IMHO: The ugly side of digital photography.

beansbaxter · 06-10-2008, 03:34 AM

I hate to criticize digital photography, but I’m starting to see an uglier side to it. I thought photography was about the vision of the photographer and the moment being captured. Instead, it seems the camera holds the vision and all we talk about are settings to use and try. The camera seems to give this pixel perfect representation and I feel it should be about how the photographer sees things.

There are some amazing photographers out there, but I feel we need to get away from taking perfect images that look just like everyone else’s images.

I appreciate my camera, but I’ve learned the hard way that it’s more than suffice for my novice photography skills. It makes sense to keep a camera body for 3 to 4 years, forcing us to explore the features that our camera can do already.

Has the technical side of photography superseded the creative side of photography?

jezterr · 06-10-2008, 08:33 AM

no. that's just what you've been doing this whole time. and i've told you that before.

MotoPhotog · 06-10-2008, 08:59 AM

As they say, at the end of the day, you still have to take the picture. Regardless of gear. I think people get carried away with processing. MAJORLY. As for the photo itsself. Its still a personal angle of view.

Secondly, another quote, theres always 2 people in every picture, the subject and the photographer.

Anyway, no need to make it negative. I know where you are going. Keep photography a positive thing, just do what you do. If people like it great, if they dont, thats fine too.

Robusto · 06-10-2008, 09:22 AM

For me, I take, keep (and post) pics that make me happy.

I just hope others see the beauty in them as well.

eric · 06-10-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jezterr

no. that's just what you've been doing this whole time. and i've told you that before.

Yeah, this.

But I completely disagree. All the onslaught of DSLRs has done is hugely increase the number of shitty photos out there. I mean seriously, have you seen how many of the photos are only snapshots? Don't get me wrong, you can use your camera for whatever makes you happy but few are taking 'good' photos and even fewer 'great' photos.

Not to piss anyone here off but I haven't seen anything posted here that is representative of a GREAT photographer. There are some good photos here and some people I think will be great with more practice but there are so few great photographers out there relative to the masses with SLRs.

Anyways, there's a lot more to photos than the technical side but you have to learn that first. It's hard to create the image you want (the art) without the technical stuff down. There are many techniques to use both in shooting and post-processing to great photographs but without a photo that is technically correct, you can't do it.

Robusto · 06-10-2008, 12:03 PM

exactly why you read, practice, learn, read some more, practice more....

ciao998 · 06-10-2008, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric

Yeah, this.

But I completely disagree. All the onslaught of DSLRs has done is hugely increase the number of shitty photos out there. I mean seriously, have you seen how many of the photos are only snapshots? Don't get me wrong, you can use your camera for whatever makes you happy but few are taking 'good' photos and even fewer 'great' photos.

Not to piss anyone here off but I haven't seen anything posted here that is representative of a GREAT photographer. There are some good photos here and some people I think will be great with more practice but there are so few great photographers out there relative to the masses with SLRs.

Anyways, there's a lot more to photos than the technical side but you have to learn that first. It's hard to create the image you want (the art) without the technical stuff down. There are many techniques to use both in shooting and post-processing to great photographs but without a photo that is technically correct, you can't do it.

Then again it's all in the eye of the beholder. For me it was a particular few peoples pics on PNW that were a big reason I even started taking pictures, so obviously to me they took some great photos.

Just sayin perception varies greatly, and theres definitely some "wiggle room" in the parameters that define great photos...............JOhn

Killermondodude · 06-10-2008, 12:32 PM

What digital has done is make it easyer for us to be lazy, especially on the post production aspect

It used to be youd take hundreds of photos to find that one or 2 perfect tens maybe 5-7 9s

now with the post production you can take 5's and boost them to 8s or you can take a total loss pic play the hell out of it and call it art

But a 10 will always be a ten

jezterr · 06-10-2008, 01:24 PM

just to give you an idea... a large part of the people i listed in this thread are running around with older canon rebels and d40's...

i don't even think it's about the technology, and what you're up to par with. it's just how you use it that matters in the end.

plummy · 06-10-2008, 05:41 PM

+1 to everything else that's been said. taking massive amounts of photos won't help creativity. you're taking advantage of having digital media versus film...if we were still using film, i'm pretty sure there wouldn't be as many crappy photos out there. and if they are crappy, you can use them for other messy projects.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jezterr

it's just how you use it that matters in the end.

life quote. applies in far too many situations.

fast bike? great. can you ride?
bestest camera/lens? awesome. what's that a photo of?
supersexyawesomefast car? terrific. it sits in the garage?
super huge paycheck? fantastic. does your life feel fulfilled?
4.00 GPA? outstanding. what's your major?
top of the line lawnmower? holy crap!! where's your yard?

among other things...

stdave · 06-10-2008, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beansbaxter

Has the technical side of photography superseded the creative side of photography?

