Bill. Now I think do understand better your feelings about digital. You used to spend a lot of time in the lab. Thats a lot of work, under poor working conditions. I have processed some films, so I know that.
But mostly I shoot slides, and did not process them myself. I framed them yes, but I used simple CS frames, and the bin took care of the bad shot, directly. For me digital is different. At least now in the beginner face. I spend more time looking at the bad shoots before binning them. I also spend a lot of time converting, trying to tweak the most out of them. So for me, most of the shots represent work after shooting. And that gives me a completely different perspective. For some reason this makes me think of fishing. Some fishers takes care of the fish after fishing, others leaves that part to the wife. I would say that only the first category is real fishers. Apparently this is totally OT. But if its true, then digital has turned me into a real photographer ;-) 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: 29. juli 2005 00:45 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Øsleby" Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? > 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. Only with the digital, but yes. I don't really bother to differentiate much between worthwhile and otherwise with the digital. I figure I got it in my sights, I may as well shoot at it. Well exposed, questionably composed dreck. BTW, has anyone found that since they pretty much stopped shooting film, they have more funds available for gear? Thats a benefit. But I digress. > > 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. For the past two years, I have shot pretty much entirely digital. I shot a few rolls of 35mm chrome last September, a few rolls of print film because I needed some wide angle stuff, and one roll on the 6x7, of a large family group. And some 9000 digital exposures. With film, I don't think I have ever shot much more than a thousand exposures a year for myself, most of it large format B&W, or 6x7 B&W, and a smattering of other stuff, either slide or print in whatever 35mm camera was at hand. Film demands a time investment from me. It's not something I drop off at the lab. For that reason, I watch what I shoot, when I shoot film. With no time commitment after the fact, there is no constraint on not shooting the picture. I am there, it's in my sights, why not? But it's not good photography, for sure. > > 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. Theres where you and I don't agree. Film and memory is different. Film requires a bigger commitment of time for me, since I am my own lab. This changes how I feel about the medium. I can pull the trigger or not. There are no consequences, one way or the other. The shutter clicks, the image is captured, made into a prisoner, or worse, is "saved" as an ephemeral non thing, it's salvation often leading to it's own destruction, when it is summarily executed for being in some way corrupt, not worthy of being saved. > > But the main tool is you, Now you are calling me names (hi from WW). 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. You're probably right, but it's something to do with my photo hobby budget while I'm not spending gobs of money on film and paper. > > 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? It might well be. Sometimes these gizmos aren't all they are cranked up to be. William Robb
