graphic creations with "great shot". Photography, whether film or digital, should not be confused (or replaced) with the graphic illustrators art.
Posted by Ed Cordes on October 22, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Digital has improved "my" photography. The instant review with the "blinkies" along with a histogram has taught me a lot. The ability to post on NPN and get critiques and feed back has taught me, and is still teaching me to "see".
So, digital has given me better learning tools to get the techs right and the use of digital has exposed me to the wealth of info here to learn the creative side.
I agree the tool (camera) is only part of the equation. However, my digital camera has expanded my horizons and opened creative doors and avenues of learning that were much harder to achieve when I was a captive of film.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on October 22, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Yes and no.
I don't see that photography has gotten any better in the last 10-15 years. It is still the photographer, not the camera, that makes the image worth looking at.
On the other hand, digital has made it far easier to improve for individual photographers. The learning curve, at least in-camera, is very user friendly. The immediate feedback is definitely a huge edge. You can get a good idea is to whether or not you got the picture correct right there in the field, and make adjustments accordingly.
Having said that, I am glad I learned on film, especially Velvia. If you can get consistently get slide film correct without the immediate feedback, digital is becomes almost trivial to shoot.
Posted by Cliff Beittel on October 22, 2007 at 12:04 PM
When you look back at Ansel Adams', Galen Rowell's, or John Shaw's (and many others) early work, it was drop dead gorgeous long before digital came about. I think Will's point of view has a lot of validity. Creativity is creativity, whether with film, digital, pen and ink, or paint and brush.
I don't see that photography has gotten any better in the last 10-15 years. It is still the photographer, not the camera, that makes the image worth looking at.
On the other hand, digital has made it far easier to improve for individual photographers.
Exactly. It's analgous to writing. A word processor makes it easier, but doesn't do the meaningful part.
From a purely technical point of view, I can agree that improved tools improves the quality and consitancy of any craft and I am happy to take advantage of that. However, whether you are exposing a piece of film or a digital sensor, exposure is still exposure, Shutter speeds remain unchanged, composition is still composition. In short, a camera is still a camera and in order to achieve consistant and predictable results a basic working knowlege of photography and personal disipline are still required. In that regard I feel that digital fails. It is now too easy to depend on the technology to get it right. The problem is if we get it right we never learn why and so, if the camera gets it wrong we don't learn how to correct it. A good example is my wife, God bless her I love her to pieces. She has a good eye for composition and I learn a lot by observing how her right brain works but she knows nor cares nothing for for procedure. She won't use a tripod but doesn't know enough about shutter speed to justify not using a tripod. When I find my camera set to "P" for Program I know my sweety has been using it. That might be all well and good for snapshots and soccer moms but Glennie often gets herself into situations where her creative vision can't be matched by an automatic camera and if I'm not there to suggest a focal length or a shutter speed or a filter etc the camera blows it and she is dissapointed. Exposure compensation is a complete mystery to her but she loves backlighting and high key images.
Add to that the fact the photography comes to us in this modern day with outdated baggage and we have a problem. In the early days plate emulsion was so slow that it was almost impossible to get a sharp photo of anything moving. Since photography was primarily used for portraiture an unspoken rule emerged that resulted in the belief that a photo with any blurr is bad. The calender and postcard/travel industry has taught us yet another unspoken rule that blue skies and puffy clouds constitute the only good photos. Hence, it does not occur to most people to try to make photographs in foul weather. These are only two of the creative-stifling baggage to which I referred. Digital, in the mind of most people now makes it so easy to "get it right" that many of these fallacies continue to be reinforced at the expense of creative thought and at the expense of creative advancement and general acceptance.
End of rant
Bob
Posted by Curtis Knight on October 22, 2007 at 2:30 PM
I think that photographic technology digital or otherwise, has reduced the learning curve, making it easier for the studious beginner to master the technical aspects, and then concentrate his efforts on the artistic elements of his craft.
I wonder, could it be that reducing this learning curve and thereby creating more good photographers more quickly, will more quickly lead to the dumping of the outdated baggage that Bob mentioned?
Posted by John W. Wall on October 22, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Digital is to photography what the leash was to surfing....
Posted by Carl Donohue on October 22, 2007 at 8:31 PM
Hey Folks
I might suggest that all kinds of technologies have "improved photography". Photography is by its very nature a function of technology .. I think it's clearly different to painting, writing, story telling, dance, singing, music, etc - though music has branched out enormously with technology advances. But I don't agree with those folks who say it's all abut the artist and the eye and their vision and whatnot when it comes to photography. People spend thousands of dollars on their gear because it DOES make a difference. As a footnoe, I'm not simply talking about digital gear either, but all the AF, metering, IS/VR, motor drive, etc advances over the years. I want to buy a D300 or a D3 when they're available, not because I like the look of them, but because I expect I can make "better" images with them. I expect that's why most people buy new equipment.
Aso, I think this is where it's unreasonable to talk of 'nature photography' as inclusive off landscape and wildlife/bird photography - I think, in general, the technologies have been hugely beneficial to wildlife shooters, and maybe marginally so to landscape photographers.
Cliff, I have to disagree with the point about writing and word processing. There lies a vast and immeasurable gulf between writing and taking photos.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Dan Borzynski on October 22, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Carl, in some sense, I have to disagree with you. Yes, gear does make a difference. But at the same time, the best equipment only goes so far. You still need to know how to use it.
I've given a lot of beginner's talks, intro to compostion, and critiqued a lot of photos locally. Far too often, I've seen poor photos that clearly would have not improved with the latest lens or camera, and the owner of the photo simply not seeing what is wrong with the image. And on more than one occasion, I've seen top end gear used with bottom end understanding. For them, the poor photos which resulted were "clearly" the fault of the camera or lens.