I remember a discussion similar to this about 20 years ago. It had to do with LP vs. CD's..

Quote:

Originally Posted by ciao998

Then again it's all in the eye of the beholder.

As with most things in life, I believe this to be the end point. It really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.. What do YOU think / like / want...

eric · 06-10-2008, 10:18 PM

There is a long article on Thom Hogan's website that I'm gonna repeat here because it I think it's well written and applies quite directly.... in a non-direct way.

Original article here: What's your Goal? by Thom Hogan

not fixing the formatting...

Quote:

What's your goal?

Seems like a simple question, doesn't it? What's your goal?

Amazingly, many of the photographers I talk to--both amateur and pro--don't really know the answer to that question. So let me ask it a little more specifically: what's your photographic goal?

Let me tell you mine for the coming year: take six photographs that I'll print at 24" and sell in limited quantity as signed prints. That's it. Take six photographs. Take six photographs that'll withstand being pushed to 24" with current print technologies. Take six photographs that'll withstand being pushed to 24" with current print technologies and which some number of people will find good enough to pay significant money to get one of those signed, limited edition prints. Take six photographs that'll withstand being pushed to 24" with current print technologies and which some number of people will find good enough to pay significant money to get and which I'll be proud to say represent my best work ever.

Notice anything about my answer? Well, I added specificity to it after stating it simply. Indeed, given that I've taken somewhere over 100,000 images in my lifetime (I'm afraid to even estimate the actual number, let alone count; Lightroom tells me that I took 782 images over the last two weeks that I decided to keep), that very last statement (in italics) actually represents a very significant specification. Moreover, I've got some measurement capabilities to determine if I meet my goal:

Did I take six photographs that became prints? This is a yes or no proposition. Taking six photographs is easy enough (less than a second on my camera ;~). But they have to make it through my critical editing process and they have to be printable at 24".
Did my limited edition sell out? Another yes or no proposition, though we've got some other variables here to consider. I could, for example, price the prints too high, in which case people may like them, but not buy them. I could also price them too low, in which case the edition would probably sell out because there's so many of you who'd like to just see my work, regardless of how good it is.
Do I think it's my best work yet? Obviously a subjective measurement, and I suppose I could just thump my chest like Tarzan and say "me good." But those of you who know me already have guessed that it's much more likely I'd do the opposite (e.g. crawl up in to the fetal position, weep inconsolably and say "me bad").
In reality, I'll probably partially meet my goal (I set high goals; you should too, but more on that in a bit). Perhaps I'll only manage five shots that meet my parameters. Perhaps I won't be able to get everything done in a year. I might not be 100% sure it represents my best work yet. Or maybe some combination or all of the above. Still, at the end of the process I'll take the time to look again at my goal, how well I achieved it, and what that implies for my next goal. I'll have more to say about my goals at a later date. I also intend to make this particular goal pursuit visible in extreme detail to everyone, warts and all, and they'll be a lot more specificity to it when I do that. But that's another article for another day. Today we're going to get you started. I've used a simplification of one of my 2008 goals simply to get the discussion kicked off. If you think you're going to be able to hide back there in the back of the class, guess again.

So let's get back to you. What's your photographic goal? Let's separate you readers into a few groups:

