Does digital make you a better photographer?

[bill_carriger2]

The other day I met a fellow Leica shooter photographing with a

digital R8. After admiring his camera (I was very impressed. Quiet,

lighter by about half of the EOS 1N I used to shoot) I told him I

shoot with a M7 and was a devoted film user. He said he likes to

shoot digital because you tend to take more photos, which helps to

make a better photographer. I agreed that the more you shoot the

better, but I wasn't sold on the theory that digital makes you want to

shoot more. I thought about this for the rest of the day and came to

the same conclusion that I don't think I would shoot amy more or less

with a digital camera.

 

What do you guys that shot digital think? Is he right? And those

film users, do you think that using a digital camera would cause you

to take more photographs? Just curious. Thanks

 

Bill

[nels]

"Does digital make you a better photographer?"

 

No more than merely owning a car makes you a better driver.

[vivek iyer]

I still use film and digital. I do not think digital "makes" me shoot more. When I first got my dSLR, I did shoot a "lot" (random shots because of the new toy and the instant feedback) for the first few days.

[screeny]

Personally I think this debate can be argued two ways:

Digital makes it easier and cheaper to shoot more and with direct feedback (image itselph and more importantly the histogram), according to this arguments digital would make the learning process go faster.

However the flipside of this argument is that with film, which is slightly more expensive to use, with no direct feedback you are forced to think more before you shoot. In other words digital makes you lazy and a good image is more a matter of getting a good one out of 1000 shots instead of a deliberated thinking process.

 

Which agrument is most true? I'll let the others be the judge of that.

 

regards

 

Marc

[brambor]

It sure doesn't hurt or make you worse.

[remco-jan.woldhuis]

Sometimes I take more pictures when shooting digital, other times it's the same as wih

film. Especially in the "difficult" situations I shoot more. You can say that indirectly this

makes me a better photographer, since I learn from the additional pictures I made. What

also happens in my case that in a series of photo's, the first one is the best on many

occasions. So the other pictures are more to be on the safe side, just in case.

[robert_haller]

disgusting idea - having to shoot more to get the pictures right ... dont like it - the "ZEN-Factor" gets lost .... not enough concentration ... pure sabba-gabba trash ... why select one out of many pictures ... if you can get it right with one click ... and why all this ????? Because of the nearly no-delay with the M. 1/60 of a second and the picture is taken ... incredible .... all SLR and digicams loos out in this discipline ...

[dg1]

Take your pick of favorite classic photographers. Would they be "better" if they'd had a digital camera? I kind of doubt, and I doubt they'd be worse either. I doesn't matter, you just do what you like. I like both digital and film cameras for different reasons and I do think the digital's istant feedback can cut the learning curve a little, but it's about really looking at what you're shooting either way..you can do that before or after you shoot, or both. IMO.

[doug herr]

I use both digital and film. I prefer to use digital when I expect a high rejection rate

because the variable cost of the rejects is essentially zero. You might say that digital

makes me shoot more, but it's because with film I'd have avoided the subjects where I

expect a lot of rejects - a warbler flitting about in a tree, for example. These bits of

kinetic fluff move so often and so quickly that the odds are abysmally low that the bird in

the picture will be posed like it was when your synapses gave the order to shoot - so I

make lots and lots of exposures with these birds.

<P>

<CENTER>

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com" taarget="_blank">

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/parulidae/yrwa02.jpg">

</A>

<BR>

<B>Yellow-rumped Warbler</B> Sacramento County California<BR>

<I>Leica R8/DMR, 560mm f/6.8 Telyt</I>

</CENTER>

[steve george]

You've kind of asked two questions:

 

Does it make me shoot more?: Practice does make me a better photographer, digital allows "free" practice, so in that respect on occasion perhaps I take more digital than I would with film but I try to make that practice as much a considered excerise as I would with film - the way my brain works I learn more by trying to understand the "why" of something rather than the "see what happens if" - I can see why those more experimental in their approach would want to take significantly more with digital though so it's all about individual approaches I think.

 

Does digital make you a better photographer?: I think my photography has probably improved since I started shooting digital in addition to film - most noticeably in my spotmetering where instant feedback helps. Whether the curve of improvement would have been broadly the same had I stuck solely with film however is impossible to say.

[jbq]

For me, the point of photography is the final print. Digital technologies allow me to get better prints faster, so from that point of view it does make me a better photographer.

[aaron_lind]

Well, im young enough to have started with digital. I started with digital and took pictures

of whatever whenever. I developed an utter chaos approach to photography. I can think of

but a handful pf photographs taken on digital cameras that were worth anything

artistically. They did do well taking those cheesy family reunion portrait pictures though.

Then i got a holga. Played with it for a while and was impressed/intrigued with film.

Having only 12 shots was limiting. So was the camera. I got tired of how many shots i felt i

wasted with that. I learned to become more selective and think about what i was doing.

Then i got a rolleicord and and had to think even harder. I learned to use it without a light

meter. Finally, i got a hasselblad and decided to get a light meter because i was tired of

miss-guessing shots, exspecially indoors. Fully manual cameras, plus price of film and

developing, and extra time required to actually take the shots really made me a better

photographer. So did switching totally to black and white for quite a few rolls to get my

mind away from shooting things just because they had color.

