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Digital is a tempting little whore, and it is easy to talk oneself into thinking it makes us better by applying outdated criteria to what we are doing, but I have my doubts, based on my own experience, as to whether there is any truth or not to it making us better photographers.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