The pros. If you're a professional photographer, you absolutely need to be setting goals. And quite a few of them, actually. You need business goals (sales, profits, clients, etc.). You need quality goals (no botched assignments, no missed deadlines, etc.). You need personal goals (growth in your visual skills, better understanding of the technologies and software you use, etc.). Not setting goals means you're taking a random walk through your profession. It also means that you have no way of evaluating whether you're making any progress or not. Believe me, your competitors are setting goals and making progress, so you'd better be, too.
Serious amateurs. You bought the best equipment and software because you're ready to see just how far you can stretch your wings. Perhaps you aspire to cross the line into professionalism (and putting a few frames on a royalty-free stock list and getting a few dollars in sales doesn't count; professionals try to maximize their revenue not generate a few dollars here and there). Perhaps you just want some images on your walls that your friends and neighbors ooh and aah over. Maybe you want to be ready to shoot some family event and distribute photos to the participants that'll catch their attention. But more often than not, people in this category bite off very specific goals ("learn Photoshop," "take a workshop from a pro I've admired," "get a desktop photo printer and get it configured right," etc.). These goals are specific because you have a day job, a family, and photography is a time-constrained hobby for you. (Perhaps you initial goal should be "spend two hours a week photographing and editing images.")
The snapshooter. Really? The snapshooter needs goals? Sure. Generally the snapshooter's goals aren't so much the quality of the actual photo (though better is still better!), but the sharing of those images. Pictures taken by a snapshooter represent life events, memories, travels, and social occasions. The important thing to the snapshooter is that they were there to take the images and what happens to them after they're taken. If you fall in this category, you have one set of interlocking things to define: who is going to see your images, when, and how? Now your goal is easy: make sure that they see your images! Note that you may be the only one that sees your images, but you still need to do the homework: when and how are you going to see the results of your snapshooting? So consider making a photo book project, doing a slideshow (please, not 4000 photos that take hours to view!), or volunteering to do photos for an event or organization and email them to the participants.
I've already mentioned some goals, but let's build them into types of goals. The ambitious amongst you should have multiple goals, and preferably ones of every type:

Knowledge goals. Your knowledge of photography is currently at Level X. Raise it to Level Y. Or Z. Or even higher. With digital photography, we have so many different types of knowledge we need to master: staying current with the state-of-the-art in equipment (that doesn't mean buying it, it means knowing what you have and how the latest and greatest really compares, so you can make intelligent upgrading decisions); computer skills, including proper set up, use, and maintenance; software skills, specifically products like Lightroom, Photoshop, Capture NX, and other digital photography-specific products that can expand your imaging ability; printing skills, especially getting prints to match what you saw and what you edited; and not to forget, shooting skills. Do you really know what hyperfocal distances are, when and why you use them? It also wouldn't hurt to spend time learning about those that have come before you, from Brady to Adams to Wolfe. That, too, is knowledge.
Technique goals. This is about applying knowledge. It's one thing to read about and understand what hyperfocal distance is. But can you apply it properly and consistently in your photography? Obviously, there are times when you wouldn't use it, but what are those, and how do you recognize them? Technique goals have you out shooting, thus there is usually an "I need to shoot this much and this often and get this much right" type of measurement that you can apply to testing whether you meet such goals.
Quality goals. The most subjective of all, but photography is made to be viewed, so unless you're consistently getting those oohs and aahs from every shot you take, your audience is telling you that you might not be as good as you think you are. Quality goals are hard to set, but here's the hint: use comparisons. If there's a picture your spouse loves that you took, see if you can top that (i.e. shoot something he/she loves better). If you've not gotten above honorable mention in photo competitions, shoot higher (I recommend a shot right between the judge's eyes; just kidding). If five people asked for a copy of your shot from the last family shindig, you'll know you've reached a higher quality if ten ask next time. In other words, in order to set a quality goal you need to first be able to pinpoint where you are (that in itself is a useful goal, by the way).
Quantity goals. The easiest to make and count (usually). Still, it's important. One reason why pros shoot so well is that they shoot often. How do you get to the art gallery? Practice, practice, practice. How do you get published? Practice, practice, practice (and then sell, sell, sell). Quantity goals work best when there's quality of some sort attached to them. Anyone can say, "well, I shot 5000 images this year, next year I'll shoot for 10,000." It's a little different to say "I got three honorable mentions this year, next year I'll shoot for six honorable mentions and higher."
I'm going to suggest one other type of goal that entends over multiple types: the fix my weakness goal. Do you take photos that are technically competent but lack emotion? Or do you take pictures that immediately evoke a reaction but are technically deficient? If you fall into one of those two camps, make a goal of keeping the part that works and elevating your capability on the other.

One question I sometimes ask at workshops is "why do you take pictures?" Seems like an ice breaker question, right? Well, it isn't. It's actually something that links to all of the above. Most of the time I get vague answers, usually because the participant has never really confronted the question before and has no specific photographic goals. Sometimes I get parroted answers, like the Galen-esque "I want to communicate what I experienced in this place to the rest of the world." Do you know what your answer is? It actually makes a difference to your goal(s), doesn't it?