Once the basics are mastered, then yes, I think equipment does make more of a difference in realizing your vision. Digital has been a great tool for reaching this development point far faster than any time in the past.
Photos from top end equipment are limited by the skills of the user. I think too often, people get hung up on technology and forget about the process.
Posted by Carl Donohue on October 23, 2007 at 1:37 AM
Hey Dan
Thanks for your reply.
I'm sure in any kind of discussion like this, there are differing ends of the spectrums, and on each end there are different "answers". And yes, I'm sure, for beginning photographers, there's still a lot they can learn that will improve their photography. On the other end of the spectrum are those people who aren't beginners. Most of the folks posting on the various nature photo sites around the web, that I visit, seem to fit the latter. IMO, a question such as this one is more appropriately posed in reference to those people than those who might be just beginning - I can't see the point in wondering is the standard for beginning photographers higher than it was previously - surely all beginners start, ironically enough, at the beginning. And for those people who have some understanding of the concepts of photography, I think all technologies make a huge difference, far more than more photographers care to admit.
Here's the classic example of the cloak photographers tend to hide behind:
"gear makes no difference. Give Art Wolf an instomatic and Joan Blow a 1D MKII and I guarantee Art brings back the better image, almost every time."
True 'nuff.
Conversely, give Art Wolf an instomatic AND a 1D MKII and I bet ya he'll bring home better images on his MK II, every time.
Once the basics are mastered, then yes, I think equipment does make more of a difference in realizing your vision.
I don't think the basics need to be 'mastered' - I think that's something we hide behind .. a simple understanding of those basics is not a challenge for most people, in my experience. I doubt they are ever 'mastered', and I doubt they need be.
That said, I've certainly seen a lot of folks using high end gear shooting images that I was scratching my head thinking 'what on earth are they shooting THAT for?" - ever been to Brooks Camp? :-)
Further,
Digital has been a great tool for reaching this development point far faster than any time in the past.
then it makes sense that their photography 'improves'. Surely if we get to point A sooner, we'll get to points B, C & D at some point earlier than had we been moving slower; we might never have got past A or, even got to point A .. and there are a number of folks who were frustrated at slow progress shooting film who ceased shooting altogether .. so I'd say for most people, it's reasonable that their photography is enhanced by digital technology .. as it is by most of the major technological advances that came/come along. Again, I'll point out that I think these advances have been far more beneficial to the wildlife or maybe sports shooter, not to a landscape or even portraiture photographer.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Cliff Beittel on October 23, 2007 at 10:18 AM
. . . I want to buy a D300 or a D3 when they're available, not because I like the look of them, but because I expect I can make "better" images with them. I expect that's why most people buy new equipment. . . .
. . . Cliff, I have to disagree with the point about writing and word processing. There lies a vast and immeasurable gulf between writing and taking photos.
Carl, I don't deny technology makes images better technologically--higher resolution, faster shutter speeds in low light, etc., that technology makes some images easier to make, and that it is rational to buy better technology. I only deny that technology makes better images in the most important sense: meaningfulness. There's a thread over at NSN about boring bird images, and there's no doubt many people are feeling boredom with the abundance of cookie-cutter, technologically perfect wildlife photos. Whether we remember an image or not, whether it has impact or not (and I'm thinking at the moment of a wide-angle Galen Rowell shot of a climber on an icy cornice, dark sky, driving snow and the rope between Rowell and his companion blown into a huge curve) has nothing to do with the recording medium.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on October 23, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Carl, good comments!
I believe we are coming at this from two different perspectives. I usually deal more with beginners and the teaching process and usually look at photography from that point of view. Technology isn't the solution for problems which I see.
I think we are both in agreement, though, for more advanced photographers. I'd never willingly give up autofocus, TTL metering and flash, autowind (or memory buffers), etc. on my 35 mm-base camera gear. It makes life a lot easier!
The middle ground - that is more unclear and there is more than enough room for both, which I believe is a good thing.
And just for kicks, I'll mention that I have been shooting 4x5 as well during the last couple of years. I'd never recommend anyone starting with THAT format as a first serious camera, especially give the quality of the current batch of digitals. It certainly gives me more respect for the work of photographers a century ago.
Posted by Carl Donohue on October 23, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Hey Clifff
3 points -
(a) generally those bird images that DO stand out are largely a function of technology - AF, IS and better automated metering.
(b) what we call "cookie-cutter" is a function of the technology being available to so many people - those particular types of images weren't cookie cutter, at one time.
(c) art moves. It's fluid. Our appreciation for it tends to be fluid. What's cutting edge, ground breaking, innovative and 'new' one day is tomorrow's cheese. I remember running into a Starbucks one afternoon with a piano player friend of mine and they had John Coltrane's Giant Steps playing in there - now it's hard for non-musicians and non-jazz-musicians to understand, but that album, when it came out and for years afterward, was probably the definition of avant-guarde, or cutting edge - it was so "new" even a lot of jazz musicians heard it and were like "what's THAT about?" -- now, years later, it's coffee lounge music. The same is true for different painting styles, writing styles, etc - and I dare say, photography.
Bringing it back a little specifically to digital gear, I'll say one other thing I think made a HUGE difference, and that's the 1.5 factor - all of a sudden a 300 2.8 was a 450mm 2.8, and so on. ISO increases meant folks were able to shoot with a 2x, even stacked TCs more often.
