In a message dated 1/18/2003 11:33:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> What really bothers me about the whole "film vs. digital" question FOR ME > PERSONALLY--I mean as it works itself out and manifests itself in my own > photographic work--is that I'm coming to believe that I may take better > pictures when I have access to the formidable working-method advantages of > digital. > > Learning to photograph is a servo-mechanism type of process. You try things, > then see how they look; try more things, and see how they look. As you > accrue experience, you learn what the materials are going to do, and you > learn how to work with them to get good results and to get the results you > anticipate. But still, at the very least, there is for me at least half a > day between trying something and seeing how it looks. And sometimes that gap > can extend for long periods of time, sometimes months or even a year or > more! > > Working with the Sony F-707 which I just sold two weeks ago, I've noticed a > few things that have an impact on my working method. First of all, rotating > the camera and looking down on the LCD finder helps me compose pictures. > I've always liked Rollei-type viewfinders--looking at a more nearly > 2-dimensional view helps me envision the picture as a 2-dimensional print. > > But that's minor compared to the biggest advantage which is the immediate > feedback WHILE you are shooting. The time-gap between "trying something" and > "seeing how you did" goes from a minimum of hours, and more likely days or > weeks, down to literally nothing. What this has meant for me is that I > either shoot MORE on the spot--because I can clearly see that what I thought > I got, I didn't actually get--or I shoot LESS on the spot, because I can see > that I already got what I was after. And just as often, it changes what I > shoot altogether--I see that my initial idea isn't terribly good, but there > is something else that is working better. > > So here's my personal dilemma. What if I'm just plain and simple a BETTER > PHOTOGRAPHER when I have the advantage of immediate feedback while working? > What if it helps me get pictures I wouldn't have gotten otherwise? What if > it increases my "hit rate," and improves the successfulness of my successful > pictures? > > This really bothers me. I honestly suspect it may be true. I suspect I may > actually do better work in digital, simply because I can see what I'm doing. > > The other half of my personal dilemma is the B&W vs. color problem, but > that's a personal issue. I think it's obvious that B&W is better with > traditional materials, film and photo paper and an enlarger. So I've been > shooting in color with digital. I'm just plain not sure whether I want to be > a color photographer. As I discussed with Marnie, I've always liked B&W > better. > > At the moment, I still consider myself a film photographer...a B&W 35mm > photographer, like I've always been. But I waver now. My > thinking goes back > and forth. That's why I will be going digital when I can afford it. That little window on the back of the camera that shows what you just shot. That would allow me to recompose a shot if I felt it didn't work out well and take it again, immediately. I see that as a fantastic aid to composition, alone (not counting other things that it is a probably an aid to). Did that telephone along the side make it into the frame? Or did I successfully leave it out? Not always so easy to know when the viewfinder may not be 100%. Also easier on older nearsighted eyes. Did that stretch looking up the canyon work out right, or should it have been more to the left or right? When one is taking pictures "out in the field" with a film camera one is making judgement calls all the time. So it seems to me the major difference between digital and film is that it lets one see the result of those calls right now, so new judgement calls can be made on the spot. With a film camera one may have to return to shoot another roll later to correct earlier incorrect judgement calls. Which sometimes is an option, and sometimes is not. And often is a pain. IMHO, no one has to feel bad about liking that little window on the back of digital cameras. After all, photography is a visual art/craft and that window is a visual aid. Does it make one a lesser photographer? No, it's just a better visual tool than what's been available before, that's all. Like better oil paints, when they were developed, were a better painting aid. Well, nothing really works as an analogy, can't think of one right now, anyway, but I am sure there are some out there. I really love the idea that that window could let me know immediately how something I tried worked out. Instead of having to travel back to where I was on another day and trying it again. Because that would free me up to try MORE things, instead of correcting previous things or retrying previous things. When I can afford it. When the DSLR are good enough. When Epson comes out with a lower priced good printer. Not that far off, but not that long off anymore. I, personally, think it's an exciting time to be living in as regards photography, and I am glad I took it up right now. Because gives me time to learn some film camera stuff and get it down as much as possible, without also wedding me to it. Microwaves are often used more than ovens. Does that mean the cook is any less a cook? (Thought of one.) I don't think so. And I am sure the B&W inkjet printer problem can be solved. So I wouldn't agonize over wanting that little window. It IS digital's nicest feature and one, if it had been at all possible, people would have *demanded* be put on film cameras, just like DOF preview. I certainly want it -- a lot! (Probably that little window has some goofy "technical" name, I know, I know -- I've only seen it demoed once so far.) Doe aka Marnie ;-)