To be useful, goals should:

Be specific. "Take six photos." A specific count. "Print them at two-feet." A specific action with a specific parameter. "Sell them." Another specific action. "Be better than before." The word "better" in this context is not terribly specific. By the time I actually get the process under way I'll have defined that word to be much more specific.
Have a time limit. Goals with no fixed time period have a way of being unmet. Perpetually. It's easy to say, "oh, I'll get to that next week" if you don't have a deadline. Next week never arrives, at least for your goal.
Be measurable. Did I take six photos or five? In a year or two years? Did I print them at two feet or 19"? Did I break down and have a lab print them or did I do it myself? Did I sell all the prints I made at the price I set or did I have some left over or perhaps have to reduce the price to sell out? Did I match the specifics I gave to the word "better" or did I fall short? The only way you know if you attained a goal is if you can measure against it (keep reading).
Be communicated. Not communicating a goal to at least one other person is like making a prediction on the future but not telling anyone. It doesn't count when your prediction comes true, because no one knew you predicted it. Likewise, goals tend to be the same. The coward's way out is to not communicate your goals to anyone else. This gives you wiggle room to save face if you don't meet them. But you're making a classic mistake if you do this: you're making the assumption that not meeting a goal is somehow a badge of shame. No, it just means you didn't meet the goal. Either you keep trying to meet that goal, or you set a slightly less ambitious goal next time. The fate of the world doesn't rest on whether you meet your photographic goal, so there's no shame in not meeting it. Indeed, there's a lot to be learned by not meeting it. You may have thought you could progress faster than you can, now you have a better sense of the rate at which you can. You may have underestimated the task, next time you won't. Many "overnight sensations" failed miserably for quite some time before they finally broke through. It's better to earn your 15 minutes of fame than to luck into it. That's because it might last more than 15 minutes if you worked at achieving it.
Be ambitious. It's not only okay to set your goal high, but it's also important to the whole process. It's only when your goals are above what you're comfortable of achieving that you progress. Say your goal was to wake up every morning and eat breakfast. Not a very high goal, is it (and when you fail, so what, you won't be around to take the blame ;~)? Everyone reading this has achieved at least half that goal every day so far, so why would tomorrow be any different? Now if the goal were to get up an hour earlier than usual and use that extra time to write the next great novel, now we're getting somewhere. Very few people achieve higher than they aspire. Read that again. Very few people achieve higher than they aspire. The very best achieve almost as high as they aspire, and they aspire higher than the rest of us. Those without goals or with goals that aren't ambitious enough, will constantly be frustrated at not achieving what they aspire.
Be realistic. While I just said set your goals high, they also need to be within the realm of achievable or else you'll eventually get frustrated and just give up. The monkey has to see the banana to reach for it. Don't put your banana in a locked room underwater miles offshore unless you're a Navy Seal by the name of Houdini.
Be evaluated. At the end of your time limit, you look at whether you met the measurements and specifics you set. This is a pass/fail class that is repeatable without penalty, so don't be afraid. If you met your goals, great, you set them too low and can be more ambitious next time (congratulations on making it another rung up the ladder). If you partially met your goals, you're doing fine, and you know that you set them about right (congratulations on getting partway up the ladder). If you didn't meet your goals, you're still doing okay because now you know that you tackled more than you could handle and you'll either have to dedicate more time and energy to the effort or set slightly less ambitious goals that you can achieve with the resources you can throw at them (congratulations on finding the ladder and trying to climb it). It's okay to climb the ladder slowly and rung by rung. It's the old tale of the hare and the tortoise: sheer speed isn't necessarily the winner.
So what are you doing still reading this article? You've got some goal-tending to do. Start with some easy, short-term, and small-scale goals ("Learn the Lightroom shortcut keys this week"). With just a little bit of brain-grease you should quickly produce a longish list of that type of goal you can set deadlines and measurements for. Pick a couple and start. Meanwhile, be looking for medium-scale ("Get all my existing images keyworded and metatagged in Lightroom before the next big shoot") and large-scale ("Talk National Geographic into a photo assignment this year and nail it") goals. You'll be surprised at how focused and sharp you become as a photographer (yes, I know there are puns and word twists all over this article; live with it, as it's getting late tonight and I have a goal of finishing this piece before...).

