Does digital make you a better photographer?

[ky2]

<i>"Yaron, what do you mean by a keeper and what sort of stuff do you photograph?"</i> -- FWIW, I mainly shoot still life or landscape, but I also do some portrait photography. My definition of a keeper is something worth printing and framing... With digital, I simply allow myself to shoot much more shots, and most of them, as anticipated, are duds. The funny thing is, that I've found a way around this; I no head out to a shooting with my D200 and a single 1GB card. This enforces a certsain constraint of about 60 Raw images-- and the result is that I have a higher keeper-rate (I've only followed that idea in the past week or so).

[t_heuston]

I used to believe the best way to learn photography was with a fully manual film camera.

Now I am of the mind that digital is definitely the way to start. The instant feedback

shortens the learning curve with lighting and composition. I also believe that the best way

to improve ones photography is to take as many pictures as possible - which obviously is

much more economical with digital. After gaining a deeper understanding of lighting and

composition through digital capture then learn about the zone system & film. I'm sure I'm

not the only photographer who shoots most of the stuff I get paid for on digital & all of my

personal photos on film.

[working camera]

Buying into an archaic camera system (the Leica M) while the world was madly going auto-go-magic everything made me a more discerning photographer. I had to work with the limitations of the rangefinder photography. Those restrictions made me think about my work. There is nothing more disappointing than pulling a roll of film from the soup to find 36 frames of utter dross. A lot of effort for nothing.

 

I should also add getting into large format photography was also an invaluable learning experience. A large format monorail camera is the ultimate thinking photographer's tool. If you are sloppy and stuff it up a day or twos work is lost.

 

I can see that digital capture with its immediate feedback can be a valuable learning tool. I would argue that it takes considerable discipline to divorce oneself from the auto functionality of DSLRs. Particularly for a young tyro coming into photography. It can be so easy to run amuck and fire off frame after frame without thinking. Even done it myself. Modern small format cameras offer soooo much in terms of functionality. In skilled hands the creative possibilities are endless. But there's a lot to be said for getting back to basics.

 

Whatever the tools and processes used to my way of thinking at the end of the day less really is more.

 

C.

[icuneko]

If Rembrandt had used acrylic paints and synthetic brush fibers would he have been a better painter?

[cabophoto]

Bill,

 

I used to be a devoted Leica M shooter for 14 years; last year I switched to Nikon DSLRs (well, I still use the Leicas at times, but only very rarely).

 

My experience that shooting digital doesn't make me shoot a whole lot more. On comparable trips I shot about 20% more, but then, I never skimped on film before.

 

Does shooting digital make me a better photographer ? I don't think so. It gives me confidence in tricky lighting situations (for instance long exposures with a touch of fill-flash) because I can judge the result right away and know when I 'got the shot'. Apart from that it doesn't make a real difference to me.

 

I just posted new pics from a trip to Cuba at http://www.cabophoto.com/CUB.htm . The topmost 26 were shot with Nikon D200 DSLRs, the other (older) pics were shot with Leica M6 cameras. The same is true for my Mexico section at http://www.cabophoto.com/MEX.htm , the topmost 20 are Nikon D70, the rest is M6. Judge for yourself.

 

Regards

 

Carsten

[cabophoto]

Yaron,

 

>>My digital keeper rate is roughly 3%. My film keeper rate is roughly 30-40%

 

wow ! My film keeper rate used to be about 15%, and now with digital it is about ---- you guessed it, 15%.

 

Carsten

 

http://www.cabophoto.com/

[jd_rose]

Mr. Bockermann,

 

"Church Ruin" is an awesome shot!

 

 

Forum,

 

I think digital allows you to arrive at your plateau faster but you will never be better than you are. Film, crayolas, digital or whatever.

[daniel_taylor]

Yes digital encourages one to shoot and experiment more. Yes practice makes a photographer better. It's silly to suggest that practice in and of itself is a negative thing. Tell a painter he'll be great by limiting himself to a couple paintings a year.

 

However, one's approach and level of dedication can override any inherent advantage/disadvantage. A "sloppy" digital shooter might in fact benefit from being forced to slow down and think about shots for a while, but that doesn't mean all digital shooters are sloppy.

 

Given the same serious approach, I a photographer learns faster on digital.

 

"Take your pick of favorite classic photographers. Would they be "better" if they'd had a digital camera?"