Speaking of cookie cutter bird on a stick images, another is the clone tool. :)
Hey Dan,
Yes, 4x5 is a different beast. It also highlights how technology makes photography "better" - that's a technology from years ago, and was at one point, the only technology available - consider how many styles of shooting are available to us now simply because cameras have a mirror, a motor drive, rolls of film, and so on - sports shooters would struggle with 4x5 technology. Of course, "better" doesn't always mean "better" - I wouldn't say Dave Black, a sports shooter, is "better" than Ansel, or that his images are "better" - but they're "better" than what they might be is he was shooting a 4x5 camera. :)
Cheers
Carl
Posted by William Vrolyk on October 24, 2007 at 11:36 AM
"But I don't agree with those folks who say it's all about the artist and the eye and their vision and whatnot when it comes to photography. People spend thousands of dollars on their gear because it DOES make a difference" --Carl.
Carl, I agree. The best tools makes the best work. State of the art equipment will give better photographs. It will not make better photographers. The best camera and lenses are not going to help you compose that little bird just right and at just at the right moment in the frame. Nor will it rouse you from sleep in the early hours of the morning so you can catch the light at just the right time.
Normally it is the already accomplished photographers and those with the greatest desire to join their ranks, that tend to buy the top of the line equipment because they want the right tools to get the kind of shots they want. They know how to take advantage of the latest technology to realize their artistic vision.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by Cliff Beittel on October 24, 2007 at 12:26 PM
. . . The best tools makes the best work. State of the art equipment will give better photographs. It will not make better photographers. . . .
Will,
The first two of those sentences seem to condradict the third. Galen Rowell on the same subject (from Galen Rowell's Inner Game of Outdoor Photography, highly recommended) wrote: ". . . a 1999 camera in the hands of a meticulous Ph.D. who studies the instruction manual won't produce as many publishable images as a 1939 camera in the hands of a person with a refined 'photographic eye'." Perhaps "publishable" is too low a standard. And perhaps we can agree the Ph.D. might make better photos with the 1999 camera than he or she would with the 1939 model, though still not matching those of skilled photographer. In others words, better equipment might help each of us make better pictures on a relative basis, but it doesn't guarantee the best--or even good--objective results, any more than the best scalpel would make everyone a great surgeon.
Posted by Carl Donohue on October 24, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Hey Cliff
Again, the other option in your (Galen's) scenario is to give the 'skilled photographer' both models and see how she fares. :)
More years ago than I care to mention, when I was a photo student and the SLR had become all the rage, one of the other students posted up on the wall an interview with the English photographer David Bailey. During the course of the interview he offered the opinion that 35mm was ruining photography as the rapidity with which the cameras could be used caused photographers to be more thoughtless of the image than if they had to go through the trouble of setting up larger format gear.
Of course being young know it all students we scoffed at the idea. Now, in hindsight, I think there is a measure of truth to it. There is nothing like lugging a 4x5 Sinar box around to concentrate the mind!
As many have mentioned, digital has offered me a range of options and quality that didn't exist with film and the photography is better for it. Many of the benefits people have mentioned, apart from the lcd to judge an image, are post production.
In the class I teach a camera is put out on display with me in front of it saying "cheese." The camera doesn't take a picture of course. A bit of a silly exercise but it does emphasize to the students that a camera doesn't take photographs, it is merely a tool.
Many of those who take the course have no ambition to become accomplished photographers but wish to be able to take better personal photographs of family and friends. Those with young children are astonished at the intimacy that lying on the floor rather than standing up will bring to their pictures.
While there is no doubt digital technology has improved the final print, as many have mentioned technology doesn't change many of the things that make a good photograph; getting up early for the dawn, the patience to wait for the right light etc.
Digital is still in its infancy. Some talk about the death of still photography as we know it as video may be soon able to deliver photographic quality images. You can have a video and pull selected images from it too. Regardless of any coming changes in technology, as Will has mentioned, the difference between a good shot or not may be the ability to set an alarm clock.
>> I don't deny technology makes images better technologically--higher resolution, faster
>> shutter speeds in low light, etc., that technology makes some images easier to make,
>> and that it is rational to buy better technology. I only deny that technology makes better
>> images in the most important sense: meaningfulness.
I am of the opnion that techological advances in the field of photogrpahy have helped me make more meaningful images - meaningful at least in my mind. This is because the more capable the camera is and the more convenient it is to operate, the more my mind is free to focus on the important task of what to photograph rather than how to photograph. A similar thing can be said about modern day digital post-processing, which helps me realize my vision more easily and precicely when compared to working in a traditional wet-darkroom. Without these tools at my disposal I am quite sure that my photography would have been languishing by the way-side. As long as I can obtain the quality I desire from a set of modern tools/processes, I'll never give it up in favor of something that is harder to use.
Posted by Cliff Beittel on October 24, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Hey Cliff
Again, the other option in your (Galen's) scenario is to give the 'skilled photographer' both models and see how she fares. :)
Carl,
I spelled that out initally in my last post (i.e., the Ph.D. would do better with a 1999 camera than one from 1939, and so would the skilled photographer), then cut the second part as wordy and understood. I haven't denied that equipment helps, only that it won't take good photos on its own. Even a digital fan like Artie Morris in a recent Bulletin talked about people shooting alongside him with the same equipment but getting less satisfactory results (just as in film times!).
Have I mentioned I'm shooting digital now? Maybe I got the wrong model, because I still have to frame the images myself. There are lots of things I like about it; I just don't see it as "changing everything," automatically producing great results, or even improving the average of what I see published. For example, Jim Zipp has a photo essay on winter owls in the current Birder's World. Great photos, many or most of which I assume are digital. But I'm old enough to remember a book on Great Greys by Robert Taylor, a Canadian photographer I met in Churchill in the mid-1990s. Taylor too had variety of great flight shots, and his would not only have been made with film but quite possibly with manual focus (Nikon! I think). So lets give the credit for great images where it's due, to Zipp and Taylor, not to their equipment.