Anyways, regarding my earlier comment. I'm not saying there aren't very good photographers... just no 'great' ones. The photographers named in the other thread are great. No one here is at that level yet... IMO. And I do say yet because I think there is some talent here.

Anyways. I like that article, follow the original link for easier reading.

jezterr · 06-11-2008, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beansbaxter

I hate to criticize digital photography, but I’m starting to see an uglier side to it. I thought photography was about the vision of the photographer and the moment being captured. Instead, it seems the camera holds the vision and all we talk about are settings to use and try. The camera seems to give this pixel perfect representation and I feel it should be about how the photographer sees things.

There are some amazing photographers out there, but I feel we need to get away from taking perfect images that look just like everyone else’s images.

I appreciate my camera, but I’ve learned the hard way that it’s more than suffice for my novice photography skills. It makes sense to keep a camera body for 3 to 4 years, forcing us to explore the features that our camera can do already.

Has the technical side of photography superseded the creative side of photography?

this actually reminds me of when i showed you a book of collected national geographic pictures throughout its history. and the first thing you said was that they sucked because they were all grainy (we used to call it film).

which basically translated to "i don't get photography."

ciao998 · 06-11-2008, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric

There is a long article on Thom Hogan's website that I'm gonna repeat here because it I think it's well written and applies quite directly.... in a non-direct way.

Original article here: What's your Goal? by Thom Hogan

not fixing the formatting...

Anyways, regarding my earlier comment. I'm not saying there aren't very good photographers... just no 'great' ones. The photographers named in the other thread are great. No one here is at that level yet... IMO. And I do say yet because I think there is some talent here.

Anyways. I like that article, follow the original link for easier reading.

Great post Eric! I'm not knockin your thinking, just adding to it is all, because art/photography is so subjective. Everyone has different eyes is all, and for simpletons like myself they're easily pleased

. Hell I still have pics of your and Jezters bikes still stuck in my head, lol...

I think to be a great photographer, like your eluding to, would be far more of a commitment than I would ever be willing to risk.

Goals are a good thing to keep in sight when being critical of yourself, or this hobby can easily make you pull your hair out. For me it's just about taking photos of my experiences to share with my family, and hopefully they will be decent enough that they will want to look at the next one

Although my sister STILL hasnt opened her hs grauation photos that I sent her over a week ago, it seems I'm failing already

lol....................kids....................... ......JOhn

Mike Reyna · 06-11-2008, 08:24 AM

About the only advantage I see from digital is quicker workflow (processing/results..etc).

I shot film for over 20 years (35mm), and I didn't necessarily have to shoot 20 shots to get one right. If you understand your subject, lighting conditions, getting the correct angles, & know what shutter speed/f stop to use... you would get the shot. Problem is.... if you had a bad roll of film...well that's another story. Of course….. the obvious… You had to wait to get it developed to see your results.

Shooting slides…you really had to know what you were doing. Slide film was not as forgiving as standard print film. If you blew your exposure, well the results were horrible. BTW I used Fuji Velvia with great results for years, especially for nature photography. One thing about slide film is that you really get what you see. It really teaches you to “use” and “learn” how to use a camera.

This is one thing that I do hate about digital, is that a lot of people buy a DSLR and expect “pro” results. It truly is the person behind the camera that creates great images. Most people I have seen use a DSLR (especially the entry models), and leave their settings at auto. This is a big NO NO. How else are you going to learn?? It’s all about experimenting & practice, practice, practice!

The other problem I see is that some people rely too much on Photoshop. I personally (my opinion) like to show people exactly what I’m seeing though the viewfinder. Most photog’s just get carried away with the PS in my opinion. It makes the pictures look too “artistic” rather than a actual photo. Photography is a from of art? Yes, but it’s not a painting in my opinion.

When I finally went all digital 4 years ago... I haven't looked back to film. There are still some advantages to film that digital still cannot do right. Although, I must say they are getting there (slowly). The pros of digital outweigh the cons (for me at least).

For me, now, it is much easier to catalog my photos, to see them in real time & to quickly process them. Since I don't really shoot RAW, about the only thing I do is quickly adjust highlights/shadows & sharpness. Everything else is set to manual on the camera. That, to me it’s a life saver...especially if you take 1500 or more shots a session.

