Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Hi Bruce, You certainly showed me that when we got together a few months ago ;-)) The results were better when exposing with a digital frame of mind than when using a BW frame of mind. Shel [Original Message] From: Bruce Dayton 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.
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Hi Bob ... My comment was made in terms of working with BW. With BW I work with tonality, choosing where I want the shdows and mid tones to fall. I may look for a different kind of light when making a bW portrait than when working with color, both with film and digital. My experience with digital has been such that exposures are made with a different concept and thought process (at least for me, an inveterate Tri-X shooter). Everything seems to focus around highlights and post processing manipulation. In order to get the colors right it seems that a more balanced light is desireable. Shel [Original Message] From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 7/28/2005 11:34:52 AM Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Hi, I don't expect digital to improve my eye, quicken my reflexes, or teach me much about composition, although it will affect the way I see and work with light. in what ways will it affect the way you see and work with light? -- Cheers, Bob
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. 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 thats 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
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Hi Tim, I've been considering why I'd want a DSLR, and it comes down to mostly one reason: It's not for quality, it's not for how nice shooting RAW might be, it's not for any of the camera's features ... nope, it's because there are times - more and more often these days - when I'm just too lazy to process film. I've never gotten much enjoyment from agitating a development tank. So, it's laziness, pure and simple. Not laziness in shooting or composing a photo, but just too damned lazy to process film or drive it to the lab. A secondary reason is for snaps ... family, friends, maybe shots around the neighborhood. I don't expect digital to improve my eye, quicken my reflexes, or teach me much about composition, although it will affect the way I see and work with light. That troubles me a bit, so I'll have to watch that closely when going from digi to BW film. Shel [Original Message] From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 7/28/2005 8:51:29 AM 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.
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 BW film. SB Shel
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Convenience is certainly part of the appeal of digital. You may eventually find other aspects of it that will please you as well, but to be free -- even just some of the time -- from the burden of processing is very nice. In regard to working with light, I think you'll find that all the same relatinships apply. There is no reason why anyone shooting digital should be less cognizant of the light than someone shooting film. In fact, having rudimentary feedback on the preview screen will sometimes remind me that I haven't looked closely enough at the light and need to find a different camera position or return at a different time. Hi Tim, I've been considering why I'd want a DSLR, and it comes down to mostly one reason: It's not for quality, it's not for how nice shooting RAW might be, it's not for any of the camera's features ... nope, it's because there are times - more and more often these days - when I'm just too lazy to process film. I've never gotten much enjoyment from agitating a development tank. So, it's laziness, pure and simple. Not laziness in shooting or composing a photo, but just too damned lazy to process film or drive it to the lab. A secondary reason is for snaps ... family, friends, maybe shots around the neighborhood. I don't expect digital to improve my eye, quicken my reflexes, or teach me much about composition, although it will affect the way I see and work with light. That troubles me a bit, so I'll have to watch that closely when going from digi to BW film. Shel [Original Message] From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 7/28/2005 8:51:29 AM 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.
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
I said nothing about being less cognizant of the light ... working with conventional BW requires a different use of light than with color or digital. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In regard to working with light, I think you'll find that all the same relatinships apply. There is no reason why anyone shooting digital should be less cognizant of the light than someone shooting film. In fact, having rudimentary feedback on the preview screen will sometimes remind me that I haven't looked closely enough at the light and need to find a different camera position or return at a different time.
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Hi, I don't expect digital to improve my eye, quicken my reflexes, or teach me much about composition, although it will affect the way I see and work with light. in what ways will it affect the way you see and work with light? -- Cheers, Bob
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
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 PS photographers. Going bazooka with the PS 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
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
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: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net 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.)
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
On 28/7/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed: (If you gets bored reading this, simply jump directly to the last paragraph, or do something else) Mark! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
As you have alluded to, that's mostly up to the person behind the viewfinder. Yep 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: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28. juli 2005 22:54 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? 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: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net 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.)
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Cotty. Since you responded to my post, could you please fill me in? ;-) I don't get this. Is this some kind of internal joke (referring to some Mark at this list), or what? You are a man of few words (sometimes hard to understand for a plain Norwegian). 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: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28. juli 2005 23:02 To: pentax list Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? On 28/7/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed: (If you gets bored reading this, simply jump directly to the last paragraph, or do something else) Mark! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
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 BW, or 6x7 BW, 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
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
On 28/7/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed: Since you responded to my post, could you please fill me in? ;-) I don't get this. Is this some kind of internal joke (referring to some Mark at this list), or what? You are a man of few words (sometimes hard to understand for a plain Norwegian). Mark Roberts collects quotes from the list each year and publishes them as a Christmas treat. I'm merely one of his little elves helpfully pointing out some candidates :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Little??? Cotty wrote: On 28/7/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed: Since you responded to my post, could you please fill me in? ;-) I don't get this. Is this some kind of internal joke (referring to some Mark at this list), or what? You are a man of few words (sometimes hard to understand for a plain Norwegian). Mark Roberts collects quotes from the list each year and publishes them as a Christmas treat. I'm merely one of his little elves helpfully pointing out some candidates :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
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: pentax-discuss@pdml.net 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 BW, or 6x7 BW, 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
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
you know, like Little John. Herb - Original Message - From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 7:15 PM Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Little???
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
I understand. Now I wonder, being a candidate for Marks Christmas treat, is that good or is it bad??? ;-) 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: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29. juli 2005 01:04 To: pentax list Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? On 28/7/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed: Since you responded to my post, could you please fill me in? ;-) I don't get this. Is this some kind of internal joke (referring to some Mark at this list), or what? You are a man of few words (sometimes hard to understand for a plain Norwegian). Mark Roberts collects quotes from the list each year and publishes them as a Christmas treat. I'm merely one of his little elves helpfully pointing out some candidates :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Hi, People who have seen his contacts say that one of the most remarkable things about them is that every frame is a good photo. They much be wearing HCB coloured glasses then, I have a photo book byHCB full of very ordinary images. which book is it? Bob
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
On 27/7/05, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: They much be wearing HCB coloured glasses then, I have a photo book byHCB full of very ordinary images. Define ordinary! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:36:02 +0200, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Define ordinary! -a judge of a probate court. -a clergyman appointed to prepare condemned prisoners for death. -an early bicycle with a very large front wheel and small back wheel. -a simple geometrical figure on the arms, wider than a line or division of the field. -Wine consumed regularly in France. -A complete meal provided at a fixed price or a tavern or an inn providing such a meal. -Invariable or unchanging portions of the Mass. -A public dinner where each guest pays his quota; a table d'hôte. All nice subjects for a photgraph, but he probably meant: -not exceptional in any way especially in quality or ability or size or degree; ordinary everyday objects; ordinary decency; an ordinary day; an ordinary wine Hope this helps, -- Regards, Lucas
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
On 27 Jul 2005 at 7:43, Bob W wrote: which book is it? Man and Machine, Thames and Hudson, 1972, ISBN 0500540063 http://www.bookkoob.co.uk/book/0500540063.htm Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Rob Studdert wrote: On 26 Jul 2005 at 19:31, Herb Chong wrote: being able to operate a film camera. Oh yeah, forgot about that, fully manual of course and with an external meter. Crap, Rob, you don't need a meter and you know it. Kostas
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From an aesthetic point of view, I often haven't sufficient distance from the picture taking experience to be objective about the results for a month or more ... Isn't that the truth! I often take multiple versions of the same shot with slight differences in composition and find it very difficult to pick the best one right after the shoot. But given a month's worth of esthetic distance I often find that the winner pops right out at me. As a result, I've gotten in the habit of only deleting shots with obvious, significant technical defects (at least immediately after the shoot). -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would add that a student of photography should also study art to improve your sense of color, proportion and perspective. Study the principles and techniques of composition in art. Study composition as it relates to photography. And not just as it relates to photography: There's a lot to be learned from other art forms. Last summer I went to an exhibit of 19th century landscape painting (mostly Hudson River School) at the Carnegie Museum. Great educational experience. As Yogi Berra said, you can see a lot just by looking. :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My pictures are improving all the time but my percentage of keepers is about the same. As I improve, I become harder to please. My bad pictures are now better than my previous good ones. Couldn't sum it up any better than that. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
On 27 Jul 2005 at 10:23, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Crap, Rob, you don't need a meter and you know it. True, but only after I've been travelling with the same camera and same film and generally using the same lens for three months or so. It was refreshing. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
This is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing, because I am happier with what I shoot. A curse, because I take out the slides from a trip 10 years ago, and my favorite pix don't please me as much anymore. Rick --- Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My pictures are improving all the time but my percentage of keepers is about the same. As I improve, I become harder to please. My bad pictures are now better than my previous good ones. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Rick Womer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing, because I am happier with what I shoot. A curse, because I take out the slides from a trip 10 years ago, and my favorite pix don't please me as much anymore. True. But oddly enough, every once in a while I'm looking through old slides from years ago and thinking what crap they are when I find one that's just brilliant. What the $%@@?! How did I not notice how good that shot was years ago?! Not very often, though... -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
A more serious response to this thread- Whatever technique one uses to make art is likely to become intimately a part of what you end up making. The Portraits of the American Dead are tied to digital methods in a number of ways and it seems to me unlikely that I would have come up with this particular work or even anything all that like it if it were not for the certain particularities of digital photography. First, I took literally thousands of pictures of a non-subject, which I kept in an easily accessible form and then looked at, some tens of thousands of frames, over the course of several months. It was fairly obsessive and time consuming, but much, much easier than pursuing a similar course with film. I suppose if I were using film I might have come up with some similarly painstaking task, but it would have been something else entirely and the result would have been different. This may be risky in this particular forum, but one of photography's salient characteristics as a medium for expression is that it *does not* require an enormous amount of technical expertise to allow one to create interesting pictures. And digital photography requires even less than film. Brute force *is* an option! *** New gallery here: http://www.ahayesphoto.com/figurestudy/index.htm -- Alan P. Hayes Meaning and Form: Writing, Editing and Document Design Pittsfield, Massachusetts Photographs at http://www.ahayesphoto.com/americandead/index.htm http://del.icio.us/ahayes
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
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Bill opined: 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. However, if one has enough self discipline to continue to approach photography in a mindful fashion, the immediate feedback and post processing flexibility can take one's work to another level. To say that digital photography requires no skill in operation is cow doo-doo. Exacting exposures, thoughtful framing and composition, and careful consideration of the light are as important in digital photography as they are in film photography. When I have to work under the pressure of meeting a client's needs, I'm thankful for the extra assistance that digital provides, but I would never shortchange the process. Paul
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
I agree. It doesn't have to be this way if we don't let it, though. OTOH, one can think of the syndrome you're describing as simply a really easy way of bracketing. I think the term 'better photographer' as used in the orginal post is a loaded phrase. Does it help one produce *better photographs* may be a more pertinent question. The answer to that is not definitive either because it depends on 'better for what'. I think it can help one produce better results but does not do so necessarially, For me, as said earlier, it has created a change in mindset where I think I finally recognized what many already realized. I needn't tie myself in chains to *THE* recorded image. Within the bounds of my conscience I can adjust, crop, saturate, destaurate, etc., in order to produce a better image than what was recorded originally, the same way as a skilled darkroom person can. For me, it's been liberating in that respect and I can now apply the same mindset to film images. Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: Pentax Discuss pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 08:39:45 -0600 snip 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. snip 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
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Interesting, and I love that digital is a tempting little whore line! I wasn't really talking about the same thing in my previous post, I'd guess. But you're describing a particular approach here, and the fact that digital works against that approach doesn't mean that it necessarily makes one a worse photographer. I think that digital has allowed a democratization of photography, somewhat akin to the movement of typography from Monotype machines to the desktop. Lotsa crap, for sure, but also fresh minds and tools in the arena. I don't think that digital invalidates traditional photographic forms, but it offers different possibilities and won't be used in the same ways. For instance, I use my camera as much as a means of assembling an environment to work in as to produce work per se. That's not new to digital, but it is a much more feasible approach with digital. At 8:39 AM -0600 7/27/05, William Robb wrote: 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 -- Alan P. Hayes Meaning and Form: Writing, Editing and Document Design Pittsfield, Massachusetts Photographs at http://www.ahayesphoto.com/americandead/index.htm http://del.icio.us/ahayes
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
I think the term 'better photographer' as used in the orginal post is a loaded phrase. Does it help one produce *better photographs* may be a more pertinent question. Those are two very different questions. -- Cheers, Bob
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Agreed. As I said in my initial response to this post, I'm not sure if digital has made me a better photographer, but I'm absolutely certain that it allows me to produce better photographs. It's a facilitator not a teacher. Paul I think the term 'better photographer' as used in the orginal post is a loaded phrase. Does it help one produce *better photographs* may be a more pertinent question. Those are two very different questions. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
even though i review my entire photo collection about once every 6 months, i seldom find anything to add to my selects that i haven't already added. if an image is too similar, it doesn't get added no matter how good it is. i review to remind myself of places that i want to go to or places that i want to revisit. nothing gets deleted except completely blank frames. Herb - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 7:34 AM Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Isn't that the truth! I often take multiple versions of the same shot with slight differences in composition and find it very difficult to pick the best one right after the shoot. But given a month's worth of esthetic distance I often find that the winner pops right out at me. As a result, I've gotten in the habit of only deleting shots with obvious, significant technical defects (at least immediately after the shoot).
