Bill. 
Reading your post I find myself thinking that what you basically are saying,
is that you have become a lazy photographer. Lazy photographer as in - "a
photographer who shoots wildly, and has stopped reflecting". Am I right
about this? If not, please do ignore this friendly intended post.

Between the lines I also read that you blame your new digital tools. If my
interpretation of your statements are correct, then let me freely (not to
freely I hope) say that you have got it totally wrong. 

Photography is craftsmanship, and sometimes (a tiny bit of) art. And a
craftsman needs to keep his tools sharp.

As a photographer, digital or not, you have a set of tools. One of the tools
is the camera. The camera is (if it manual), a simple recorder. In other
words, it is memory, no more, no less. Whether it is digital or film does
not matter. It still is memory. If it's automatic, it is also a meter (like
a carpenters meter), and a calculator. Nothing more, nothing less. 

But the main tool is you, your emotions, and you reflections. And that’s the
most complicated tool. To me it looks like you have become obsessed with the
least important parts of your equipment, the stuff, "your enablement's",
your Limited, your LX, your D, your Lditt, your MZdatt. 
Here let me add one thing. I'm a bit obsessed with the stuff myself now and
then. My Ds, my FA*, my Element 3 and so on. But when I find my self
spending to much time on them, I don't blame them. I go out and shoot. And I
make myself shoot slow. Sometimes I do as Ivan Shukster, shoot with a
tripod, forcing myself to shoot slowly, reflecting. With my digital tools,
and using my main tool: 
Me, myself and I. Sharpening myself, hopefully turning me into a better
photographer.

Back to the carpenter: Imagine him saying 
"I've given this some thought over the past couple of days, and honestly, I
think the Stanley Digital Laser-Meter has, if anything, made me a worse
carpenter". 
What would your reactions be? Do you really think his brand new beeping
meter was to blame?


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian.)

Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds 
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)


-----Original Message-----
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 27. juli 2005 16:40
To: Pentax Discuss
Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?

I've given this some thought over the past couple of days, and honestly, I
think digital has, if anything, made me a worse photographer, rather than a
better one.
I find myself making a dozen exposures when I only need to make one. I find
myself taking pictures of things that are inherently unphotogenic.
One of the skills I have spent years developing in myself is an efficiency
of process. One thing I really don't like to waste is my time (this mail
list is the exception).
Digital wastes my time.
Too many exposures made, too many exposures to look at to be meaningful
anymore.
The product of a mind becoming less disciplined, less thoughtful, more
willing to take a mad bomber approach to photography.
This is a complete change from my work in large format, where every exposure
made was at a cost, both in money and time, but also in ability to make
another exposure later that session.
When one is limited to making no more than a few dozen exposures before
taking a time out to reload film holders, which may not be conveniently
done, one looks hard before tripping the shutter.
When one is putting out a couple of dollars every time he trips the shutter,
he thinks a bit about doing it.
When every frame has to be put into a tank and processed, one thinks about
how much time will be spent doing the mundane task of film processing, and
thinks about how many tanks of film are ahead of him.

Digital is a tempting little whore, and it is easy to talk oneself into
thinking it makes us better by applying outdated criteria to what we are
doing, but I have my doubts, based on my own experience, as to whether there
is any truth or not to it making us better photographers.
It enforces nothing on us, it requires no discipline in approach, and no
skill in operation; the two main ingredients in becoming a better
photographer are missing.

William Robb








Reply via email to