Posted by Bill Chambers on October 24, 2007 at 3:04 PM
I think Anil brought up a great point, re: digital post processing. Personally, I think computers and programs like CS3 have had a greater effect on photography than digital cameras. However, when you combine digital cameras with digital post processing, I think you really do have the best of both worlds!
That said, it's still the PHOTOGRAPHER that makes the image. Hemingway wouldn't have been any better if he used a word processor.
Posted by Richard Wong on October 24, 2007 at 4:18 PM
"I am of the opnion that techological advances in field of photogrpahy have helped me make more meaninful images - meaningful at least in my mind. This is because the more capable the camera is and the more convenient it is to operate, the more my mind is free to focus on the important task of what to photograph rather than how to photograph."
I totally agree with Anil's statement. I have about as little technical understanding of how a camera's physics work as anybody out there but with modern equipment thankfully I don't have to know about or think about that stuff very much. Photography is very simple when it comes down to that. It's what you imagine in your mind, then its just a matter of "f8 and be there*.
Cliff, I meant "better photographs" in the sense of being sharp and clear. A cluttered, or too centered, or boring photograph will be sharper and even well exposed, but it is still a poor photograph without the skill of the photographer. And from reading through your replies I think we are on the same page.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by Steve Bunn on October 24, 2007 at 5:22 PM
I agree with the concept that digital has improved overall photography. I still currently shoot film (6x7 MF), but digital introduced the digital post processing workflow, such as post editing with PS. Since I've been doing my own scanning and post processing, I feel the quality of my photography has increased dramatically. I think it ironic that the digital revolution has actually improved what could be done with film, IMO (barring the obvious commercial impact to film and film camera manufacturers).
On the other hand, I'm not sure I agree that an easy process of capturing images results in better or more natural photography. From my experience, I think it potentially makes it worse. Before I move to MF, I shot with a Canon EOS Elan 2E, which is auto everything and also has eye focus control. Sure, there were many times I shot full manual for 'serious' shots, but there were a number of times that it was just too easy to use Program or Aperture Mode with Auto Focus. As a result, I had some shots that just didn't come out right due to OOF, DOF and exposure issues.
When I switched to a Pentax 67ii, which is manual everything (with the exception of having a metering prism), I had to take just a bit more effort setting the f-stop, exposure and focus. After quickly learning the idiosyncrasies of my meter in different lighting conditions, I've learned to be able to take two exposures of each image and always walk away with the correct exposure. With just a bit of practice, I found I could set up shots quite quickly for landscape (I don’t shoot wildlife). Now, my brain goes into automatic and I don't really think too much about the settings – but I still have to set them myself rather than allowing the camera to do it. Things have become so automatic that when I was shooting while a friend accompanied me, I had nearly forgotten I had changed film and had shot about 10 pics due to the distraction from our conversation. I almost opened up the back of the camera to change the roll of film. Even with the distraction, some of my best photographs from that morning were taken when I couldn't remember a thing about the process or even the composition of the photograph. I almost never have an issue with OOF, DOF or exposure problems anymore when shooting full manual. As such, I just don't think the process of taking a film image is really all that more difficult than digital (I use a digital for documentation at work all of the time for building investigations and observations during construction). I do admit the histogram review would be nice, as well as the ability to download the images to my computer right away, but that's another topic.
Whenever I do switch to digital, I’m probably going to shoot manual with manual focus every time, at least for landscapes.
Posted by Gary Crabbe on October 24, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Without going into the mass of great points already mentioned in this thread, I'll just add my own 2 cents.
Digital has improved the level of photography for many people, namely, those who strive to understand what they're doing. Digital has put people in control of how their photos look. With film and its fixed palette and narrow exposure latitude (esp. for slide & transparency), you had to know how the film would translate the way the world looks. If you didn't understand how your film would respond to certain mix of light, shadows, and colors, you stood far less chance of understanding how to make good images on a regular and repeated basis.
Now, computers allow people to understand through hands on experience how to manipulate their images to look better, both through tone and exposure manipulation in editing programs, as well as compositional via playing with cropping tools. Granted, I feel that many people rely on the digital aspect to "fix" their images into looking good, vs. 'getting it right in the field'.
On a personal note, I kinda hate how digital has put me into control, as I can spend too much time fiddling with images after the fact. Process something to perfection, and a month later, you see something you want to change. Then three months later you see something else. There's almost no end to how much time you 'could' spend tweaking images. In that regard, I miss the days of my slide film when, "Wham! there it is. That's how it looks, and that's how it will always look." To that end, I try to limit my investment of time by thinking of my converted image as a tansparency; a few quick tweaks, and done, finished, fixed - move on.
As to the comments mentioned about Galen, and the equipment vs. eye; when I give my lectures or workshops, I use something I call the Rose Bush Analogy. That's to say that there are two basic types of photographers; the one's that walk up and know within moments what they want, frame it carefully, and take a good shot. The other bunch walks around, explores every angle and distance combination, looks at this, looks at that...the unable to decide what they like, they simple lift their camera and say, "Aw, heck. I'll just take this". click. Equipment (other than lens selection) has nothing to do with this, and in this realm, digital has no influence whatsoever.
Digital photography lets us do experiments faster. What we ultimately decide to make visible is only as good as our aesthetic sensibility. Digital makes it easier for us to get on the carousel, but it doesn’t make it easier to grab the brass ring.
Digital has improved my photography in the same way that shotguns have improved my marksmanship.
I think that we are failing to articulate the difference between photography as an art and photography as a technology even though I hope most of us understand this at some level. The technological advances are most certainly a great advantage and we'd all be idiots to spurn that. However, photography as art is not about the latest and greatest camera; it is about who we are as a people. It is as much about expressing our personal vision as it is about accurately documenting where we've been and what we've seen.
