All too simple?
Discussion
I was thinking this morning that the advent of digital cameras offering quality results (potentially) and very low prices now means we can all act like the Pro photographers of the 60's and 70's and simply shoot loads of shots. (Yes, I know there were exceptions but by and large it was true.)
In the past it was difficult for the amateur snapper to justify the film stock and processing costs. With digital it really is no longer a problem and you don't have to pay for loads of prints that will be binned.
My 35mm film and processing costs in the last couple of weeks would have bought a pretty decent small digital camera.
Is this ready availability of easy production making for a world of better images?
Or is it making commercial photography that much harder to pursue as a career?
Do the images mean less to people if they are more easily taken and more readily available? Snap anything ang get the composition right in Photoshop?
Thoughts anyone?
In the past it was difficult for the amateur snapper to justify the film stock and processing costs. With digital it really is no longer a problem and you don't have to pay for loads of prints that will be binned.
My 35mm film and processing costs in the last couple of weeks would have bought a pretty decent small digital camera.
Is this ready availability of easy production making for a world of better images?
Or is it making commercial photography that much harder to pursue as a career?
Do the images mean less to people if they are more easily taken and more readily available? Snap anything ang get the composition right in Photoshop?
Thoughts anyone?
If people are willing to pay me to take photos then it must be simple! 
Your point is proved though in that with the mass onset of digital SLRs every man and his dog can have a go and take some very good pictures. In a days shooting I can now take around 4500 RAW pics without having to return to a computer/civilisation etc! Imagine doing that with film..!
Digital has also inspired me with the instant results that can be seen. I have always had a slight interest in photography since using my dad's Chinon '100% manual' SLR when younger, but I quickly lose interest in things, especially if you have to get films developed to find out not a single picture turned out (as with my fish when I was little!). Since I bought my first digital SLR it is hard to seperate me from the thing!
I still think that to produce really special photos a certain something is required be it on digital or slides. Some of GetCarter's or gravymaster's pictures prove this point exactly.
You can still have all the gear but no idea! (like myself)
Your point is proved though in that with the mass onset of digital SLRs every man and his dog can have a go and take some very good pictures. In a days shooting I can now take around 4500 RAW pics without having to return to a computer/civilisation etc! Imagine doing that with film..!
Digital has also inspired me with the instant results that can be seen. I have always had a slight interest in photography since using my dad's Chinon '100% manual' SLR when younger, but I quickly lose interest in things, especially if you have to get films developed to find out not a single picture turned out (as with my fish when I was little!). Since I bought my first digital SLR it is hard to seperate me from the thing!
I still think that to produce really special photos a certain something is required be it on digital or slides. Some of GetCarter's or gravymaster's pictures prove this point exactly.
You can still have all the gear but no idea! (like myself
)Phil S said:
some good stuff
Also i think if anything, digital has made photography easier to learn because of the instant results.
However i think it's easy to recognise the talented.
That doesn't answer your question though
Ok, i think it depends what your field is, ie pets and weddings then yes it is harder to make a living. However if we are talking wondrouse lands, history captured or faces of the globe then the talented and dedicated will always come out on top. IMO
"Is this ready availability of easy production making for a world of better images?"
Yes but it's also exponentially increasing the number of poor images. For every fantastic image you will see 100 out of focus, poorly composed, underexposed pictures of cats, babies etc
"Or is it making commercial photography that much harder to pursue as a career?"
Quite possibly - the ease with which images can be created seems to be creating an expectation that it should be cheap
The issue seems to be that digital is affordable, immediate and accessible which is encouraging more people to take up photography. The web offers a medium through which just about anyone can publish their images which means that getting exposure (sorry about that) is much easier than it used to be.
"Snap anything ang get the composition right in Photoshop? "
This is an interesting question, because that is what people believe i.e. that Photoshop, or more broadly digital is the panacea for all photography problems. The attitude of "don't worry I'll fix it in Photoshop" seems to be quite pervasive. The reality is that Photoshop (like the camera) is just a tool it still requires imagination, good "seeing" etc in order to use as part of the image creation process.
Phil S said...
"You can still have all the gear but no idea! (like myself )"
That is possibly the other "problem" too many people think that if they spend enough they can buy creativity or talent. Digital is making some people "lazy" and creating in them unrealistic expectations.
You only have to look at some of the other photography forums where you see people who constantly discuss the technical details of the gear and bemoan the fact that they are never going to be the next Ansel Adams etc simply because they don't own x,y or z peice of equipment.
Yes but it's also exponentially increasing the number of poor images. For every fantastic image you will see 100 out of focus, poorly composed, underexposed pictures of cats, babies etc
"Or is it making commercial photography that much harder to pursue as a career?"
Quite possibly - the ease with which images can be created seems to be creating an expectation that it should be cheap
The issue seems to be that digital is affordable, immediate and accessible which is encouraging more people to take up photography. The web offers a medium through which just about anyone can publish their images which means that getting exposure (sorry about that) is much easier than it used to be.