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
the corollary is that if you just snap away without trying to learn from your pictures or without a conscious attempt to try something different in a controlled way, you really are just wasting your time because you aren't applying any discipline. Herb - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 11:14 AM Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? However, if one has enough self discipline to continue to approach photography in a mindful fashion, the immediate feedback and post processing flexibility can take one's work to another level. To say that digital photography requires no skill in operation is cow doo-doo. Exacting exposures, thoughtful framing and composition, and careful consideration of the light are as important in digital photography as they are in film photography. When I have to work under the pressure of meeting a client's needs, I'm thankful for the extra assistance that digital provides, but I would never shortchange the process.
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
I am a new member to the Pentax list and after one day of reading post thought I would provide my 2 cents Canadian worth on this topic. Will also send a new email introducing myself. The only piece of equipment I have ever owned that made me a better photographer has been a tripod. It has forced me to think and compose my image and even decide if I want it. IMHO it does not make a difference if the camera is digital, film based 35mm medium or large format, thinking about the image and carefully composing it is the way that piece of equipment assists you in being a better photographer I do not mean that you must shoot on a tripod. The majority of my shots on a Pentax have not but that does not mean that I have ignored the lessons of the tripod. Shooting more images helps you in being a better photographer but that is equipment independent and of course if you do not think about your shots it does not help at all. There is also a differece between whether or not digital makes you a better photographer or if digital cameras encourage slopply or poorer shots. Although I sometimes have access to Nikon DX2 to use, my only personal digital camera is a Sony point and shoot and it is after over 30 years owning cameras my first point and shoot. Many of the images from the Sony are not good photographs and were never intended to be. The reasons I got a point and shootwere to have a camera I could carry with me whenever I wanted to SNAP shots away. Often just candid shots of my dogs. If I see something that really interests me I will come back with the Pentax or 4X5 to take a photograph as opposed to a picture. The second reason is to be able to document something whether it is how something looked before I took it apart or to record the damage a tenet left, I only need the info from the image, not hang it on my wall.In this way digital has not made me a better photographer but allows me to take more shoots. If I used the DX2 more or had a *1stDS or whatever I would most likely use it and immediatley review the images from tricky lighting situations etc. That is how I see that digital could make you a better photographer. Have enjoyed the posting so far however the traffic may be greater than I want (and do not like digests) Ivan Medicine Hat Alberta
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
William, I find myself nowadays slowing down a bit even when shooting digital. The reason is that, just like when you're shooting large format, I find myself thinking of the yet more hours to be spent in front of the computer preparing the images for printing (and I write programs for a living, so it's no change for me!). I have just spent about 10 hours sizing, cropping and sharpening about 200 shots, which are really just family snapshots, for printing by the local lab because I can't justify even more time actually printing them myself at about 60 cents a pop when the lab will do them for 45 or 50 cents. I don't know if the camera itself has made me a better photographer: of the 1800 or so frames I've shot with the *ist-D, I have actually printed only about a dozen as worthy of wall space, although there may be as many more still to be properly assessed. That's a pretty poor keeper rate! Not that there's anything wrong with the family stuff, they're nearly all technically good, but great photographs they ain't! I've never been a 'machine-gunner' in my photography, seldom exposing more than two or three frames of exactly the same subject, except when working with models, where the changes in pose and expression are worth going for. For static subjects, I try to get it right first time, whether on digital or film. John Coyle Brisbane, Australia (all values in Australian dollars) - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discuss pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:39 AM 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
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
I mean I'm a better photographer, since I've been able to learn from my own mistakes. Shooting a lot of pics gives you a lot of errors from which to learn ;) It raised my photograph level, I believe it is something normal: the more you do one thing, the more you learn on it, right? (of course there is a limit, but I'm far below it...) And I've shoot WAY more pics with the Digital Rebel than with the previous MX (sorry to say it here, but it is the truth) Danilo.
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
OH but all the great things I've learned with the MX are priceless, without it I wouldn't be at this level (which is still low, I have to recognize it). Those things manual lenses gives you, like total control on the in-focus area etc. I still miss...( I know even AF lenses have them, but I'm on the cheaper side, hence no metering/DOF sings on my lenses...) Damn I don't need AF!! f**k Danilo
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Is there really a difference? j (I'm only as good as my last pic) On 7/25/05, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has it made you a better photographer, or do you have more good photos simply as a function of volume? -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: danilo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 July 2005 14:57 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? The digital era made me a better photographer, yes. But that's just because I've shot soo many more pics last two years than ever before. Yes the great majority of them was, actually, crap. Still, doing 6000 pics in one year and half, taught me a lot of things Also, the ability to check them few hours after shooting them (I mean on a pc monitor, I never look at them in the in-camera LCD, I only use it for the hystogram) is better than wait for some days, the chances to remember what you've done for each pic is higher (for me). I've also had the ability to try Infrared photography, which I dubt I'll ever tried with film. I do not have an enlarger (yet). Oh, but I'm not a digital-only fan, no. I still like to look at projected slides, they are better than any monitor (never tried, though, an LCD projector, but I feel it's not the same...) cheers, Danilo. -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
I don't know if digital has made me a better photographer, but in many situations it has improved my results. This is particularly true in the studio where the immediate feedback allows for adjustment and reconsideration of the shot. That's invaluable. It would be painful to go back to film for studio photography. Paul Is there really a difference? j (I'm only as good as my last pic) On 7/25/05, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has it made you a better photographer, or do you have more good photos simply as a function of volume? -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: danilo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 July 2005 14:57 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? The digital era made me a better photographer, yes. But that's just because I've shot soo many more pics last two years than ever before. Yes the great majority of them was, actually, crap. Still, doing 6000 pics in one year and half, taught me a lot of things Also, the ability to check them few hours after shooting them (I mean on a pc monitor, I never look at them in the in-camera LCD, I only use it for the hystogram) is better than wait for some days, the chances to remember what you've done for each pic is higher (for me). I've also had the ability to try Infrared photography, which I dubt I'll ever tried with film. I do not have an enlarger (yet). Oh, but I'm not a digital-only fan, no. I still like to look at projected slides, they are better than any monitor (never tried, though, an LCD projector, but I feel it's not the same...) cheers, Danilo. -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Better in what way? Are your photos more compelling, more thought provoking, are the images stronger, the composition tighter? Or are you a technically better photographer, with better exposures, fewer tilted horizons, better focus, and the like? Shel [Original Message] From: danilo I mean I'm a better photographer, since I've been able to learn from my own mistakes. Shooting a lot of pics gives you a lot of errors from which to learn ;) It raised my photograph level, I believe it is something normal: the more you do one thing, the more you learn on it, right? (of course there is a limit, but I'm far below it...)