I can only speak for myself in this context but my pictures are not in my camera --- they are in my heart. My camera is merely one tool in the process of getting what I see in my heart onto paper (or monitor, or whatever). The technology can help me to make the image but it can't help me define who I am and decide how I express that in my pictures.
My wife, as I mentioned earlier, has wonderful artistic vision but that is a function of the heart and completely separate from the realm of technology. The only thing technology can do for her is make it easier for her to make images which have the emotional impact that she sees in her heart; that is if she'd only disipline herself to learn the tools and techniques that advances in technology offer.
And that brings me to a point that I tried to make earlier ... Disipline. I still firmly believe that there is no subtitute for learning the basics and if today's students mistakenly believe that the marvelous advances in technology can relieve them of that responsibility I'm afraid the technology will be wasted on them and they will inhibit their ability to express their vision.
Recommended reading: "Photography and the Art of Seeing" by Freeman Patterson freemanpatterson.com
Bob
Posted by Carl Donohue on October 25, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Hey Robert
.. art is not about the latest and greatest camera; it is about who we are as a people.
Discussion
42 repliesTo my mind the coincidental developments in digital photography and the more readily available presentation of the digital images is not an indication of a general level of improved photography. With the advent of the Internet we see a lot more good photography which, due to publication costs and the like, wouldn't have been seen before.
Many will recall when digital graphic design programs came out employers would load it on the computers of secretaries or communications officers only to get publications that resembled ransom notes as the staff had no design training; that somehow the computer knew how to design.
In teaching a photography course for the city I find it seems the students have a similar perception of digital photography, that somehow the absence of film in favour of a computer that has a hunk of glass on the front will make them better photographers simply due to technology.
It is an issue on which I'm divided, while there is an argument to be made that digital has improved photography, so have many other advances over the years. I find that many digital users believe that the technology, in and of itself, makes them better photographers than they would be with film.
I'd be interested in others perceptions as to whether they believe digital has raised the overall calibre of photography.
I feel that digital has made it easier to get good photos when you know what you're doing, simply because the opportunity for in-field image review and correction helps prevent mistakes you can't correct once you leave the site. Along the same lines, I think digital helps students learn the mechanics of photography more quickly because of the instant feedback. But in either case, good photography depends on study, a critical eye and an informed trigger finger.
Over and above that, I think increased access is the real factor behind the perception that digital has improved photography. Yes, it's easier to find good photos and there are many more sources. But that's due to the role of computers in general and the internet specifically in bringing otherwise anonymous photos "out of the closet," so to speak.
Improvement requires 'trial and error' testing/learning and digital has greatly reduced the time required to review work and make adjustments and this has allowed some pontentially great photographers to blossom into really great ones.
Digital has also allowed greater experimentation, it has allowed for more creative exposure and composition due to not being limited by the 'get the safe shot' attitude involved in film photography, we can now try out in the field and review on the LCD screen to see if a comp or an exposure works.
Very recently I was reading a National Geographic magazine and enjoying the usual stunning photography when all of a sudden I realized that many of the photos I've seen on NPN are more impressive than those in the magazine. I started doing detailed critiquing of the photos to see why and came to the conclusion that Natural Geographic's strict policy of no digital post processing has put a cap on their ability to show the "real" essence of the scene. Sunsets and sky photos have no foreground detail (only dark shadows) or they have obvious shadow gradients from graduated density filters. If colors in the highlights are correct, the colors in the shadows are off and vice-versa because they are certainly not allowed to do selective color adjustments. There is also a clear lack of long, detailed panoramas. A recent addition has a multi-frame panorama that they felt was important to include but it was simply printed as overlapping individual photos with no stitching or exposure blending. It was actually kind of sad
Of course, experimenting is not everything, but I think that in the end, the really excellent photographers profit as much from digital technique as do the "dudes with a camera" (my category
Basil
mike
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Since I am happily stuck in the 'stone age' of large format film photography and using digital processes to create my prints, I have found that waiting days for my processed transparencies to be returned is a boon. The time spent waiting allows me to become detached from the photograph. This 'gurgle time' removes the sounds, aromas and other environmental attachments and allows me to evaluate the image on its own merits. If the image 'works' from the creative standpoint I know that I was 'seeing'. If the image 'crashes', I know I was merely 'looking'.
While digital capture does lessen the steepness of the learning curve, the immediacy of image review may short circuit critical analysis of the photograph, and may hinder development of a creative style in the long run.
-PB
My photography is better with digital purely because of the ease of using LCD and histogram to affirm or contradict my estimates of exposure. What used to take a notebook, pen and the time to process film now takes a few seconds.
Such convenience CAN lead to laziness of technique, so I'm very careful that I don't let that happen. Still does, now and then, but on balance digital is a bigger boon than bane for me.
But, digital does absolutely nothing for the multitudes of people who don't want to put any effort into learning how to take a picture, or into how to use the equipment properly. It seems that many, many people simply cannot believe that all this fabulous technology can't make their little camera take stunning pictures every time.
How easy is it today to post a photo on this forum and receive relatively immediate feedback, and then make subtle (or not so subtle) changes to the image based on that immediate feedback?
It's the ease of getting great feedback and suggestions and learn quickly from those with more experience that makes me thankful to be here. That wouldn't be possible without digital.
Another boon of digital is the ease with which we're able to share images with others. My father-in-law was a professional photographer and he has album after album, box after box, and drawer after drawer of great photos that no one is able to see unless you visit his house. Sure, he could scan his photos, but I doubt that's ever going to happen. I can share my images with family and friends around the world immediately.
So, digital has given me better learning tools to get the techs right and the use of digital has exposed me to the wealth of info here to learn the creative side.
I agree the tool (camera) is only part of the equation. However, my digital camera has expanded my horizons and opened creative doors and avenues of learning that were much harder to achieve when I was a captive of film.