"Snap anything ang get the composition right in Photoshop? "
This is an interesting question, because that is what people believe i.e. that Photoshop, or more broadly digital is the panacea for all photography problems. The attitude of "don't worry I'll fix it in Photoshop" seems to be quite pervasive. The reality is that Photoshop (like the camera) is just a tool it still requires imagination, good "seeing" etc in order to use as part of the image creation process.
Phil S said...
"You can still have all the gear but no idea! (like myself )"
That is possibly the other "problem" too many people think that if they spend enough they can buy creativity or talent. Digital is making some people "lazy" and creating in them unrealistic expectations.
You only have to look at some of the other photography forums where you see people who constantly discuss the technical details of the gear and bemoan the fact that they are never going to be the next Ansel Adams etc simply because they don't own x,y or z peice of equipment.
IMO digital is just a technology. Its one with some advantages - but its still only a "medium".
"Photographers" - will still produce great pictures.
"Snappers" - will still take snaps.
There has always been and will always be the lucky snap that by sheer chance is a great picture. Perhaps the volume of shots that digital allows will increase the number. More likely not - as you have to have eyes to see that your lucky shot just so happens to be a great one...
"Photographers" - will still produce great pictures.
"Snappers" - will still take snaps.
There has always been and will always be the lucky snap that by sheer chance is a great picture. Perhaps the volume of shots that digital allows will increase the number. More likely not - as you have to have eyes to see that your lucky shot just so happens to be a great one...
Phil S said:
you have to get films developed to find out not a single picture turned out (as with my fish when I was little!)...
I'm not surprised - how did the little fella fire the shutter?
BTW I agree with you to an extent, but I do still feel that it takes a good photographer to take a good photo. Anyone can take a snapshot, but that is all it will ever be. Composition is king. That said, you can bugger about with stuff in Photoshop, but a bad shot will always be a bad shot.
For me, Digital allows me to learn from my mistakes FAR faster, and whereas with film I had to guess at where I went wrong, with digital I know, and can change it.
Mad Dave said:
For me, Digital allows me to learn from my mistakes FAR faster, and whereas with film I had to guess at where I went wrong, with digital I know, and can change it.
I'd agree with that. Feedback is instant, so you can see what you did wrong and change it. Plus, you don't have the added variables of developing and processing to cloud the results - what you see is what you did. So it's a much purer form I think. Change an input and see the output change.
simpo two said:
For me, Digital allows me to learn from my mistakes FAR faster, and whereas with film I had to guess at where I went wrong, with digital I know, and can change it.
I'd agree with that. Feedback is instant, so you can see what you did wrong and change it. Plus, you don't have the added variables of developing and processing to cloud the results - what you see is what you did. So it's a much purer form I think. Change an input and see the output change.
I have to agree. And to add to that thought - if you find that whet you thought was a good shot is not once displyed full size there are usually more opportunities to repeat the exercise. If you're on holiday for example you might choose to view a day's shoot in the evening and return the following day to cover any scenes you really like but didn't quite 'get'.
If you look at gravymaster's current thread re his departed Sony you can see that the guy has an excellent eye for the shot and the subject. However to develop the complete technique to the degree he has in just a year is remarkable IMHO.
It would surely have cost a fortune in regular film stock and processing and would have been a much slower process with less instant feedback. And I would imagine the shoots would take longer as well with the need to change film cropping up frequently.
Not easy when you are hanging out of the boot of a car ...
LongQ said:
It would surely have cost a fortune in regular film stock and processing and would have been a much slower process with less instant feedback.
The best part is poking around in the PhotoShop 'toybox' and seeing what works best. If you don't like the result, just Undo and try something else. Fantastic!
(though of course you still need a decent pic to start with!)
LongQ said:
Mad Dave said:
For me, Digital allows me to learn from my mistakes FAR faster, and whereas with film I had to guess at where I went wrong, with digital I know, and can change it.
I'd agree with that. Feedback is instant, so you can see what you did wrong and change it. Plus, you don't have the added variables of developing and processing to cloud the results - what you see is what you did. So it's a much purer form I think. Change an input and see the output change.
I have to agree. And to add to that thought - if you find that whet you thought was a good shot is not once displyed full size there are usually more opportunities to repeat the exercise. If you're on holiday for example you might choose to view a day's shoot in the evening and return the following day to cover any scenes you really like but didn't quite 'get'.
If you look at gravymaster's current thread re his departed Sony you can see that the guy has an excellent eye for the shot and the subject. However to develop the complete technique to the degree he has in just a year is remarkable IMHO.
It would surely have cost a fortune in regular film stock and processing and would have been a much slower process with less instant feedback. And I would imagine the shoots would take longer as well with the need to change film cropping up frequently.
Not easy when you are hanging out of the boot of a car ...
Yup, until last December I shot exclusively on film. I have been 'taking photos' for just over two years now - in fact, pretty much exactly 2 years on film. My website shows the progression ive made in that time, but my best shots, especially landscapes are happening now that I shoot digitally. It really is a great way to learn.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff