Despite of what I've said earlier, about the camera being just a recorder, not a very significant part of the photographic tools, I do believe the answer to the title question is yes, a simple yes. Going digital has improved my skill a lot.
I am working hard on this, and for the hard working student I believe digital photo is a better way of learning. On the other hand, I am not so sure about P&S photographers. Going bazooka with the P&S without putting any real effort into it prevents you from thinking, from analysing the process and the result. For me digital photo allows me to shoot a lot, without thinking of the costs. But it doesnt mean that I shoot faster, and stop analysing. What I've said before is nothing more than what others have stated before me in this thread. Give me a moment or two, to substantiate my thesis from a more professional (pedagogical) point of view. (I am a trained social worker, with pedagogic processes as one of my specialities). My arguments are based in behaviouristic psychological theory. One very important factor is the INSTANT FEEDBACK digital photo allows. (If you gets bored reading this, simply jump directly to the last paragraph, or do something else) Still reading? Ok. Let me give you an example illustrating the importance of instant feedback: Some of you may have heard about "computer assisted learning". The most known example of this concept is learning mathematics assisted by a computer program. This is widely used in school, training slow learners. Basically they work like this: The computer presents a task for the student. The student suggests a solution, and then the program responds. Right or wrong. Properly used those programs are a great success. Why? If you look closely for an answer you will find two things most of these programs have in common. 1. They are pretty crappy ;-) 2. They give instant feedback to the user. There is little doubt about that the speed is the main success factor. The best of these programs also have one other thing in common. The learning curve is suitable for the student. At first it is easy, and gradually it turns more and more difficult, but not too difficult. (If the student gets to many "wrongs", he gets bored, feels like a looser, and his attention goes elsewhere). Guess you have already picked up my point here (if you havent, then I have been a lousy teacher). Regarding the technical aspect the digital camera gives me instant feedback. Every time I push the button, it gives me a picture (as long as I have remembered to remove the lens cap). Most times the picture looks ok at first glance. If I'm not so sure about the technical quality, I simply push the info button. Viola, a histogram! I can push it one more time to remind me how I got this picture on screen. When done I can push the info button one more time, evaluating the content of the picture. I can see if the picture on screen is the same as the one I had inside my head when pushing the release button. Some times they actually do match. That makes me feel like a king. That makes me eager to go on. Most times they don't match. I see something in the background that I didnt see in the first place. Or something else is wrong. Ok, then I tries one more time. Perhaps I move one step to the right, or perhaps I open the aperture to make the background out of focus. You have already got the idea. The first part of this process trains my technical skills. The last part trains my eye and stimulates my mind (my most important photographic tools). Gradually, as I get better, the success rate increases. And from my experience it already has done that. A lot. The importance of rapid feedback when learning is well known among most behaviourists. We learn by getting feedback on the things we do. And the feedback has more impact when it comes directly/instantly. Let me try to explain why. If your brain has been occupied with other things while waiting for the feedback, then it is harder to connect your previous actions with the feedback (the result of your action). 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: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28. juli 2005 19:36 To: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Hello Shel, Certainly for me, what constitutes desired exposure is not exactly the same for digital as it was for film. Not having been one to have my own lab when shooting film, I really relied on the consistancy of the lab to produce from my exposures. With digital, I am now my own lab (develop and process - not print). So I am taking a deeper interest into the exposure issue than I did with film. Probably because I can do something about it and see more directly the results of my exposure and processing. I do agree that you will need a different frame of mind when shooting digital from film. As you switch back and forth, you'll need to use the knowledge you have gained for that particular medium. -- Bruce Thursday, July 28, 2005, 10:20:42 AM, you wrote: SB> Hi Tim, >snip< SB> I don't expect digital to improve my eye, quicken my reflexes, or teach me SB> much about composition, although it will affect the way I see and work with SB> light. That troubles me a bit, so I'll have to watch that closely when SB> going from digi to B&W film. SB> Shel
