I do think that their is merit in what Shel is saying. I think that for the likes of Ansel Adams etc, if you are shooting with glass plates, medium format etc, and you only have one or two frames left, you are really FORCED to THINK about what you are going to put into the photograph. You would probably spend much more side on the technical stuff to ensure that it is JUST right, iykwim, so that you don't, in effect, waste an opportunity...
With digital you probably tend to shoot a little more frivolously in the hope that the general rules of probability would allow you to get "the" shot at some time... On the other hand though, being ABLE to shoot freely without regard to film etc, may allow you in certain circumstances to get "that" grab shot that could have been missed whilst you were busy working out the technical stuff for the MF shot. For example, just the other day someone referred to shooting kids, VERY accurately (was it Bruce?) and said how you may think that you "get" the shot and only two seconds later, they pull something out of the hat with an expression or pose that was totally unexpected and that totally overtakes what you just shot moments earlier. When I was shooting those product shots a few weeks ago, being able to shoot digital was invaluable. The packaging included a highly reflective sticker that I hadn't even considered until seeing the shot on the screen on the back of the camera and I had to adjust my lighting many times before I was able to get the shot without reflections and hot spots on those labels. Had I been shooting film, I would have sent the films off to the lab none-the-wiser and have been totally heartbroken when they all arrived home looking like crap and requiring probably more than one re-shoot... One thing I have noticed though, is I think it is making me lazy to a certain extent. I don't seem to be "absorbing" the exposure settings and technical stuff as much as I used to in the learning process. Sometimes, I am finding myself, just shooting, deleting and re-shooting until it looks "good" rather than stopping and thinking "hmmm, I think that needs 2 stops more light etc". Instead, I just switch the dials around a little bit haphazardly until I am happy with the result. Exposure wise, after "discovering" how easily I can "save" underexposed images, I am also becoming much less pedantic about having the exposure "spot on", and this can't be a good thing. Of course, on the other hand, when it comes to over exposure, it has made me think MORE about what I am doing to prevent hot spots and blown out highlights... So, really, in regards to film/digital making better photographers, I believe that they both have merits for and against improving people as photographers, I think it is just a matter of taste really... tan. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 11:24 AM Subject: Re: Digital Photography > What I've seen is just the opposite wrt to creating strong > photos and powerful images. > The overall quality of photographs has dropped substantially > in the past decade or so, and while digital cameras are not > the only reason for this, they are one of the prime > contributors. Do you know that there are people (and I bet > some are on this list - in fact, I KNOW some are on this > list) who have NEVER seen a gorgeous B&W silver print, whose > only exposure to photographs have been ink jet prints, > images from the web, photos appearing in magazines and > books, and color minilab prints made with consumer quality > (i.e., low quality) zoom lenses mounted on cameras using > automatic everything. > > While those things, individually, will not cause a drop in > quality, taken collectively, and in a climate where MORE > MORE MORE rather than BETTER BETTER BETTER is rampant, > quality will suffer. We are, because of automation and the > need for speed, entering the age of the generic photograph. > > Shooting more, exposing more frames, is only a small part in > the formula that equates to quality. > > shel > > > Rob Studdert wrote: > > > > I don't understand why there seems to be so many comments on the list > > suggesting that shooting digital cameras will likely not strengthen our skills > > as photographers? > > > > Isn't the first advice that any photographer gets is to shoot then shoot some > > more? The way I see it is that digital makes this easy given that there is no > > film costs plus it records all the technical shooting data for review after the > > fact. >
