Todays photographers have it too easy

<p>Following up on some thoughts posted in a previous thread - "My digital camera obsolete?", I reallised that todays cameras have made parts of photography too easy. The old days took more skill to create good images. <br /> When all I had was just a 35m SLR and a 50mm lens I did some beautiful work. It was not the equipment.<br /> To futher expand on this thought, Ill throw one out there that should get some interesting responses- Todays photographers have it too easy and do do half the work as the good ones from the recent past did. We have become too dependant on on camera technology.<br /> With my SLR I had no P or A or S modes. The camera did not pick the exposure for me. It was all needle match the shutter and F stop. It made you stop and think- really select the proper shutter and DOF. Forget about 51 autofocus points, Focus a sharp as you can on what you wanted, think about what F stop you were using. If you were good you would do it fast. You could not change ISO with the twist of a dial, but were married to the film in the camera. Made you stop and think about what you were going out to shoot and load the proper film. And then do the best you could.<br /> Zooms were very rare, Primes were the rule of thumb. You had to position yourself in the right place, not twist a zoom ring. Most people I knew had only 3 lens, a 50mm, a 28 or 35mm and 135mm. That was it. go out and create. <br /> An another thing about todays cameras. We shoot too many frames. When you had a 36 exposure roll of film, you picked your shots carefully, composed them well and tried to time the shutter release carefully. Your skill made you a good photographer, Not shooting 6 frames a second and hoping to get one timed properly. I"d got out and shoot 36 exposures on a shoot and love 25 of the shoots. Today because of digital I'll shoot 100 to 150 shots to get 25 I like.</p>

 

<p>Good re-enforcement for your argument can be found in old 1950's and 60's photo magazines. The average hobby shooter back then, had a darkroom, and needed a lot of skills just to produce "passable" images. Read some of the old letters in these magazines, and you'll get a glimpse into a vastly different hobby then today's photo hobby world.</p>

<p><em>Today because of digital I'll shoot 100 to 150 shots to get 25 I like.<br /></em><br />Here's a thought: don't <em>do</em> that any more. The camera doesn't do anything unless you pick it up and use it. Cameras don't shoot 150 frames, people do.<br /><br />As for "having it too easy" - ugh, not this again. I think you're clearly overlooking what a lame crutch roll film is. Photography was much better when it was all sheet film. Or better yet, glass plates.<br /><br />Here's an anti-hypothesis for you: it's still hard to make really good photographs. To a certain extent, the standards have changed. It might be easier today to make what counted as a (technically) good photograph 20 years ago. But technical excellence and workflow have fundamentally changed. So now, "good images" must rise to a new level. So, what are you doing to rise to that level?</p>

<p>You're right Steve- I left out the whole darkroom part. Bottles and trays of chemicals, therometers getting just the right tempertaure, big Gralab timers, Enlargers, picking the right developer and so on. Sure was harder than CS4</p>

<p>Matt - I'll shoot 100 images today where I'd shoot 36 in the past beacuse it costs nothing to do so. It makes it easier beacuse I can now shoot things that I would rule out in the past and then take more time to sort it out later. In the past you had to compose more carefully because yo took fewer shoots because of the costs involved with film and processing. Today most people shoot away and pick the proper composition later. And don't tell me that you don't shoot action with a high frame rate to get the right shot. I shot for 15 years before I had a camera with a motor drive. And I got get action shots</p>

<p>(***)</p>

<p>LOL! Same args here; like a theme... no one suffered for their art LIKE I DID man!</p>

<p>(35mm SLRs were for sissies when those came out... medium format users were sissies after they replaced glass plate photography)</p>

<p>21st Century is where I live, breathe, and shoot. Dwelling about the past gets one no where.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Todays photographers have it too easy</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So what? Why should I care? What difference does it make?</p>

<p>If I can get the result I want I'm happy. It doesn't bother me one bit if you think I have it too easy.</p>

<p>If it's about visualization, composition and exposure, chances are the old technique will still work with the new equipment. I only have one DSLR, but it has a function where you can shut off that LCD display after the shot if you want. </p>

<p>The flip side to photographers having it easier is that they don't have to ruin as much film before they see their first good shot. The technology can get them performing to levels where they're satisfied with their use of the equipment faster. </p>