I don't see that photography has gotten any better in the last 10-15 years. It is still the photographer, not the camera, that makes the image worth looking at.
On the other hand, digital has made it far easier to improve for individual photographers. The learning curve, at least in-camera, is very user friendly. The immediate feedback is definitely a huge edge. You can get a good idea is to whether or not you got the picture correct right there in the field, and make adjustments accordingly.
Having said that, I am glad I learned on film, especially Velvia. If you can get consistently get slide film correct without the immediate feedback, digital is becomes almost trivial to shoot.
Exactly. It's analgous to writing. A word processor makes it easier, but doesn't do the meaningful part.
Add to that the fact the photography comes to us in this modern day with outdated baggage and we have a problem. In the early days plate emulsion was so slow that it was almost impossible to get a sharp photo of anything moving. Since photography was primarily used for portraiture an unspoken rule emerged that resulted in the belief that a photo with any blurr is bad. The calender and postcard/travel industry has taught us yet another unspoken rule that blue skies and puffy clouds constitute the only good photos. Hence, it does not occur to most people to try to make photographs in foul weather. These are only two of the creative-stifling baggage to which I referred. Digital, in the mind of most people now makes it so easy to "get it right" that many of these fallacies continue to be reinforced at the expense of creative thought and at the expense of creative advancement and general acceptance.
End of rant
Bob
I wonder, could it be that reducing this learning curve and thereby creating more good photographers more quickly, will more quickly lead to the dumping of the outdated baggage that Bob mentioned?
I might suggest that all kinds of technologies have "improved photography". Photography is by its very nature a function of technology .. I think it's clearly different to painting, writing, story telling, dance, singing, music, etc - though music has branched out enormously with technology advances. But I don't agree with those folks who say it's all abut the artist and the eye and their vision and whatnot when it comes to photography. People spend thousands of dollars on their gear because it DOES make a difference. As a footnoe, I'm not simply talking about digital gear either, but all the AF, metering, IS/VR, motor drive, etc advances over the years. I want to buy a D300 or a D3 when they're available, not because I like the look of them, but because I expect I can make "better" images with them. I expect that's why most people buy new equipment.
Aso, I think this is where it's unreasonable to talk of 'nature photography' as inclusive off landscape and wildlife/bird photography - I think, in general, the technologies have been hugely beneficial to wildlife shooters, and maybe marginally so to landscape photographers.
Cliff, I have to disagree with the point about writing and word processing. There lies a vast and immeasurable gulf between writing and taking photos.
Cheers
Carl
I've given a lot of beginner's talks, intro to compostion, and critiqued a lot of photos locally. Far too often, I've seen poor photos that clearly would have not improved with the latest lens or camera, and the owner of the photo simply not seeing what is wrong with the image. And on more than one occasion, I've seen top end gear used with bottom end understanding. For them, the poor photos which resulted were "clearly" the fault of the camera or lens.
Once the basics are mastered, then yes, I think equipment does make more of a difference in realizing your vision. Digital has been a great tool for reaching this development point far faster than any time in the past.
Photos from top end equipment are limited by the skills of the user. I think too often, people get hung up on technology and forget about the process.
Thanks for your reply.
I'm sure in any kind of discussion like this, there are differing ends of the spectrums, and on each end there are different "answers". And yes, I'm sure, for beginning photographers, there's still a lot they can learn that will improve their photography. On the other end of the spectrum are those people who aren't beginners. Most of the folks posting on the various nature photo sites around the web, that I visit, seem to fit the latter. IMO, a question such as this one is more appropriately posed in reference to those people than those who might be just beginning - I can't see the point in wondering is the standard for beginning photographers higher than it was previously - surely all beginners start, ironically enough, at the beginning. And for those people who have some understanding of the concepts of photography, I think all technologies make a huge difference, far more than more photographers care to admit.
Here's the classic example of the cloak photographers tend to hide behind:
"gear makes no difference. Give Art Wolf an instomatic and Joan Blow a 1D MKII and I guarantee Art brings back the better image, almost every time."
True 'nuff.
Conversely, give Art Wolf an instomatic AND a 1D MKII and I bet ya he'll bring home better images on his MK II, every time.
I don't think the basics need to be 'mastered' - I think that's something we hide behind .. a simple understanding of those basics is not a challenge for most people, in my experience. I doubt they are ever 'mastered', and I doubt they need be.
That said, I've certainly seen a lot of folks using high end gear shooting images that I was scratching my head thinking 'what on earth are they shooting THAT for?" - ever been to Brooks Camp? :-)
Further,
then it makes sense that their photography 'improves'. Surely if we get to point A sooner, we'll get to points B, C & D at some point earlier than had we been moving slower; we might never have got past A or, even got to point A .. and there are a number of folks who were frustrated at slow progress shooting film who ceased shooting altogether .. so I'd say for most people, it's reasonable that their photography is enhanced by digital technology .. as it is by most of the major technological advances that came/come along. Again, I'll point out that I think these advances have been far more beneficial to the wildlife or maybe sports shooter, not to a landscape or even portraiture photographer.
Cheers
Carl
Carl, I don't deny technology makes images better technologically--higher resolution, faster shutter speeds in low light, etc., that technology makes some images easier to make, and that it is rational to buy better technology. I only deny that technology makes better images in the most important sense: meaningfulness. There's a thread over at NSN about boring bird images, and there's no doubt many people are feeling boredom with the abundance of cookie-cutter, technologically perfect wildlife photos. Whether we remember an image or not, whether it has impact or not (and I'm thinking at the moment of a wide-angle Galen Rowell shot of a climber on an icy cornice, dark sky, driving snow and the rope between Rowell and his companion blown into a huge curve) has nothing to do with the recording medium.