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
On Jul 26, 2005, at 7:30 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Better in what way? Are your photos more compelling, more thought provoking, are the images stronger, the composition tighter? Or are you a technically better photographer, with better exposures, fewer tilted horizons, better focus, and the like? I would say, probably a little of all of the above. Godfrey Übung macht den Meister.
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
danilo wrote: I mean I'm a better photographer, since I've been able to learn from my own mistakes. Shooting a lot of pics gives you a lot of errors from which to learn ;) It raised my photograph level, I believe it is something normal: the more you do one thing, the more you learn on it, right? (of course there is a limit, but I'm far below it...) And I've shoot WAY more pics with the Digital Rebel than with the previous MX (sorry to say it here, but it is the truth) Danilo. Shooting digital also gives you actual data to examine, to see what worked and what didn't. I'm not saying this has actually helped me but it does provide an extra tool with potential. (I know Pentax has two film bodies that record exposure data but I happen never to have owned either of them.)
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
It hasn't made me a better photographer... I think it gives the average person the ability to produce better results... potentially. The tilted horizon for example. If I'd have found that I had a tilted horizon when shooting slides, the slide would have gone in the dustbin. I had this occur several times while shooting from the deck of a heaving boat, yet I was shooting digitally. I saw that the image was still a good one, figured that a heaving deck could produce a tilted horizon for just about anyone, especially for one who doesn't shoot from boats every day. So cropping and adjusting post capture was fairly simple. All in all, it's made me less purist regarding whether the captured image is THE image or the image I want to display is THE image. Shooting RAW has added to this way of thinking. I realize that I could have done the same thing, scanning a slide and making similar adjustments, yet it's the transition to digital, the intangibility of the digital image, that has made me focus more on *WHAT* I produce vs. *HOW* it's produced. This is a serious shift in mindset compared to the way I thought several years ago. Tom C. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:43:31 -0700 On Jul 26, 2005, at 7:30 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Better in what way? Are your photos more compelling, more thought provoking, are the images stronger, the composition tighter? Or are you a technically better photographer, with better exposures, fewer tilted horizons, better focus, and the like? I would say, probably a little of all of the above. Godfrey Übung macht den Meister.
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Many years ago, in a far away and long forgotten land, there was a simple device that helped the people remember things like exposure parameters. It was called a pencil. A photographer would often carry one, and would write down the details on a page of a small notebook. These notes could be referenced at any time. Shel [Original Message] From: E.R.N. Reed Shooting digital also gives you actual data to examine, to see what worked and what didn't. I'm not saying this has actually helped me but it does provide an extra tool with potential.
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Yep. Been there, done that. Now I'm just pleased as punch that the camera does it for me. Paul Many years ago, in a far away and long forgotten land, there was a simple device that helped the people remember things like exposure parameters. It was called a pencil. A photographer would often carry one, and would write down the details on a page of a small notebook. These notes could be referenced at any time. Shel [Original Message] From: E.R.N. Reed Shooting digital also gives you actual data to examine, to see what worked and what didn't. I'm not saying this has actually helped me but it does provide an extra tool with potential.
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Hi Malcom ... batteries are not needed for the earlier screw-mount pencils, or the Speed Graphites LOL One of the classic 20th Century pencils, Dixon's Ticonderoga 405 No.2, is still available from many sources. Those sources will usually carry manually operated notebooks as well. For those who are unfamiliar with the subtleties and the history of this tool, may I suggest a wonderful book entitled The Pencil : A History of Design and Circumstance by Henry Petroski. http://tinyurl.com/7dsqo Shel [Original Message] From: Malcolm Smith Can you still get the batteries for this pencil item?
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Sure, but ... Certain lenses don't transmit certain information to the camera for recording. I'm guessing that a number of people won't fire up their computer just to double check their exposure parameter, or they may not have that information handy in the field when they want to check how they photographed a similar scene previously. An old fashioned notebook is a good, simple source for referencing ... notes. Batteries not needed. My point, really, is that the information could always be recorded, and that having the camera do it for you is not the panacea that some think it may be. Certainly not for everyone. But, as ERN said, in camera info does provide an extra tool with potential. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 7/26/2005 9:18:13 AM Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Yep. Been there, done that. Now I'm just pleased as punch that the camera does it for me. Paul Many years ago, in a far away and long forgotten land, there was a simple device that helped the people remember things like exposure parameters. It was called a pencil. A photographer would often carry one, and would write down the details on a page of a small notebook. These notes could be referenced at any time.
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 12:49 PM Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Hi Malcom ... batteries are not needed for the earlier screw-mount pencils, or the Speed Graphites LOL One of the classic 20th Century pencils, Dixon's Ticonderoga 405 No.2, is still available from many sources. Those sources will usually carry manually operated notebooks as well. For those who are unfamiliar with the subtleties and the history of this tool, may I suggest a wonderful book entitled The Pencil : A History of Design and Circumstance by Henry Petroski. http://tinyurl.com/7dsqo WOW! flashback to 2001.. I still remember a post from you about Pencils and ball point pens. I found this but couldn't find the original. http://www.mail-archive.com/pentax-discuss@pdml.net/msg37134.html Christian
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Actually, it's a precursor to Photoshop's clone tool. Shel [Original Message] From: Malcolm Smith OK, right I see why photographers should have them now. Some are disposable, some are manual with zoom nibs. Others take renewable media. I see some come with some sort of rubber device at the end - to keep the image sharp at low writing speeds? LOL!