<p>I still use my all manual lenses and old techniques. You can, too. We've pretty much only got influence over our own rig anyway. Just change up how you photograph today to match what you want. Proceed with confidence!</p>

<p>Many good points above, but agree most with Walt Flanagan.</p>

<p>I only recently jumped on dSLR bandwagon. Besides a modern dSLR, I also own and use a couple Rollei TLRs, a Widelux 35mm swing-lens camera, a Kodak Panoram swing-lens camera, and a #10 Cirkut.</p>

<p>Every one of the above, even the modern dSLR, demands skill and practice to achieve really good results. When I hand the dSLR off to somebody else for, oh, let's say a family shot that I'm in.... there's a difference.</p>

<p>I often shoot my dSLR in manual mode, and find the exposure latitude of digital to be about like slide film, ie, not all that forgiving.</p>

<p>One more funny item... a buddy of mine is young jand extremely bright, and came to photography via digital. Another buddy is mature, and is dedicated to film. We all shared dinner recently, and then my film buddy showed us how he makes beautiful prints from MF negs. My digi buddy was fascinated, saying things like "Wow, once you've got a process this isn't hard. Nor is it expensive, with the used stuff being dumped right now. And these prints are much sharper than my digital...."</p>

<p>Ranting is too easy today. All you have to do is use a newfangled computer, go online and have the whole world as a potential audience. These days people can backspace and make changes and then hit send. All sorts of bad rants are out there now. In my day, one had to use a typewriter, type everything just so and then send the finished letter to a newspaper editor. You couldn't write too much as space was limited. If you wanted to get printed, you had to get it right everytime. Today's ranters just have it too easy. Computers have ruined the fine art of ranting.</p>

<p><em>In the past you had to compose more carefully because yo took fewer shoots because of the costs involved with film and processing.<br /></em><br />So? Is this a <em>good thing</em> or a <em>bad thing? </em>Your tone makes it sound like it was a good thing, making better photographs. <br /><br /><em>I'll shoot 100 images today where I'd shoot 36 in the past beacuse it costs nothing to do so.</em><br /><br />So? Is this a <em>good thing</em> or a <em>bad thing? </em>Your tone makes it sound like it's a bad thing, making worse photographs.<br /><br /><em>Today most people shoot away and pick the proper composition later<br /></em><br />So? Is this a <em>good thing</em> or a <em>bad thing? </em>Your tone makes it sound like it's a bad thing, making worse photographs.<br /><br /><em>And don't tell me that you don't shoot action with a high frame rate to get the right shot. <br /></em><br />I'm perfectly happy that I can shoot 8fps, and it absolutely has increased the number of useable images I get from a given project. I started shooting action in the 1970's, with manual advance 35mm SLRs. But you're making it sound like the new frame rates are a bad thing. Are they?<br /><br /><em>And I got get action shots [sic]<br /></em><br />So did I. I now I get more of them and much better. But you're making that sound like a bad thing. I must be missing your point, here.<br /><br /> </p>

<p>Matt - My point is that its all an easier thing. Whether that good or bad is a different discussion. <br>

But I'll tell you this, newer photographers probally have have a little less of a feel for some items beacuse the camera makes decisions for them and they never had to.</p>

<p>Don't be coy, Joseph! You said it's "too" easy. Meaning, there's too much easy. Which means you think there should be less of that easiness. So I'm trying to understand why.</p>

<p>[[ Whether that good or bad is a different discussion.]]</p>

<p>I'm rather surprised you have completely forgotten what you wrote at the top of this page. Perhaps a name change to Leonard Shelby is in order?</p>

 

<p>

 

 

<p > </p>

<p >I updated my pervious post with</p>

<p >But I'll tell you this, newer photographers probally have have a little less of a feel for some items beacuse the camera makes decisions for them and they never had to, and thats a bad thing</p>

<br />

 

 

</p>

<p>Joseph, as time passes, let's demand that everything be made harder than before. How far we can walk doesn't any longer define how far we can travel, what we can find and grow no longer defines what we eat, we don't have to listen to only what people next to us have to say. Boy, everything keeps getting easier and easier as time goes on. We must not let that happen to photography.</p>