William · 06-11-2008, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beansbaxter

Has the technical side of photography superseded the creative side of photography?

No.

eric · 06-11-2008, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ciao998

Great post Eric! I'm not knockin your thinking, just adding to it is all, because art/photography is so subjective. Everyone has different eyes is all, and for simpletons like myself they're easily pleased

. Hell I still have pics of your and Jezters bikes still stuck in my head, lol...

from the shoot down by the docks? I should go shoot that again since I know a little more now.

Quote:

The other problem I see is that some people rely too much on Photoshop. I personally (my opinion) like to show people exactly what I’m seeing though the viewfinder. Most photog’s just get carried away with the PS in my opinion. It makes the pictures look too “artistic” rather than a actual photo. Photography is a from of art? Yes, but it’s not a painting in my opinion.

This is a point I completely disagree with you on. I think photography specifically is art and doesn't just document reality. Now if you're doing photojournalism and documenting events and stories this is different, you're not creating art, you're a reporter. But just shooting what you want, you're creating art. Here's another snipet of an article from Thom Hogan as he says it better than I, titled "Top Photography Myths."

original: The Top Photography Myths

Quote:

1--Photography Documents Reality
I'm constantly amused when discussions break out about the validity of using Photoshop to tweak colors or to retouch a small imperfection. "People expect photos to document the real world, and you should print images as you took them" goes one argument. Poppycock. The mere act of taking a picture destroys the ability to "capture" reality.

You choose which lens to use. You choose where to focus. You choose the exposure. You choose the composition. You choose a direction to point the camera. You choose what time of day and what season to take a picture. You choose the exact moment to preserve (and may distort that moment by using an extremely long or short shutter speed). You choose the type of film used (or the digital camera's color settings). And the list goes on. Meanwhile, reality also includes the moments before and after the shot, the area outside the frame, and much, much more. In short, you as photographer are making choices for the eventual viewer of your photo. The viewer only sees what you want them to, period.

On my living room wall is a large Ansel Adams print (Wonder Lake and Mt. Denali). It's a powerful image that captures the same spirit I felt standing in that same spot years later. But Adams shot in black and white. And he clearly manipulated the contrast in the final print. Even more interesting is that over the many years that Adams produced prints of that image, it appears that his burning and dodging techniques changed--later versions seem more contrasty and brooding than earlier ones. The exposure appears to be taken in very early morning on an unusually clear day (you can sit on that same spot for 20 days running and sometimes not see the full mountain). Did he document reality? I'd say no. He created an image that conveyed what he saw and how he felt in the presence of this immense mountain and Alaska's ever-changing light. And if you think he did document reality, try this exercise: take a large format camera and some black and white film to that same spot and try to duplicate the image. I'm betting that you'll find that very difficult to do, and only possible if you spend some time manipulating the final print. (My very different interpretation of the same subject is used at the top of this page.)

So one of the first lessons I try to teach in photography classes is to break the mental constraint that you, as photographer, are merely "recording" something. No. You're carefully manipulating the scene using all the tools and tricks available to you, all in order to produce an image that conveys what you saw and felt.

Robusto · 06-11-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric

There is a long article on Thom Hogan's website that I'm gonna repeat here because it I think it's well written and applies quite directly.... in a non-direct way.

Original article here: What's your Goal? by Thom Hogan

not fixing the formatting...

Anyways, regarding my earlier comment. I'm not saying there aren't very good photographers... just no 'great' ones. The photographers named in the other thread are great. No one here is at that level yet... IMO. And I do say yet because I think there is some talent here.

Anyways. I like that article, follow the original link for easier reading.

thanks for the origional link

for a second, I thought Ripp'n was posting up here.

06-10-2008, 03:34 AM	#1 (permalink)
beansbaxter Administrator Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 523 Blog Entries: 4 From: Seattle, WA My Camera: Nikon D300	IMHO: The ugly side of digital photography. I hate to criticize digital photography, but I’m starting to see an uglier side to it. I thought photography was about the vision of the photographer and the moment being captured. Instead, it seems the camera holds the vision and all we talk about are settings to use and try. The camera seems to give this pixel perfect representation and I feel it should be about how the photographer sees things. There are some amazing photographers out there, but I feel we need to get away from taking perfect images that look just like everyone else’s images. I appreciate my camera, but I’ve learned the hard way that it’s more than suffice for my novice photography skills. It makes sense to keep a camera body for 3 to 4 years, forcing us to explore the features that our camera can do already. Has the technical side of photography superseded the creative side of photography? __________________ “The camera’s only job is to get out of the way of making photographs.” -- Ken Rockwell beansbaxter.com is my blog.