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
LOL I've spent $2500.00 designing and testing a program that keeps track of my pencils. Of course, I have some rare and hard-to-find models Shel [Original Message] From: Don Sanderson Geez Shel, you're as bad as I am! My company has spent 100s of hours developing a program that keeps track of us and our service calls. Every time they can't come up with a piece of data out comes my trusty pocket notebook and Eureka! there's the answer! Really get's their panties in a bunch when I do that! ;-) My $1.69 vs their $10,000.00 The big difference is that I know what's important enough to write down, the computer hasn't a clue!
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? The tilted horizon for example. A little less Wiser's may cure that problem, Tom. William Robb
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
- Original Message - From: Malcolm Smith Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Can you still get the batteries for this pencil item? All the ones I have seen, you stick the end into a recharger and manually crank the recharger to put life back into it. The real marvel of technology is the self recharging pencil, where you just need to put a tiny amount of effort into depressing the recharging node on the back, and it recharges. William Robb
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Oh, I remember that discussion ;-)) How do you find these links in the archive? Shel [Original Message] From: Christian WOW! flashback to 2001.. I still remember a post from you about Pencils and ball point pens. I found this but couldn't find the original. http://www.mail-archive.com/pentax-discuss@pdml.net/msg37134.html
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many years ago, in a far away and long forgotten land, there was a simple device that helped the people remember things like exposure parameters. It was called a pencil. A photographer would often carry one, and would write down the details on a page of a small notebook. These notes could be referenced at any time. Yep. Been there, done that. Now I'm just pleased as punch that the camera does it for me. That MZ-S is a hell of a camera, eh Paul? g Oh wait... you're referring to digital? Right. I took over 500 shots this weekend and got aperture, focal length, exposure compensation and lens data on every one. No pencil or notepad involved. Couldn't have done it with a pencil and notepad. Couldn't have used a pencil and notepad during my rain-soaked GFM hikes either, even though I was shooting at a much more leisurely pace. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Well it was at noon... BTW did I tell you that if we meet in New Denver I no longer drink? I can't believe I let you give me that stuff. ;) Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:41:14 -0600 - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? The tilted horizon for example. A little less Wiser's may cure that problem, Tom. William Robb
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Exactly. I shot about 300 frames at the Chevy event, and, like you, I have data for all of them. All of them were shot with my two DA zooms, since I had to work fast and light, so I didn't even know the focal length at times. Other times, I would just spin the ap dial to reduce or increase DOF and fire away. Sometimes when I'm processing the shots, I want to see just where I was when I pulled the trigger. That was the case with the shot I posted the other day with the line of repeated car shapes in various colors. I knew I zoomed somewhat tight to get the frame and the effect and then stopped down. I checked the data and found it was f16 and 166mm focal length. Next time I want to shoot something similar, I'll probably remember. But I never would have recorded the data in a notebook. No time for scribbling. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many years ago, in a far away and long forgotten land, there was a simple device that helped the people remember things like exposure parameters. It was called a pencil. A photographer would often carry one, and would write down the details on a page of a small notebook. These notes could be referenced at any time. Yep. Been there, done that. Now I'm just pleased as punch that the camera does it for me. That MZ-S is a hell of a camera, eh Paul? g Oh wait... you're referring to digital? Right. I took over 500 shots this weekend and got aperture, focal length, exposure compensation and lens data on every one. No pencil or notepad involved. Couldn't have done it with a pencil and notepad. Couldn't have used a pencil and notepad during my rain-soaked GFM hikes either, even though I was shooting at a much more leisurely pace. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
I never bothered with a pencil, Shel. Notes and files are so easy to screw up. I have eidetic recall of almost every photo I've ever taken. I can usually just look at a photo, taken even 30+ years ago, and remember the camera, the lens, and usually the film and exposure data. Writing it all down seemed like such a waste of time, and I was never good at keeping things on paper filed. Paper notes are ephemeral to me. Having image data information embedded in the exposure proves to be very useful, a nice time-savings to be able to pull the data out and use it to find, sort and collate. For instance, a question on the quality of a lens wide open came up recently ... I polled my database of 6000 images taken with that lens and extracted all the image files taken wide open as well as one and two stops down. That gave me a clear picture of what the lens' behavior really was. It's very hard to do that with pencilled notes or even eidetic recall ... they're too slow and cumbersome to be worth the effort. This might not improve our photographic vision or our technical expertise, but it can make us better photographers in other ways. Godfrey On Jul 26, 2005, at 9:08 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Many years ago, in a far away and long forgotten land, there was a simple device that helped the people remember things like exposure parameters. It was called a pencil. A photographer would often carry one, and would write down the details on a page of a small notebook. These notes could be referenced at any time. Shel [Original Message] From: E.R.N. Reed Shooting digital also gives you actual data to examine, to see what worked and what didn't. I'm not saying this has actually helped me but it does provide an extra tool with potential.
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
I think you've captured in a succinct way a lot of my thinking on this subject. Thanks! Godfrey On Jul 26, 2005, at 8:44 AM, Tom C wrote: It hasn't made me a better photographer... I think it gives the average person the ability to produce better results... potentially. The tilted horizon for example. If I'd have found that I had a tilted horizon when shooting slides, the slide would have gone in the dustbin. I had this occur several times while shooting from the deck of a heaving boat, yet I was shooting digitally. I saw that the image was still a good one, figured that a heaving deck could produce a tilted horizon for just about anyone, especially for one who doesn't shoot from boats every day. So cropping and adjusting post capture was fairly simple. All in all, it's made me less purist regarding whether the captured image is THE image or the image I want to display is THE image. Shooting RAW has added to this way of thinking. I realize that I could have done the same thing, scanning a slide and making similar adjustments, yet it's the transition to digital, the intangibility of the digital image, that has made me focus more on *WHAT* I produce vs. *HOW* it's produced. This is a serious shift in mindset compared to the way I thought several years ago. Tom C. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:43:31 -0700 On Jul 26, 2005, at 7:30 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Better in what way? Are your photos more compelling, more thought provoking, are the images stronger, the composition tighter? Or are you a technically better photographer, with better exposures, fewer tilted horizons, better focus, and the like? I would say, probably a little of all of the above. Godfrey Übung macht den Meister.