I believe we are coming at this from two different perspectives. I usually deal more with beginners and the teaching process and usually look at photography from that point of view. Technology isn't the solution for problems which I see.
I think we are both in agreement, though, for more advanced photographers. I'd never willingly give up autofocus, TTL metering and flash, autowind (or memory buffers), etc. on my 35 mm-base camera gear. It makes life a lot easier!
The middle ground - that is more unclear and there is more than enough room for both, which I believe is a good thing.
And just for kicks, I'll mention that I have been shooting 4x5 as well during the last couple of years. I'd never recommend anyone starting with THAT format as a first serious camera, especially give the quality of the current batch of digitals. It certainly gives me more respect for the work of photographers a century ago.
3 points -
(a) generally those bird images that DO stand out are largely a function of technology - AF, IS and better automated metering.
(b) what we call "cookie-cutter" is a function of the technology being available to so many people - those particular types of images weren't cookie cutter, at one time.
(c) art moves. It's fluid. Our appreciation for it tends to be fluid. What's cutting edge, ground breaking, innovative and 'new' one day is tomorrow's cheese. I remember running into a Starbucks one afternoon with a piano player friend of mine and they had John Coltrane's Giant Steps playing in there - now it's hard for non-musicians and non-jazz-musicians to understand, but that album, when it came out and for years afterward, was probably the definition of avant-guarde, or cutting edge - it was so "new" even a lot of jazz musicians heard it and were like "what's THAT about?" -- now, years later, it's coffee lounge music. The same is true for different painting styles, writing styles, etc - and I dare say, photography.
Bringing it back a little specifically to digital gear, I'll say one other thing I think made a HUGE difference, and that's the 1.5 factor - all of a sudden a 300 2.8 was a 450mm 2.8, and so on. ISO increases meant folks were able to shoot with a 2x, even stacked TCs more often.
Speaking of cookie cutter bird on a stick images, another is the clone tool. :)
Hey Dan,
Yes, 4x5 is a different beast. It also highlights how technology makes photography "better" - that's a technology from years ago, and was at one point, the only technology available - consider how many styles of shooting are available to us now simply because cameras have a mirror, a motor drive, rolls of film, and so on - sports shooters would struggle with 4x5 technology. Of course, "better" doesn't always mean "better" - I wouldn't say Dave Black, a sports shooter, is "better" than Ansel, or that his images are "better" - but they're "better" than what they might be is he was shooting a 4x5 camera. :)
Cheers
Carl
Carl, I agree. The best tools makes the best work. State of the art equipment will give better photographs. It will not make better photographers. The best camera and lenses are not going to help you compose that little bird just right and at just at the right moment in the frame. Nor will it rouse you from sleep in the early hours of the morning so you can catch the light at just the right time.
Normally it is the already accomplished photographers and those with the greatest desire to join their ranks, that tend to buy the top of the line equipment because they want the right tools to get the kind of shots they want. They know how to take advantage of the latest technology to realize their artistic vision.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Will,
The first two of those sentences seem to condradict the third. Galen Rowell on the same subject (from Galen Rowell's Inner Game of Outdoor Photography, highly recommended) wrote: ". . . a 1999 camera in the hands of a meticulous Ph.D. who studies the instruction manual won't produce as many publishable images as a 1939 camera in the hands of a person with a refined 'photographic eye'." Perhaps "publishable" is too low a standard. And perhaps we can agree the Ph.D. might make better photos with the 1999 camera than he or she would with the 1939 model, though still not matching those of skilled photographer. In others words, better equipment might help each of us make better pictures on a relative basis, but it doesn't guarantee the best--or even good--objective results, any more than the best scalpel would make everyone a great surgeon.
Again, the other option in your (Galen's) scenario is to give the 'skilled photographer' both models and see how she fares. :)
Cheers
Carl
More years ago than I care to mention, when I was a photo student and the SLR had become all the rage, one of the other students posted up on the wall an interview with the English photographer David Bailey. During the course of the interview he offered the opinion that 35mm was ruining photography as the rapidity with which the cameras could be used caused photographers to be more thoughtless of the image than if they had to go through the trouble of setting up larger format gear.
Of course being young know it all students we scoffed at the idea. Now, in hindsight, I think there is a measure of truth to it. There is nothing like lugging a 4x5 Sinar box around to concentrate the mind!
As many have mentioned, digital has offered me a range of options and quality that didn't exist with film and the photography is better for it. Many of the benefits people have mentioned, apart from the lcd to judge an image, are post production.
In the class I teach a camera is put out on display with me in front of it saying "cheese." The camera doesn't take a picture of course. A bit of a silly exercise but it does emphasize to the students that a camera doesn't take photographs, it is merely a tool.
Many of those who take the course have no ambition to become accomplished photographers but wish to be able to take better personal photographs of family and friends. Those with young children are astonished at the intimacy that lying on the floor rather than standing up will bring to their pictures.
While there is no doubt digital technology has improved the final print, as many have mentioned technology doesn't change many of the things that make a good photograph; getting up early for the dawn, the patience to wait for the right light etc.
Digital is still in its infancy. Some talk about the death of still photography as we know it as video may be soon able to deliver photographic quality images. You can have a video and pull selected images from it too. Regardless of any coming changes in technology, as Will has mentioned, the difference between a good shot or not may be the ability to set an alarm clock.
>> shutter speeds in low light, etc., that technology makes some images easier to make,
>> and that it is rational to buy better technology. I only deny that technology makes better
>> images in the most important sense: meaningfulness.
