Interesting analysis. I agree mostly with the concepts but don't I believe
there's enough cause/effect relationship to say that a digital camera makes
one a better photographer. I would say the answer to the question is still
'No'. As you have alluded to, that's mostly up to the person behind the
viewfinder.
I do believe that, even if one does not learn how to 'see' better, it allows
the opportunity to correct a flaw noticed on the instant review and either
make the correction or alter the perspective or composition. Does that
constitute being a 'better photographer'?
It may be true if applying a quantitative definition, but not necesarially a
qualitative one. Even a person that takes blase photographs, say a real
estate agent, can use the camera in this manner to achieve a better success
rate, but did it make them a better photographer?
Tom C.
From: Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:28:20 +0200
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.
<snip>
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.
<snip>
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.)
