Does Digital Mean Hit and Miss Photography?

[andit]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

 

Just a quick question as to how everyone thinks digital photography has changed their lives ? I don't know if anyone out there also has the feeling that digital photography has become somewhat of "Hit and Miss" photography. What I mean by this is that in older times one took a little more time to "make" the picture - put more thought into the whole process. This holds especially true for people that used Medium Format. Film and development costs started to sum up after a while. With digital, you don't hear the cash register going everytime you hit the shutter.

 

Where in the past one took a handfull of carefully composed photo's, concentrating on exposure, colour correction and latitudes, now people take a hundred shots of something and hope to be able to "fix" it in photoshop afterwards. Does this not take away from the ability of the photographer?

 

Does anyone still use Red or Yellow filters for B/W work, or graduated ND filters to bring exposure latitudes to more acceptable levels? I must admit that I still follow the "old" way of photography in the digital world, with the result that very little work needs to be enhanced in photoshop or the like - mind you, I end up straightening the horizon lines every so often...

 

However, when seeing most of the work that has been posted on this forum that was taken with the M8, I have just one thing to say - WOW! I take my hat off and bow to the people for what has been created here. That is what I call photography! One can certainly hear the death knell for film coming a little closer. Sad though...

 

I don't think many people will respond to this thread, it's just a thought.

 

Andreas

[devils-advocate]

Andreas,

 

I don't think there's ever any replacement for true craftsmanship in image-making, whether on film or digital. You're right, however, the digital make it easier to achieve an acceptable end-result with less front-end work, preparation, skill and control. Whether this democratizes image-making or breeds a generation of superficial photographers and a proliferation of crap images remains to be seen. I think it will yield a bit of both.

 

That said, 'Leica-style' shooting has always been more spontaneous and observational, and less planned and deliberate due to the type of subject Leica photographers tend to point their cameras at. In that sense, digital is a god-sent, because it allows one to shoot a lot more raw frames, unconcerned about cost (or running out of film!), and also allows a lot more 'exposure latitude' in all sense of the word. From my perspective, these are the real advantages -- have shot more frames in 2 weeks with the M8 than in the last 2 years with the M6, and that has to be good.

 

- N.

[carstenw]

I am not sure I agree. There is probably a small element of careless photography in my case, but even though I used to take photos more carefully back then, I am not sure that my keeper-percentage was higher.

 

Two things are for sure: I experiment more now, and I am growing as a photographer so much faster. The learning cycle has been dramatically shortened.

[Guest stnami]

... yea there is a lot of 'carpet bombing' around................. I particulary like watching cityscape/landscape photography at night with a flash.....the facial expressions as they view the LCDs are great

[jonoslack]

Hi Andreas

Excellent post - a great point for discussion.

 

I shot mostly 35mm for 20 years or so, but I never really got to grips with what I was doing. With digital, I started out being careless, taking hundreds and shots, and sorting out the good ones with post processing.

 

But nowadays I shoot much less again - but without the cash constraint; it's because it's better to get it right in camera. I like to be able to anticipate any post processing I'm likely to want to do when I take the shot.

 

I think for many of us digital has been a real source of learning. I spent a month shooting film again in October as an exercise - I'm soooo much better at it now.

 

Good photograps are made from care - but they're also made from sponteneity - I've learned skills since I've been shooting digital which have allowed me to relax into being spontaneous.

 

I think it's a real boon.

[larry]

I agree, this is a good topic.

 

To an extent, the level of craft you infuse into your photographs depends on the equipment you use. For example, the M8 with its manual focus and traditional control layout demands that I work more carefully and deliberately. On the other hand, I have Panasonic P&S that I can point in the general direction of what I'm shooting and push the shutter button.

 

Larry

[like_no_other]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good question.

I think Larry is correct to a certain point. A camera like the M8 helps to slow down the digital photography by reasons of overall camera design and manual focussing.

Another aspect in digital photography that could lead to conscious photography is shooting NOT in RAW format. I know many people thinking RAW shooting is the golden cow that makes concentrating on light - whitebalance and light metering - obsolete. (what is photography about? )

Optimizing manual white balance on location is the better way to catch original light moods in comparison to playing with the RAW converter at home. Checking histograms on location helps to get best tonality, much better results than exposure compensation with the RAW converter. Using jpg format may help a bit to avoid RAW converters leading too many people to tweak wrong shots regarding exposure and whitebalance to death.

[ennjott]

Digital actually needs much more accurate exposure because of the lack of latitude in highlights. Even more so with the M8 since it only saves 8 Bit DNGs.

Otherwise I would say it's hit and miss with DSLRs because of their inferior focusing system (and lack of precision manual focusing in modern cameras), but not with a range finder..

[Iron Flatline]

Good thread.

 

Like others, I was liberated by digital several years ago, and was able to shoot away to my heart's content. I wasn't framing, wasn't exposing until at least the 3rd shot.

 

Over time, I've come to resent the endless processing required of digital. I was tired of turning hundreds of RAW files into PSDs or TIFFs.

 

Then there was a second stage of my digital puberty - where my classic camera skills were back in control, but the fact that I could adjust dozens of parameters on my computer still made me experiment. Every virtual lever had to be adjusted and pulled, every white balance second-guessed, every image enhanced by some saturation... and then some more.... and then just a little more....