 

I probably would have never gotten into film if i didnt take so many sucky pictures with

digital. The great things about DSLR's are exactly what you dont want as a beginner.

immediate gratification, no limits, and the cheap zoom lenses packaged with them. All

these people who are moving up form point and shoots with cheap wal-mart kodak film

who are buying these new DSLRS think that because they can take photos with reckless

abandon, they are going to be better photogrpahers. Its definatley not going to make you

a better photogrpaher, but because of the increased volume, you're accidentaly lucky

shots might increase. It's a hard habit to break though, I definatley take pictures more

freely with my 10D than i do with my hasselblad.

 

This can easily be shown by flickr. Tons of people, some with hundred of pages of photos,

mostly digital. You think that after taking that many photos you'd get better. Quanity has

little to do with quality when it comes to digital or film.

[rj]

Shooting black and white film makes me a better photographer. I process my own in d76 made from bulk chemicals and compared to color film, it is way cheaper to shoot. Therefore, I shoot much more black and white than color and so black and white has made me a better photographer. --- Do I believe this, Heck no. The only thing that has made me a better photographer is concentrating on the act of "seeing." This is absolutely free and a camera system isn't even needed.

 

I can understand people thinking that shooting more is really what makes a better photographer, but I believe that its the act of studying your own photography and making a concentrated effort at getting better. If you don't do this you will just have a huge collection of mediocre photography with one or two happy accidents.

[Brad_]

A capture choice does not **make*** you a better photographer.

[charles_stobbs3]

I don't believe more shooting makes you better. It takes time to plan and take a good picture and more time to thoughtfully evaluate the results. We've all probably shot more pictures in a year than Ansel Adams did in a lifetime.

[steve_unsworth1]

Shooting more will make you a better photographer _provided_ that you can look at the results and be able to learn why some shots work and others don't. Digital may help this process as the taking is essentially free once the camera is bought.

 

For someone taking landscapes or macros I'd expect fewer shot to be neccessary as there is more under the photographer's control, but it all still depends of being able to be self-critical.

 

Just my opinion.

[ky2]

I shoot film and digital. My digital keeper rate is roughly 3%. My film keeper rate is roughly 30-40%, and that is because I normally bracket my shots. My conclusion? shooting digital made me a better film shooter.

[steve_unsworth1]

Yaron, what do you mean by a keeper and what sort of stuff do you photograph? Serious question not a troll. I'm happy if I hit 10% with either film or digital.

[john_camp]

Good photographs are the result of brain, eye and reflex; the machine doesn't have much to

do with it. For somebody new to photography, a lot of shooting with instant feedback is

priceless; you're working on reflex. Eventually, if you're going to be any good, you'll likely

slow down a lot and begin thinking more about what you're doing, not because you want to,

but because you must. If you're not going to be any good, it doesn't matter.

 

JC

[ben conover]

True story:

 

I met a wonderful young woman and spent two amazing days with her by the beach. I can remember the colours of the sky, the sand, the clothes she wore, and the colour of her eyes. I didn't bring my large format camera with me. If I had taken a cheapo digicam I could have seen something I can't remember. However, thingking about it, I had my cellphone camera and didn't use that either! So, I agree with RJ Hicks above, that the act of seeing (and remembering) is the most important for me. What camera you use makes no friggin' odds.

 

Cheers.

[johnmarkpainter]

Your favorite Leica demi-gods shot LOTS of Film. Shooting more ought to improve your

photography.

[jtk]

Multiple women certainly make us better men. Why shouldn't multiple images make us better photographers?

[emwalker]

No penalty for bad shots ($), no waiting days to find out you just took a really bad shot... digital won't <i>make</i> you a better photographer, but it certainly gives you the opportunity to learn from your mistakes more quickly if you pay attention.

[SCL]

I frequently use digital to test out things with which I am unfamiliar then switch to film for the finished product...so in one sense it helps me reduce the learning curve. And yes, I do shoot more pictures in digital for the reason mentioned, but they are like practicing the piano before a concert...hundreds of attempts to hone the skills, then one shot to perform (film) and get it perfect. I don't think digital makes me want to shoot more...the desire to shoot is there whatever the medium.

[lee hamiel]

This is simply an observation by way of my son - He's been shooting since age 13 & is 20 now.

 

He started with Nikon & since then has used Leica, Contax 645, Hasselblad 500CM as well as a Canon 20D - although he still owns the 20D he uses his Leicas way more & is planning on selling the Contax (great camera by the way).

 

Long story short - he took a lot of pictures with digital in a very short period of time & I could see his compositions improved quite a bit - seems like a compressed timeframe that allowed him to learn very quickly as to what works & what doesn't.

 

At this point in time he is using an M2 & M7 almost always & occasionally using the 20D. Also develops his own film & prints B&W in the darkroom - recently got a Focomat V35 to print with.

 

I am of the mindset now that it may be best to teach using digital to "learn" composition & then decide whether to opt for film 35/MF/LF or continue with digital depending on your desired end result/output. A bit of an accelerated learning curve so to speak. We see a lot of younger people who come to the forums & say " I've been shooting digital & want advice on what film camera to buy" types of questions. I feel that we may be developing new film users by virtue of digital imaging.

 

As a final note - I can usually tell right away when looking at a person's portfolio here on p-net whether or not they shoot film or digital as the digital people tend to have way more images posted (not always a good thing).