<p>You are right, things got easier. It was certainly more challenging when you had to coat your own glass plates and use flash powder. There is nothing wrong with it being technically easier, though it does make it harder to be a professional photographer--everyone thinks they can do it. Most people can read today too. They couldn't 500 years ago. They had no cars, planes or elevators either, and had to light fires and candles at night. How interesting it has gotten vs. caveman days.</p>

<p>When things get very difficult in my profession we have a saying. If it was easy , they'd be doing it at WAL-MART.</p>

<p>My Wal-mart has a photo studio setup for kids pictures</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It was all needle match the shutter and F stop.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You actually had a meter <em>in</em> the camera? When I started photography we had to use hand-held meters. Sounds to me like you had it way too easy...</p>

<p>Technology doesn't force you to do anything <em>you</em> don't want to do. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Your skill made you a good photographer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Your ability to see uniquely makes you a good photographer. Skill is merely the tool to translate the vision to its final form. I know a lot of photographers who are very skillful (technically proficient) that make boring photographs. Skill will never give you originality.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>We shoot too many frames.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No - YOU shoot to many frames because <em>you</em> don't have the personal discipline to treat every subject individually. Photography is about seeing - that's the difficult part. The rest is just the mechanics to translate what you see to the final photograph. If you approach photography as an individual vision, then how many exposures you make to get to that vision is immaterial. However, if you approach it like the lottery where the more tickets you buy (the more exposures you make) the better chance you may have to get a winner - well - you've missed the point of photography entirely.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Today because of digital I'll shoot 100 to 150 shots to get 25 I like.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That's a personal problem. Please don't ascribe your perceived short comings to everyone else. See the previous comment. If you cannot control yourself with a digital camera - do not blame the equipment. Look in the mirror ...or go back to using film until you learn the self-discipline needed to control yourself when using digital equipment.</p>

<p>... and I would guess the wet-plate brigade said the same thing when roll-film arrived.<br>

But, there is some truth in what you say, and I have to confess that my photography was improved by a whole order of magnitude when I moved up to 120 and only had 12 on a roll - or even 8 on with my Press 23. No bracketing, no 'shoot it and see what turns out' - mounting the camera on a tripod, careful composition, careful focussing, careful metering - only then did I 'push the button'.</p>

<p>When I use my digital camera I take lots of pictures, as I am not limited to the number I click away at anything that looks promising. When I use my 6 x 9 Fuji giving me only 8 shots per film I am a lot more careful. I find that I get more successful pictures from two rolls of film than I do from any number from the digital camera. If I use 35mm it falls in between the two.<br>

Digital is fun. Film is serious!</p>

<p>Thank you Chris and Norman. You make compelling arguments for the point I am trying to make.<br>

I shoot more with Digital beacuse it is easier to. If I want, I take a 35mm roll of film and go 36 for 36 with excellent photos. I've been shooting for 40 years since I was 14 and have done and have no personal problems with my phootography and don't need to look in the mirror.<br>

<b>I shoot 2 or 3 photos where I used to shoot 1 with film. I don't want to hear it - WE ALL DO.</b><br>

<b>When I shoot 2 or 3, the guy next to me is shooting 10 on contineous high. Happen quite a few times 2 weeks ago at my kids school play. Oh yea - he was the paid professional to cover the play for the school.</b></p>

<p>Taking my speed graphic out I really have to be careful in the sense that I might only have 6-8 negatives to expose. So - do I really want to photograph that? Plus the camera and associated gear is kinda heavy to pack around.</p>

<p>Zoom lens? yeah, pick up the camera/tripod and move its position.</p>

<p>Hand held light meter.</p>

<p>Then time spent in the darkroom developing/fixing.</p>

<p>Using cameras such as my speed graphic or my Fuji GW670II (10 shots per roll), I have to think about what Im doing a lot more since I am limited to the exposures I can get. Also, neither of those cameras have a zoom lens or built in meter.</p>

<p>I cant even develop my roll of120 from todays shooting with the GW670II - I ran out of fixer. Developed 9 sheets of 4x5's though. That took about more than an hour. In the dark. Breathing in fumes :P<br>

<br /> I dont think I have it too easy.</p>