I am of the opnion that techological advances in the field of photogrpahy have helped me make more meaningful images - meaningful at least in my mind. This is because the more capable the camera is and the more convenient it is to operate, the more my mind is free to focus on the important task of what to photograph rather than how to photograph. A similar thing can be said about modern day digital post-processing, which helps me realize my vision more easily and precicely when compared to working in a traditional wet-darkroom. Without these tools at my disposal I am quite sure that my photography would have been languishing by the way-side. As long as I can obtain the quality I desire from a set of modern tools/processes, I'll never give it up in favor of something that is harder to use.
Carl,
I spelled that out initally in my last post (i.e., the Ph.D. would do better with a 1999 camera than one from 1939, and so would the skilled photographer), then cut the second part as wordy and understood. I haven't denied that equipment helps, only that it won't take good photos on its own. Even a digital fan like Artie Morris in a recent Bulletin talked about people shooting alongside him with the same equipment but getting less satisfactory results (just as in film times!).
Have I mentioned I'm shooting digital now? Maybe I got the wrong model, because I still have to frame the images myself.
That said, it's still the PHOTOGRAPHER that makes the image. Hemingway wouldn't have been any better if he used a word processor.
I totally agree with Anil's statement. I have about as little technical understanding of how a camera's physics work as anybody out there but with modern equipment thankfully I don't have to know about or think about that stuff very much. Photography is very simple when it comes down to that. It's what you imagine in your mind, then its just a matter of "f8 and be there*.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
On the other hand, I'm not sure I agree that an easy process of capturing images results in better or more natural photography. From my experience, I think it potentially makes it worse. Before I move to MF, I shot with a Canon EOS Elan 2E, which is auto everything and also has eye focus control. Sure, there were many times I shot full manual for 'serious' shots, but there were a number of times that it was just too easy to use Program or Aperture Mode with Auto Focus. As a result, I had some shots that just didn't come out right due to OOF, DOF and exposure issues.
When I switched to a Pentax 67ii, which is manual everything (with the exception of having a metering prism), I had to take just a bit more effort setting the f-stop, exposure and focus. After quickly learning the idiosyncrasies of my meter in different lighting conditions, I've learned to be able to take two exposures of each image and always walk away with the correct exposure. With just a bit of practice, I found I could set up shots quite quickly for landscape (I don’t shoot wildlife). Now, my brain goes into automatic and I don't really think too much about the settings – but I still have to set them myself rather than allowing the camera to do it. Things have become so automatic that when I was shooting while a friend accompanied me, I had nearly forgotten I had changed film and had shot about 10 pics due to the distraction from our conversation. I almost opened up the back of the camera to change the roll of film. Even with the distraction, some of my best photographs from that morning were taken when I couldn't remember a thing about the process or even the composition of the photograph. I almost never have an issue with OOF, DOF or exposure problems anymore when shooting full manual. As such, I just don't think the process of taking a film image is really all that more difficult than digital (I use a digital for documentation at work all of the time for building investigations and observations during construction). I do admit the histogram review would be nice, as well as the ability to download the images to my computer right away, but that's another topic.
Whenever I do switch to digital, I’m probably going to shoot manual with manual focus every time, at least for landscapes.
Digital has improved the level of photography for many people, namely, those who strive to understand what they're doing. Digital has put people in control of how their photos look. With film and its fixed palette and narrow exposure latitude (esp. for slide & transparency), you had to know how the film would translate the way the world looks. If you didn't understand how your film would respond to certain mix of light, shadows, and colors, you stood far less chance of understanding how to make good images on a regular and repeated basis.
Now, computers allow people to understand through hands on experience how to manipulate their images to look better, both through tone and exposure manipulation in editing programs, as well as compositional via playing with cropping tools. Granted, I feel that many people rely on the digital aspect to "fix" their images into looking good, vs. 'getting it right in the field'.
On a personal note, I kinda hate how digital has put me into control, as I can spend too much time fiddling with images after the fact. Process something to perfection, and a month later, you see something you want to change. Then three months later you see something else. There's almost no end to how much time you 'could' spend tweaking images. In that regard, I miss the days of my slide film when, "Wham! there it is. That's how it looks, and that's how it will always look." To that end, I try to limit my investment of time by thinking of my converted image as a tansparency; a few quick tweaks, and done, finished, fixed - move on.
As to the comments mentioned about Galen, and the equipment vs. eye; when I give my lectures or workshops, I use something I call the Rose Bush Analogy. That's to say that there are two basic types of photographers; the one's that walk up and know within moments what they want, frame it carefully, and take a good shot. The other bunch walks around, explores every angle and distance combination, looks at this, looks at that...the unable to decide what they like, they simple lift their camera and say, "Aw, heck. I'll just take this". click. Equipment (other than lens selection) has nothing to do with this, and in this realm, digital has no influence whatsoever.
Digital has improved my photography in the same way that shotguns have improved my marksmanship.
Pete D.
I can only speak for myself in this context but my pictures are not in my camera --- they are in my heart. My camera is merely one tool in the process of getting what I see in my heart onto paper (or monitor, or whatever). The technology can help me to make the image but it can't help me define who I am and decide how I express that in my pictures.
My wife, as I mentioned earlier, has wonderful artistic vision but that is a function of the heart and completely separate from the realm of technology. The only thing technology can do for her is make it easier for her to make images which have the emotional impact that she sees in her heart; that is if she'd only disipline herself to learn the tools and techniques that advances in technology offer.
And that brings me to a point that I tried to make earlier ... Disipline. I still firmly believe that there is no subtitute for learning the basics and if today's students mistakenly believe that the marvelous advances in technology can relieve them of that responsibility I'm afraid the technology will be wasted on them and they will inhibit their ability to express their vision.
Recommended reading: "Photography and the Art of Seeing" by Freeman Patterson freemanpatterson.com
Bob
Beautiful man, beautiful. Thanks.
Cheers
Carl