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Hey... I have succinct moments! :) Tom C. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:39:18 -0700 I think you've captured in a succinct way a lot of my thinking on this subject. Thanks! Godfrey On Jul 26, 2005, at 8:44 AM, Tom C wrote: It hasn't made me a better photographer... I think it gives the average person the ability to produce better results... potentially. The tilted horizon for example. If I'd have found that I had a tilted horizon when shooting slides, the slide would have gone in the dustbin. I had this occur several times while shooting from the deck of a heaving boat, yet I was shooting digitally. I saw that the image was still a good one, figured that a heaving deck could produce a tilted horizon for just about anyone, especially for one who doesn't shoot from boats every day. So cropping and adjusting post capture was fairly simple. All in all, it's made me less purist regarding whether the captured image is THE image or the image I want to display is THE image. Shooting RAW has added to this way of thinking. I realize that I could have done the same thing, scanning a slide and making similar adjustments, yet it's the transition to digital, the intangibility of the digital image, that has made me focus more on *WHAT* I produce vs. *HOW* it's produced. This is a serious shift in mindset compared to the way I thought several years ago. Tom C. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:43:31 -0700 On Jul 26, 2005, at 7:30 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Better in what way? Are your photos more compelling, more thought provoking, are the images stronger, the composition tighter? Or are you a technically better photographer, with better exposures, fewer tilted horizons, better focus, and the like? I would say, probably a little of all of the above. Godfrey Übung macht den Meister.
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Yes, I think so. It may not be important though. A better photographer is, I guess, one who takes fewer bad photos, or more good photos per exposure, or is better able to get the picture she wants. It doesn't matter how you define good. I suppose you could test it by going back to film from digital, and seeing if your success rate with film has improved. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Juan Buhler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 July 2005 12:50 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Is there really a difference? j (I'm only as good as my last pic) On 7/25/05, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has it made you a better photographer, or do you have more good photos simply as a function of volume? -- Cheers, Bob
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Has it made you a better photographer, or do you have more good photos simply as a function of volume? -- Cheers, Bob Digital cameras have made me a photographer. Taking more and more pictures has made me a better photographer. Is it simply a function of volume? I think not, but the counter argument can definitely be made. Some new ones with the istD, selected from a cast of thousands: http://www.ahayesphoto.com/figurestudy/index.htm -- Alan P. Hayes Meaning and Form: Writing, Editing and Document Design Pittsfield, Massachusetts Photographs at http://www.ahayesphoto.com/americandead/index.htm http://del.icio.us/ahayes
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Alan P. Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Digital cameras have made me a photographer. Taking more and more pictures has made me a better photographer. In the days before digital, it was commonly accepted that the best way to become a better photographer was to get out and take a lot of photos. I don't see any reason that would have changed with digital, but some people think it has. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Many years ago, in a far away and long forgotten land, there was a simple device that helped the people remember things like exposure parameters. It was called a pencil. A photographer would often carry one, and would write down the details on a page of a small notebook. These notes could be referenced at any time. I used to do that myself (I think I used a pen, though) -- but this way is so much faster.
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
I scribbled: A better photographer is, I guess, one who takes fewer bad photos, or more good photos per exposure, I don't really mean more good photos per exposure, since you can only take one photo, good or bad, per exposure. I mean more good photos per something else. Damned if I know what though. -- Cheers, Bob
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Shel never uses a pencil. He is always accompanied by his amanuensis. -- Cheers, Bob Many years ago, in a far away and long forgotten land, there was a simple device that helped the people remember things like exposure parameters. It was called a pencil. A photographer would often carry one, and would write down the details on a page of a small notebook. These notes could be referenced at any time. I used to do that myself (I think I used a pen, though) -- but this way is so much faster.
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
I would suggest that since you get an image review with digital you not only learn with digital you learn faster and right on the spot! JCO -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 3:43 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Alan P. Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Digital cameras have made me a photographer. Taking more and more pictures has made me a better photographer. In the days before digital, it was commonly accepted that the best way to become a better photographer was to get out and take a lot of photos. I don't see any reason that would have changed with digital, but some people think it has. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Yes in some cases, no in others. There's only so much one can see on a 2 inch screen. Tom C. From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:03:41 -0400 I would suggest that since you get an image review with digital you not only learn with digital you learn faster and right on the spot! JCO
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
On 26/7/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: But I never would have recorded the data in a notebook. No time for scribbling. A voice note attached to a frame would be nice ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Another thing: There are times when the instant review is actually too much of a distraction to my train of thought, so I turn it off. Godfrey On Jul 26, 2005, at 1:19 PM, Tom C wrote: Yes in some cases, no in others. There's only so much one can see on a 2 inch screen. Tom C. From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:03:41 -0400 I would suggest that since you get an image review with digital you not only learn with digital you learn faster and right on the spot! JCO
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shel never uses a pencil. He is always accompanied by his amanuensis. Watch your language! This is a family-oriented list! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
On 7/26/05, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I scribbled: A better photographer is, I guess, one who takes fewer bad photos, or more good photos per exposure, I don't really mean more good photos per exposure, since you can only take one photo, good or bad, per exposure. I mean more good photos per something else. Damned if I know what though. Well, I took it as success rate--how many good pictures over how many total pictures you took. With that criterion though, Garry Winogrand was a terrible photographer. A good photographer is one who gets the results she wants, regardless of ratios or tilted horizons. Digital has allowed me to get closer to the pictures I want, but mostly because I shoot somewhat more with it and because of the fast turnaround. I used to sit on a roll of tri-X for one or two months before developing it. Nowadays I edit my pictures the day I shoot them. j -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
- Original Message - From: Mark Roberts Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Alan P. Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Digital cameras have made me a photographer. Taking more and more pictures has made me a better photographer. In the days before digital, it was commonly accepted that the best way to become a better photographer was to get out and take a lot of photos. I don't see any reason that would have changed with digital, but some people think it has. The commonly accepted theory is just that. It's a theory. And it is, to a great extent, a false one. Shoot lots to learn how your camera works. Familiarity with the equipment is why one would take a lot of pictures. You can do this with no film in the camera, or no card in the slot. The way to become a better photographer is to educate your eye. The way to do that is to look at pictures, not necessarily take them. Look at them, see why the work, and more importantly, what causes them to fail, which they inevitably will, from time to time. There are limits to how much information a person can process at one sitting before their eyes start to bleed. If you reach that point, there isn't any value in continuing to look. I'm going to ponificate a bit here, so bear with me. or not, I don't give a damn. If you are not analyzing every single frame that you shoot, and discovering why a picture works or not, and quantifying the reasons, you are shooting too much. If all you do is pull up a directory of thumbnails and go through them, sending the ones you don't like to digital purgatory, and plucking the juicy gobbets out of the mess, you are not teaching yourself to see. What you are is the photographic equivalent of a terrorist bomber, not caring what you hit, as long as you hit something from time to time. William Robb
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
- Original Message - From: Tom C To: Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 12:21 PM Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Well it was at noon... BTW did I tell you that ...I no longer drink? Really? What do you do to keep from dehydrating? b...