 

Many of them shot so much film that they would have kept pace with or exceeded a modern digital shooter. From the Learning section of this site: "Garry Winogrand is famous for having exposed three rolls of Tri-X on the streets of New York City every day for his entire adult life. That's 100 pictures a day, 36,500 a year, a million every 30 years. Winogrand died in 1984 leaving more than 2500 rolls of film exposed but undeveloped, 6500 rolls developed but not proofed, and 3000 rolls proofed but not examined (a total of a third of a million unedited exposures)."

 

Practice makes perfect, especially in art.

[daniel_taylor]

"Given the same serious approach, I a photographer learns faster on digital."

 

That was supposed to read: "Given the same serious approach, I think a photographer learns faster on digital."

[cabophoto]

Robert.

 

>>disgusting idea - having to shoot more to get the pictures right

 

I agree, it sounds like the machine-gun approach. However, this has nothing to do with the infamous 'digital-vs-film' thing. You can be very conscientious and shoot only a few frames with a digital camera.

 

Carsten

[pico_digoliardi]

"I agree, it sounds like the machine-gun approach."

 

Indeed, the machine-gun approach does not work. Example: I do digital video editing as part of the day-job. Sometimes I will be asked to pull a few frames to title a work. Going through promising sequences frame-by-frame rarely produces a decent still.

 

Back to the silly question: In my experience, persons who begin photography with digital do not understand, or care to understand that they have surrendered learning how very simple photography can be if you use your head, and they don't learn the elemental vocabulary of photography.

 

Digital puts them in a more remote space than traditional work as evinced by how many ask "How can I do this in Photoshop?" rather than "How can I do this right to begin with?" They have no concept of what it means to do it right in camera; they don't believe it's even possible: to them the working of the world is either purely accidental to be made up later, or a hidden feature in some part of the camera's OS.

[cabophoto]

Pico,

 

>>In my experience, persons who begin photography with digital do not understand...

 

very well possible. To me, film or digital doesn't make a lot of difference, but I learned photography many years ago when it was film-based. The mindset of someone learning it today using a digital camera might be very different.

 

Carsten

[zapata_espinoza]

It makes me lazy and sloppy and forces me to sit in front of a s*** computer more often.

More pictures doesn't help to make one a better photographer. It's the editing, stupid.

[clyde_rogers]

When I got my first digital camera, I was exploring its capabilities, and did shoot quite a

bit more for months---perhaps even a year. It has settled down and is now about the

same.

 

For fast photography, digital has great high iso performance, low added cost for rejects,

and high quality results. The Leica M has quick handling, speed and accuracy with short

FL lenses, and (different) high quality results.

 

For slow photography (landscape) in marginal light (where hand-holding is required)

digital lets me dial up the iso a bit, and check results for blur. It also provides a

histogram. Film (and therefore the Leica) is better, however, in high-key lighting. The

Leica also has noticably better wide-angle lenses.

 

Digital has improved my results in some situations, and cost me in a couple of others. It

has added to my toolbox, and I have to admit a DSLR is my primary camera these days.

Still, I curse the lame DOF scales and poor manual focusing, iffy AF in bad light, the bulk

and weight... I also curse the Leica when I have the wrong film loaded, or fumble with the

focus on one of my kids.

 

But I dream of a small bag holding a few choice lenses, one film body and one digital body

(even if the cost is likely to be a nightmare)...

[uk]

10 pence a shot makes you a better photographer ! :-)

 

Getting out with any camera and framing and then working on the images in Photoshop or

the wet dark room makes you a much better photographer. Few of us do it often enough.

 

Having an assignment, personal or commercial, to create a small body of work really helps

by giving direction and an end result. A story book highlights weakness in any image. It

can be a sequence of castles at dawn, or crushed Coke cans lying in the street, but the

focus raises awareness, creates opportunity, gives purpose to the work and provides

enormous satisfaction. Wish I did it more often.

 

Gary

[frank_nesbitt]

It depends.

 

For a time I was shocked at how many sloppy photographs people seemed to be taking

with their new digitals held at arms length, blazing away again and again till they were

satisfied with the results. I felt superior for a time, comming to digital from several

decades of serious film work in various formats with my own darkroom for processing and

printing. The view down my nose was very comforting.

 

But maybe those same people used point-and-shoot film cameras in the same way. Don't

know.

 

Then it dawned on me that I, too, was now shooting digital in the same manner with

perhaps a little lower reject count. Perhaps. When I look at the number of rejected

(sloppy) images on the card after a shoot I see that my style had changed greatly.

