I was shocked to read, in July's Outdoor Photography, that Niall Benvie has bought a D2x. It seems like only a year ago he was saying he saw no need in his work for digital capture. His article sounds very bitter about the effects of digital on wildlife phtographers. I admire Niall's work, and even more his drive to communicate issues as well as pushing for recognition of wildlife photography as art. I see him as one of the most inspiring photographers, and so I was slightly unsettled by the tone of the article.
He makes some good points about time spent in front of the computer, but statements like "The argument that the greater control and choices offered by digital capture is empowering is fallacious," don't match up with my experience. I beleive for many non-pro photographers, the fact that they don't have to pay for film has led to them spending more time in touch with nature. I know that I am driven to go out and use my camera by the knowledge that I have spent the money on it, and using it is essentially free. I have my camera set up to behave exactly like my old F4- using the aperture ring on the lens instead of the command dial, shooting RAW so that there are no more in-camera settings that effect the image than there were with film (it's still just exposure length, aperture, ISO sensitivity and focus that need to be selected in the field). However, it was an impassioned article that did make me think, and has reminded me of whether the priorities should lie.
In contrast, Nick Sullivan's Photoshop pages were completely useless, and would put me off digital capture- two pages of instructions to make an image (at least how it looked printed in the magazine) less saturated, blow out what detail there was in the sky, and make it look flatter. I have never been impressed with anything Nick has produced for Outdoor Photography- and some of his advice has been dubious at best. A while back he advised someone who wanted to upgrade their film SLR to buy a new F80 for £300 or more, when at the same time the crash in film bodies on the used market meant they could buy a used F5 for the same money.
What do other people think of the issues raised by Niall in July's Outdoor Photography?
Don't believe everything you read!
I have a copy of Nial's book "Creative Landscape Photography" and in the final chapter he is extolling the virtues of digital capture, using a humble Fugi S1.
Many pros sit in front of computers now, not to manipulate images, but to catalogue them with assigned keywords, to send them to agencies and to do the accounts........all these things were done before digital capture came along, only they might not have been done on a puter.
As to OP; I don't subscribe to it and haven't been to a dentist or doctor surgery for a good few months now so I couldn't comment.
John
Sitting in front of a puter sending shots taken this w/e to editors for printing tomorrow
I have always admired benvie for his ethics not just on digital but captive animals as well. I'm sure there is a place for digital in the more traditional outdoors-based unmanipulated wildlife photography, but the competition from tweaked images (and increasingly freely donated) is so great if you need to make a living from it in our increasingly artificial media-centred competitive world. I hate it like I hate cars and wonder whether to give both up. You see, IMO ethics as well as anything goes competition are often unempowering, just as benvie predicts! Is Ben Johnson the fastest man on Earth or a cheat? Depends on your ethics. Photography hasn't yet a dope test. The only dopes are the like of me who choose to put the more spiritual elements of wildlife and photography foremost, and the computer bit the last.
I like Nialls pictures. I wonder where he stands on digital capture and not needing to use chemical processing now he has theD2x . We always mourn the passing of the old ways .
I recently went to Jessops to get some velvia(100) and provia and was told they were discontinued....
I am sure his point about slowing down the picture taking process and the "buzz" from trying not to "waste" valuable film is valid we just have to put the same effort into dgitital capture.
IMVHO
Discussion
5 repliesHe makes some good points about time spent in front of the computer, but statements like "The argument that the greater control and choices offered by digital capture is empowering is fallacious," don't match up with my experience. I beleive for many non-pro photographers, the fact that they don't have to pay for film has led to them spending more time in touch with nature. I know that I am driven to go out and use my camera by the knowledge that I have spent the money on it, and using it is essentially free. I have my camera set up to behave exactly like my old F4- using the aperture ring on the lens instead of the command dial, shooting RAW so that there are no more in-camera settings that effect the image than there were with film (it's still just exposure length, aperture, ISO sensitivity and focus that need to be selected in the field). However, it was an impassioned article that did make me think, and has reminded me of whether the priorities should lie.
In contrast, Nick Sullivan's Photoshop pages were completely useless, and would put me off digital capture- two pages of instructions to make an image (at least how it looked printed in the magazine) less saturated, blow out what detail there was in the sky, and make it look flatter. I have never been impressed with anything Nick has produced for Outdoor Photography- and some of his advice has been dubious at best. A while back he advised someone who wanted to upgrade their film SLR to buy a new F80 for £300 or more, when at the same time the crash in film bodies on the used market meant they could buy a used F5 for the same money.
What do other people think of the issues raised by Niall in July's Outdoor Photography?
I have a copy of Nial's book "Creative Landscape Photography" and in the final chapter he is extolling the virtues of digital capture, using a humble Fugi S1.
Many pros sit in front of computers now, not to manipulate images, but to catalogue them with assigned keywords, to send them to agencies and to do the accounts........all these things were done before digital capture came along, only they might not have been done on a puter.
As to OP; I don't subscribe to it and haven't been to a dentist or doctor surgery for a good few months now so I couldn't comment.
John
Sitting in front of a puter sending shots taken this w/e to editors for printing tomorrow
Dave
Forest of Dean, UK
I recently went to Jessops to get some velvia(100) and provia and was told they were discontinued....
I am sure his point about slowing down the picture taking process and the "buzz" from trying not to "waste" valuable film is valid we just have to put the same effort into dgitital capture.
IMVHO