 

Now I shoot less, and more deliberately. I only process the images that I like, and then usually in a style I already had in mind when I shot it.

 

The exception is when I shoot my little kids. I just fire awa with my AF dSLR. I might not process all of them, but I only discard the worst ones, and hold on to them for later reevaluation.

[humanized_form]

Digital actually needs much more accurate exposure because of the lack of latitude in highlights. Even more so with the M8 since it only saves 8 Bit DNGs.

Otherwise I would say it's hit and miss with DSLRs because of their inferior focusing system (and lack of precision manual focusing in modern cameras), but not with a range finder..

 

i agree. i shoot slides so i'm used to tight exposure, but i think digital is even more touchy. when

i shoot slides i meter and have confidence in the exposure and i just don't worry about it. i find with

digital the metering just doesn't seem as consistent and this means histogram checks and do

overs or underexposing in camera for tweaking in post etc, all that takes away from some of the

"convenience" of digital for me.

 

kevin

[Guest stnami]

RAW files into PSDs or TIFFs

I leave mine as RAW or DNG files, as my achived images. Process files for printing and then discard once printed, I think that this leads to more fluid images as skills improve and software gets better, plus less space, Other images are made specifically for my www site as the post processing is different to the printed image, small files discarded and kept at random.

As for shooting I probably shoot more for my multimedia artwork(cheaper and do my own printing, thus more control)......... but with day to day photos probably less ,,,, eg went to the theatre last night took one shot. Weddings parties and everything even less, mostly zero

[RSL]

You guys all sound as if you're doing Ansel Adams photography. If you're doing street work there's no difference between film and digital. You have a second or less to get things lined up and shoot. You're response is almost wholly intuitive or else you fail completely. Doesn't matter whether you're shooing film or digital.

[Guest stnami]

You guys all sound as if you're doing Ansel Adams photography

.... doubt if most who responded are...........street stuff is still post processed and there is no need for shooting blind in hope as digital allows due being cheap as chips

[stuny]

Andreas -

 

I think there is very little difference in how I shoot now vs as I did with film. In both media I tend to shoot very quickly, sometimes so that I can capture a scene without any @#$!%^ tourists in it. The differences that exist for me are two fold: First, I can post more photos to my site since I don't have to scan, and I'm a world-class poor scanner, which some of the Forum members my recall. Second, over the last couple of years I frequently find myself composing more carefully as I frequently think, this might be a good one to put on the Forum.

[RSL]

.... doubt if most who responded are...........street stuff is still post processed and there is no need for shooting blind in hope as digital allows due being cheap as chips

 

That's exactly what I said: The composition, etc., has to be intuitive or else you fail. That's not "shooting blind." Anything but. You need to read Cartier-Bresson on this subject. He agrees. You're not "carpet bombing." If you try that, you'll fail for sure. The point is that it's the same process whether you're shooting film or digital. It you approach it as "hit and miss" you'll always miss.

[lct]

Where in the past one took a handfull of carefully composed photo's, ...now people take a hundred shots of something and hope to be able to "fix" it in photoshop afterwards...Does anyone still use Red or Yellow filters for B/W work...

Aside from special ones like polars or IR's, digital filters are cheaper, more convenient and there is no flare with them.

(yellow filter of the Epson raw converter below).

BTW why hundreds shots? It is easier to take serial shots with digicams for sure but all digital photographers are not paparazzi fortunately.

 

[Guest stnami]

You need to read Cartier-Bresson on this subject.

... there are others of greater interest.

The point is that it's the same process whether you're shooting film or digital.

not really

1) Gives some the option to carpet bomb, if that's the way they shoot, sports etc have a lot more flexability

2) There is a opportunity to review in the field to either confirm ones intent or reassess direction

3) It is cheaper as a process than shooting film, thus a greater sense of freedom

4) You have instant access to the images via a computer

.

.

As for me I don't have to use a darkroom, except during workshops/teaching

[Bill Sievers]

It is interesting that Epson designed the RD1 with a full compliment of digital BW filters in the firmware.

 

I think digital rangefinder photography is much more of a deliberate process than DSLRs, particularly if you use the manual mode.

[imagineitframed]

An interesting thread, but I would take a different approach regarding digital's role in improving quality photography.

 

Photography is a learned craft, in addition to being an art form. Digital gives instant feedback on the success or failure of your composition and exposure. In many cases you have the ability to chimp between shots and compare different compositions. Film made you wait days or weeks before getting any feedback to your technique. By that time you couldn't make any adjustments to improve the shot and often had little memory of the original scene to realize what could be done to improve it.

 

In addition, the very act of culling through your photos on the computer and being able to do side by side comparisons in programs like Light Room or Aperture gives us the ability to improve our critical eye.

 

I think digital can be an awsome tool in the self taught craft of photography. Allowing you to improve your artistic eye - composition, depth of field, etc., as well as your technical expertise with exposure, contrast, etc.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[erl]

This all reminds me a child's 'see-saw' in the playground.

 

Both ends can be up or down.

 

Regardles of the weight at one end, sufficient impetus from the other end will send it soaring.