 

This was driven home to me last weekend durning a visit by my 5 year old granddaughter.

She was working intensly at a table with paints, absorbed in a project with her

grandmother. I quickly shot a worthless digital of the back of their touching heads, moved

around a bit to compose more carefully, then realized that the photograph was in their

eyes, not their hair. The third digital image from low and in front was just what I wanted.

 

Later I thought that if I had been shooting film I would likely have held off pressing the

release until I saw the picture I thought was right. Does that say something about

digital or about me? You decide.

 

Oh, and you tell me if better photographers are being produced by folks framing their

shots on arms length LCD screens with viewfinder-less pocket digitals/camera phones, or

by learning to use old fashioned viewfinders. But then in my younger days I never worried

about hand steadiness. Now it's one more thing to think about.

 

I honestly don't know how people put up with LCD framing unless they're using a tripod.

But, then, that's just me.

[travis1]

if i put 2 equally great shots by 2 guys on the table, one digital and one film, can you tell who is the better photographer?

[randy_santos]

Yes-

 

but ultimately you make you a better photographer.

[marbing]

I suppose you could ask if having a word processor makes you a better writer? Does using acrylics rather than oils make you a better painter? Does owning a Ferrari make you a better driver? Will buying a Stradivarius make me a better violinist?

 

In the end, you can have the best gear in the world but it will do you no good if you don't know what to do with it.

[jonathan_reynolds]

I can't see why taking more shots would help. When I examine a newly developed film, I invariably find that the ones I expected to be rubbish are indeed rubbish. Sometimes I try to burn more film, but always come to the same conclusion. The proportion of keepers depends on my behaviour with the camera rather than my technical ability, and on sheer luck.

[Jochen_S]

I'd probably shoot more with a digital kit. When I'm doing jobs for others costs are usually limited. Like 3 rolls a concert, 5 rolls a bigger family gathering. I could spend my own bread on 2 additional rolls but OTOH own 300 RAWframes of CF card space.

 

As just a shutterbug I might burn 3 frames of film in a critical situation, but could imagine doing 15 digital capture attempts to give a I-/AS/VR a chance after histogram and WB check.

 

With film my edditing willingness is limited. Choosing 3 frames out of 5 rolls usually gives me a headache.

 

I still agree with hardcore film users on the limitations of affordable digital; wish I had 3 bodys with unlimited buffer which were really pleasant to use with my best lenses.

[guy_mancuso]

I think there are several issues about this and some of that relates to your experience as a shooter for the beginning photographer digital can be a great learning tool because of the instant feedback. That is if they want to learn also from it. Images can be viewed on the spot and make judgement calls and to shoot it again or try something different so in that respect it really can be handy and cost effective also. Even for a Pro like myself it is more the reasurring factor that i got the goods and i can pack up . But also i can shoot on location even with a major set going on with lot's of lights and zoom in the LCD and/or computer and decide if one light or several lights needs a change or move soemthing that is distracting and such, this is certainly faster than shooting polariods and also more accurate . Also the fact is if art director or client is on the set it can be approved , discussed , changed and continue until final product is acheieved. So for the Pro a great tool and really that is what it is a tool to achieve results for final output. Does it save me money yes and no. Soft goods (film and poloriods and such yes)Capital gear , not a chance. LOL i have a 6 k computer that I did not need 10 years when I shot film. LOL

but it is a tool for clients and that is really the bottom line in many ways you can deliever quicker and on time and have images approved on the spot , so for client relations a excellent tool if also used properly. one thing i never forget is my film days , shoot everything in camera with the tought that you can't change things after the fact. i think this is where some make hud mistakes when shooting is getting let's sa lazy for lack of a better word , is that they shoot with the thought of fixing it later BAD BAD BAD thought process. use post as a tool to enhance your work and not manipulte the crap out of it just to get the same effect you could of had in camera if you worked it correctly in the first place. Yes post is a tool also and must be used properly, yes there are certain things that can only be done in post but plan on that when shooting

[OCULUS New York]

Just more prolific.

 

Ray Hull

[travis1]

I don't see how instant digital feedback can help you learn. For me, it's just to check if i got the focus spot on. YMMV

[al_kaplan1]

When I used to teach Basic Photography at what was then Dade County Community College in the early 1970's we started the students off shooting Ektachrome slides. No post processing possible! They learned to get their exposure spot on, using a seperate light meter, with precise framing in the camera. Then we progressed to shooting black and white and darkroom work.