06-10-2008, 08:33 AM	#2 (permalink)
jezterr Moderator Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 513 From: a cesspit. My Camera: disposable	no. that's just what you've been doing this whole time. and i've told you that before. __________________ www.tru3studio.com www.juniormonkey.com www.photoblog.com/jezterr

06-10-2008, 08:59 AM	#3 (permalink)
MotoPhotog Senior Member Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 212 From: Federal Way, WA My Camera: D300 & D200	As they say, at the end of the day, you still have to take the picture. Regardless of gear. I think people get carried away with processing. MAJORLY. As for the photo itsself. Its still a personal angle of view. Secondly, another quote, theres always 2 people in every picture, the subject and the photographer. Anyway, no need to make it negative. I know where you are going. Keep photography a positive thing, just do what you do. If people like it great, if they dont, thats fine too. __________________ http://darrenbeattyphotography.com

06-10-2008, 01:24 PM	#9 (permalink)
jezterr Moderator Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 513 From: a cesspit. My Camera: disposable	just to give you an idea... a large part of the people i listed in this thread are running around with older canon rebels and d40's... i don't even think it's about the technology, and what you're up to par with. it's just how you use it that matters in the end. __________________ www.tru3studio.com www.juniormonkey.com www.photoblog.com/jezterr

06-10-2008, 09:22 AM	#4 (permalink)
Robusto Senior Member Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 104 From: Spokane	For me, I take, keep (and post) pics that make me happy. I just hope others see the beauty in them as well.

06-10-2008, 12:03 PM	#6 (permalink)
Robusto Senior Member Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 104 From: Spokane	exactly why you read, practice, learn, read some more, practice more....

06-10-2008, 12:32 PM	#8 (permalink)
Killermondodude Senior Member Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 321 Blog Entries: 1 From: Camano Island My Camera: Canon 20d	What digital has done is make it easyer for us to be lazy, especially on the post production aspect It used to be youd take hundreds of photos to find that one or 2 perfect tens maybe 5-7 9s now with the post production you can take 5's and boost them to 8s or you can take a total loss pic play the hell out of it and call it art But a 10 will always be a ten

06-11-2008, 08:24 AM	#15 (permalink)
Mike Reyna Member Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 91 From: Snoqualmie, WA My Camera: Nikon D70	About the only advantage I see from digital is quicker workflow (processing/results..etc). I shot film for over 20 years (35mm), and I didn't necessarily have to shoot 20 shots to get one right. If you understand your subject, lighting conditions, getting the correct angles, & know what shutter speed/f stop to use... you would get the shot. Problem is.... if you had a bad roll of film...well that's another story. Of course….. the obvious… You had to wait to get it developed to see your results. Shooting slides…you really had to know what you were doing. Slide film was not as forgiving as standard print film. If you blew your exposure, well the results were horrible. BTW I used Fuji Velvia with great results for years, especially for nature photography. One thing about slide film is that you really get what you see. It really teaches you to “use” and “learn” how to use a camera. This is one thing that I do hate about digital, is that a lot of people buy a DSLR and expect “pro” results. It truly is the person behind the camera that creates great images. Most people I have seen use a DSLR (especially the entry models), and leave their settings at auto. This is a big NO NO. How else are you going to learn?? It’s all about experimenting & practice, practice, practice! The other problem I see is that some people rely too much on Photoshop. I personally (my opinion) like to show people exactly what I’m seeing though the viewfinder. Most photog’s just get carried away with the PS in my opinion. It makes the pictures look too “artistic” rather than a actual photo. Photography is a from of art? Yes, but it’s not a painting in my opinion. When I finally went all digital 4 years ago... I haven't looked back to film. There are still some advantages to film that digital still cannot do right. Although, I must say they are getting there (slowly). The pros of digital outweigh the cons (for me at least). For me, now, it is much easier to catalog my photos, to see them in real time & to quickly process them. Since I don't really shoot RAW, about the only thing I do is quickly adjust highlights/shadows & sharpness. Everything else is set to manual on the camera. That, to me it’s a life saver...especially if you take 1500 or more shots a session.