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