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
-Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 July 2005 23:07 To: Pentax Discuss Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? - Original Message - From: Tom C To: Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 12:21 PM Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Well it was at noon... BTW did I tell you that ...I no longer drink? Really? What do you do to keep from dehydrating? b... Moisturise
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Well, I took it as success rate--how many good pictures over how many total pictures you took. With that criterion though, Garry Winogrand was a terrible photographer. How do we know that unless we see all the unpublished frames? Cartier-Bresson reputedly shot some 16,000 rolls of film during his life - that's about 800 a year over the 50 most active years. We only ever see a few hundred of the photos. This doesn't mean the ones we never see are bad. People who have seen his contacts say that one of the most remarkable things about them is that every frame is a good photo. Something like that could also be true of the notoriously prolific Winogrand. A good photographer is one who gets the results she wants, I do believe I said that. I am a great believer in shooting round the subject, and using as much film or pixels as necessary. But I believe in doing it intelligently rather than shooting everything in the hope that something will be good. That's why I posed the original question in the way I did. You could conceivably get more good pictures just by exposing more frames, but it doesn't mean you're a better photographer. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
I don't think that it's digital per se that's helpful here. I think it's a matter of your preferred or self imposed style of working. If you could shoot TX and get the processed film back to you as conveniently, would one way or the other matter? I'm the opposite, even when I've shot digital. I like some distance from the photographs, look at them more than once, sometimes over months or longer. Shel [Original Message] From: Juan Buhler A good photographer is one who gets the results she wants, regardless of ratios or tilted horizons. Digital has allowed me to get closer to the pictures I want, but mostly because I shoot somewhat more with it and because of the fast turnaround. I used to sit on a roll of tri-X for one or two months before developing it. Nowadays I edit my pictures the day I shoot them.
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
How do we know that unless we see all the unpublished frames? Cartier-Bresson reputedly shot some 16,000 rolls of film during his life - that's about 800 a year over the 50 most active years. Er, not it's not. It's, um, 16 over .5 times 1000 plus the number I first thought of... twelvty!
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
On 26 Jul 2005 at 14:18, Mark Roberts wrote: Oh wait... you're referring to digital? Right. I took over 500 shots this weekend and got aperture, focal length, exposure compensation and lens data on every one. No pencil or notepad involved. Couldn't have done it with a pencil and notepad. Couldn't have used a pencil and notepad during my rain-soaked GFM hikes either, even though I was shooting at a much more leisurely pace. I carry one of those water-proof pads from http://www.riteintherain.com/ however I'm really glad my camera does the mundane stuff for me, no hassles matching up pics to data etc. I just wish the camera had integrated GPS and gyro so it could also record my location, elevation, direction, tilt and roll :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Juan Buhler wrote: Well, I took it as success rate--how many good pictures over how many total pictures you took. I don't know if that works either. My pictures are improving all the time but my percentage of keepers is about the same. As I improve, I become harder to please. My bad pictures are now better than my previous good ones. A good photographer is one who gets the results she wants, regardless of ratios or tilted horizons. A bad photographer can also get the results she wants. She might not know enough to want any better than she's getting. Sally Snapshot might be happy with a picture of her kid because she didn't have her finger on the lens or cut off the top of his head. She got what she wanted but there might still be a tree growing out of the top of his head. The words better and good are opinions and it's impossible to nail down a definition of a good photographer. It's a matter of taste. Tom Reese
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
On 26 Jul 2005 at 15:42, Mark Roberts wrote: In the days before digital, it was commonly accepted that the best way to become a better photographer was to get out and take a lot of photos. I don't see any reason that would have changed with digital, but some people think it has. It's too easy to make many shots in digiland so we need to design a new rite of passage for the aspiring photographer. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
On 26 Jul 2005 at 23:51, Bob W wrote: How do we know that unless we see all the unpublished frames? Cartier-Bresson reputedly shot some 16,000 rolls of film during his life - that's about 800 a year over the 50 most active years. We only ever see a few hundred of the photos. This doesn't mean the ones we never see are bad. People who have seen his contacts say that one of the most remarkable things about them is that every frame is a good photo. They much be wearing HCB coloured glasses then, I have a photo book byHCB full of very ordinary images. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
I find the photographic experience has two aspects in this regard: - I want to see my results, from either film or digital, as quickly as possible to see what I did technically. This helps me reinforce what I'm doing right in terms of exposure and camera operation ... Did I get the focus right? Did I get the exposure on target? Where could I have done better? are the questions I ask myself immediately. - From an aesthetic point of view, I often haven't sufficient distance from the picture taking experience to be objective about the results for a month or more ... It doesn't matter whether I'm shooting with a film camera or a digital camera, these are common to my photographic experience. For instance, I'm just beginning to be able to make objective aesthetic judgments about the photos I made on the trip in May-June, and I've been going through photos from last Summer's trip to the Isle of Man with a fresh eye now. Lots of stuff is coming up this way. The major advantages of digital capture are 1) I can do the immediate, technical review even on the spot if I feel like it. This is particularly useful if I've traveled a distance and won't be able to return anytime soon, or if the setup is costly. B) I can be more opportunistic about things ... I can make exposures in ways that I wouldn't bother wasting the film on before (or couldn't afford to waste the client's time/money/film on...). And c) the media is much more accessible a year later, the tools for browsing years of picture taking and making those aesthetic judgments are more easily managed. Godfrey On Jul 26, 2005, at 3:53 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I don't think that it's digital per se that's helpful here. I think it's a matter of your preferred or self imposed style of working. If you could shoot TX and get the processed film back to you as conveniently, would one way or the other matter? I'm the opposite, even when I've shot digital. I like some distance from the photographs, look at them more than once, sometimes over months or longer. Shel [Original Message] From: Juan Buhler A good photographer is one who gets the results she wants, regardless of ratios or tilted horizons. Digital has allowed me to get closer to the pictures I want, but mostly because I shoot somewhat more with it and because of the fast turnaround. I used to sit on a roll of tri-X for one or two months before developing it. Nowadays I edit my pictures the day I shoot them.
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Cotty, With my Fuji S5000 digicam, you can record a voice message to attach to the pic if you want. (never used the feature) Regards Albano --- Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26/7/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: But I never would have recorded the data in a notebook. No time for scribbling. A voice note attached to a frame would be nice ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ Albano Garcia Photography Graphic Design http://www.albanogarcia.com.ar http://www.flaneur.albanogarcia.com.ar Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
being able to operate a film camera. Herb - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 7:03 PM Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? It's too easy to make many shots in digiland so we need to design a new rite of passage for the aspiring photographer.
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
IV Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: Pentax Discuss pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:06:55 -0600 - Original Message - From: Tom C To: Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 12:21 PM Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Well it was at noon... BTW did I tell you that ...I no longer drink? Really? What do you do to keep from dehydrating? b...
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
These are my opinions only. William (The Wise) Robb wrote: The way to become a better photographer is to educate your eye. The way to do that is to look at pictures, not necessarily take them. Look at them, see why the work, and more importantly, what causes them to fail, which they inevitably will, from time to time. Well said. I would add that a student of photography should also study art to improve your sense of color, proportion and perspective. Study the principles and techniques of composition in art. Study composition as it relates to photography. I would also add that the way to become a better photographer is to slow down, take your time and try to get a few really outstanding images. If you are not analyzing every single frame that you shoot, and discovering why a picture works or not, and quantifying the reasons, you are shooting too much. You're right in the context of this thread. Outside the context of this thread, it's also possible for someone to hardly shoot at all and still not study their pictures enough. Every picture should be studied with the thoughts: 1. Exactly what was I trying to capture here? What was I trying to say about the subject? 2. Did I succeed? How can I improve that message next time? 3. What don't I like about this picture that I need to watch out for next time? That's the way I do it FWIW. Tom Reese
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
On 26 Jul 2005 at 19:31, Herb Chong wrote: being able to operate a film camera. Oh yeah, forgot about that, fully manual of course and with an external meter. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
William Robb wrote: If you are not analyzing every single frame that you shoot, and discovering why a picture works or not, and quantifying the reasons, you are shooting too much. If all you do is pull up a directory of thumbnails and go through them, sending the ones you don't like to digital purgatory, and plucking the juicy gobbets out of the mess, you are not teaching yourself to see. What you are is the photographic equivalent of a terrorist bomber, not caring what you hit, as long as you hit something from time to time. I agree, in part. I think the longer you've been doing it though, the quicker you get at it. There's a certain percentage that plain hoover and I can see those immediately. Yeah, it was a snapshot and a haphazard attempt to begin with, so I don't spend much time on analysis. Then there's another percentage that I must have just been more enthralled by the overall scene in context, than by what the lens transmitted to the recording media. I chalk those up to boyish excitement or using the wrong lens. Sometimes these may benefit by some cropping. Overall I don't think I learn *alot* by analyzing my failures in-depth, unless I have the ability to go back and retake the same shot which I usually don't. My biggest failure is not doing the analysis of the scene properly at capture time. Usually, I did not stop and think WHY DO I WANT TO TAKE A PHOTO OF THIS? WHAT EXCITES ME ABOUT THE SUBJECT? WHY WAS MY EYE DRAWN TO IT? WHERE ARE THE SHADOWS AND HIGHLIGHTS? When one does that and correctly identifies those elements, one can determine how to best emphasize those elements in the frame. So overall I agree, I just try to force myself to do more analysis on the front end as opposed to the back end. Tom C.
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
I wasn't inferring that there was necessarily any learning going on-at least in my own case! At 4:03 PM -0400 7/26/05, J. C. O'Connell wrote: I would suggest that since you get an image review with digital you not only learn with digital you learn faster and right on the spot! JCO -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 3:43 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? Alan P. Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Digital cameras have made me a photographer. Taking more and more pictures has made me a better photographer. In the days before digital, it was commonly accepted that the best way to become a better photographer was to get out and take a lot of photos. I don't see any reason that would have changed with digital, but some people think it has. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com -- Alan P. Hayes Meaning and Form: Writing, Editing and Document Design Pittsfield, Massachusetts Photographs at http://www.ahayesphoto.com/americandead/index.htm http://del.icio.us/ahayes
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
The digital era made me a better photographer, yes. But that's just because I've shot soo many more pics last two years than ever before. Yes the great majority of them was, actually, crap. Still, doing 6000 pics in one year and half, taught me a lot of things Also, the ability to check them few hours after shooting them (I mean on a pc monitor, I never look at them in the in-camera LCD, I only use it for the hystogram) is better than wait for some days, the chances to remember what you've done for each pic is higher (for me). I've also had the ability to try Infrared photography, which I dubt I'll ever tried with film. I do not have an enlarger (yet). Oh, but I'm not a digital-only fan, no. I still like to look at projected slides, they are better than any monitor (never tried, though, an LCD projector, but I feel it's not the same...) cheers, Danilo.
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
Has it made you a better photographer, or do you have more good photos simply as a function of volume? -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: danilo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 July 2005 14:57 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? The digital era made me a better photographer, yes. But that's just because I've shot soo many more pics last two years than ever before. Yes the great majority of them was, actually, crap. Still, doing 6000 pics in one year and half, taught me a lot of things Also, the ability to check them few hours after shooting them (I mean on a pc monitor, I never look at them in the in-camera LCD, I only use it for the hystogram) is better than wait for some days, the chances to remember what you've done for each pic is higher (for me). I've also had the ability to try Infrared photography, which I dubt I'll ever tried with film. I do not have an enlarger (yet). Oh, but I'm not a digital-only fan, no. I still like to look at projected slides, they are better than any monitor (never tried, though, an LCD projector, but I feel it's not the same...) cheers, Danilo.
RE: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
On 25 Jul 2005 at 21:19, Bob W wrote: Has it made you a better photographer, or do you have more good photos simply as a function of volume? You mean like most National Geo photographers? :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Have digital cameras made us better photographers?
It doesn't come as a surprise that we haven't. It's a good article, though, outlining why in an interesting way. However, I think digital has brought some kinds of motifs within reach that wasn't there before. I'm thinking of action portraiture of humans and other beasts doing some kind of physical exercise. Of course it's basically down to the factors of better image quality at higher equivalent ISO than film could provide, and the infamous crop factor that magically makes your big tele lens even more suited than it used to be for this type of shots. I don't think bringing motifs within grasp makes the photographer any better, but it is a form of enablement that gives a competitional edge. Not so much in sports photograpy anymore, but for nature photographers the race is still on. Jostein - Original Message - From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:52 PM Subject: Have digital cameras made us better photographers? An article by Jon Levy, editor of foto8.com: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4705255.stm
