Is the digital learning curve distracting or frustrating?

[ron_sher]

I was wondering whether anybody could comment on the apparent fussing around

with the technology that surrounds digital photography. In the various forums

a lot of us are having problems with equipment and the technology. Any ideas?

[brucecyr]

Do random samples of photonet postings 5 years pre-digital and post-digital and calculate the rates of pre-digital vs. post-digital technology fussing. I'm laying money on nearly equal rates if anyone feels sporty... (Stakes to be a virtual bottle of Samuel Smith Pale Indian Ale?)

[ronald_moravec1]

If you understand computers you are 1/4 the way there. If you can do color darkroom proficiently, another 1/4. If you have time to sit and figure out photoshop, another 25%

 

Getting an image is easy. Getting a good image is harder, the same as film. Once you have it into the digital domain, there is no end to what can be done.

 

I recommend a Nikon D40 or Canon Rebel XTi to start. That or have some film profesioally scanned, no Ritz or Walmart. Then get a copy of Photoshop Elements 5 or download a free month trial. Go to work with the scanned images to see if you like it.

 

A digi cam gets you little except direct input to the computer. After that the work is the same.

[ron_sher]

Well Bruce, you're probably right. There's so much to learn and try to master! Who has time to take pictures?

[brucecyr]

Or maybe I'm just a bit cynical tonight :-)

 

I've written elsewhere in support of the concept that there is a much steeper learning curve for those who come newly or distantly to digital vs. those who have graduated from year to year and therefore have been able to adapt gradually. It definitely helps if you're free of distractions like work, family, etc. :-)

[phule]

You can be as fussy or as non-fussy as you want with any aspect of technology. How much you are frustrated by a process depends on how you learn and your initial approach to the subject. An open mind with any new topic gives a person a striking advantage over a closed mind.

 

B.t.w. if you think digital is fussy, have you ever shot daguerreotypes?

[hugh_sakols]

Ron,

I have never been a natural when it comes to learning operating systems and software. I

began digital about 7 years ago when I bought a canon 35mm film scanner which I used

on an old power mac (7300) that would crash in the middle of scans. I bought a book on

how to use Photoshop element and followed the directions step by step. Later I started

taking classes in digital imaging which made all the difference in the world.

 

If I had the opportunity to learn in the wet dark room I would have done that, but I had no

room for a darkroom and it was cheaper for me just to buy a scanner.

 

I agree with you that today it is easy to spend too much time with the latest technological

trends and forget to actually make print. I'm the type of person who learns a process and

sticks with it until it is second nature so that I can focus on making photographs.

Workshops from reputable names is a good way to spend a week to relearn the technology

and tweak your work flow.

 

In a recent edition of Lens Work, Brooks Jensen mentions how today photographers are

flooded with new technology and learning that takes away from the process of

photography. OTOH, If it weren't for the technology, I probably wouldn't be making the

images I am today.

 

Balance is the key.

[ron_sher]

For those of us who have been away from serious photography for a while because of other commitments, film photography is still familiar in the same way you never forget how to ride a bike or shift gears in a car. Digital photography, on the other hand, requires you to wake up and pay attention. Basic concepts may be the same, but how you achieve a decent photography requires using some pretty sophisticated skills, like computer literacy and familiarity as well as a new technical language. I suppose it's time to join the 21st century.

[phoneguy]

If you're going to use a digital capture, you're going to have to create, at a minimum, a basic

digital workflow. How far into it you want to go, is up to you. Do you aim for proper

exposure? Do you like the post processed looks of many of todays photographs?

 

What is your intended goal? At the least, you will have to create and learn some type of

workflow. How far you want to take it is up to you. There are plenty of online resources, and

good books to get even the most apprehensive beginer started.

 

My comment is...go for it, you'll have to start sometime.

[stormchaser]

The equipment and technology I never found difficult; mostly it's just the way it takes pictures differently. It can be hard at first, but thee's another litany of ways in which its easier.

[godfrey]

<center>

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/large/03-half.jpg"

target=new>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/large/03.jpg" border=0>

</a><br>

Conduit and Cable - New York 2006<br>

<i>© 2006 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br>

Pentax *ist DS + FA77/1.8 Limited<br>

ISO 400 @ f/2.5 @ 1/25 sec, Av, +0.7 EV compensation<br>

<br>

Click image above for a larger version in a new window.</i>

<br></center><br>

The only two options you offer are both negative. So my answer is "No."

<br><br>

I find learning digital photography challenging and exciting, the results productive and

rewarding.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[Leonard-just-Leonard]

I would liken it to the fussing with the Horseless Carriage era. Like most, I get in and drive, take it to FastLane for an oil change and fill it with gas... works fine... I don't know and don't care how it works, just the results...

This is my intended approach to Digital Photography... I have a B.Sc. in computer science and can understand the complexitities but could care less about the nuts and bolts of how my new camera works...

I plan on taking zillions of pictures, save them, print the keepers and analyze what works best as I go... the fussing with technology can be taken to the nth degree if desired but keep in mind your goal, knowing enough to make pretty pictures or becoming techno-geek.

after all, photography is apparently an art form

[janvanlaethem]

Neither distracting or frustrating. You will need to get to grips with the basics, but once you understand it you will quickly learn to apply it to your own photographs. As has been said above, you can take it as far as you want. Just like it was with film: most people just dropped off their negatives at a 1 hour lab and picked up their prints. Other people had their own darkroom and spent hours to get the prints the way they wanted.

 

I found the book "Adobe Photoshop 7.0 for photographers" by Martin Evening very instructive. It starts with basic principles and takes you step by step through the possibilities Photoshop has on offer, with practical examples you can do yourself. You'll need to learn the different tools and how they can be used to enhance or change a photograph. There must be an updated version by the same author on Photoshop CS or CS2.

 

No matter how you do it, with a book or attending classes or a workshop, practice is the key. Photoshop (and surely other programs as well) allow for a great amout of automization: that is, once you have applied particular settings to a photograph, you can replicate the same settings to other photographs. Let's say you want to convert a series of images to black and white, with a slight sepia tone and a nice border. You can record all these manipulations via automization. Once you're happy with the result, you can apply the same manipulations to a different photo with just one click.

 

Once you're familiar with the basics, you can go on to curves, levels and layers.

 

Photoshop Elements has fewer possibilities, but I think more than enough to get you started. If you take care with exposure and composition when you take your photographs, manipulation or post processing will be minimal.

[paul_k1664875007]

I think it's as distracting and frustrating as you want it to be.

 

First thing to ponder about is how much post processing you want to do.

 

Compare it to old fashioned darkroom work.

 

In the old days when you shot a film an d took it to the lab everything was

done for you. If you wanted to do it yourself, determining proper exposure

time, a bit of dodging or burning in, and cropping were normal and did not

demand excessive skil. Colorprinting took more skill to determine proper

colors, and to master the technical skills of developing the prints. Cutting and

pasting was considered things for the experts and I see no reason why that

has changed in the digital days, although digital demands less higher

technical skills.

 

Proper exposure and cropping are in the digital era things you have to do

yourself and a piece of cake, while getting the correct colors is now

something you have to do yourself instead of the lab. Locally dodging and

burning are more work and IMHO the things that may proof more difficult.

 

Depending of how deep you want to get into it, you have to decide if you

really need Photoshop, or maybe get the desired results with some

brand-linked software.

 

I myself have a (legal) copy of Photoshop 6.0, but found that Nikon Capture

offered what I needed (and more).

 

As far as curves etc are concerned, I found out I could easily work around that

and still create a future reference point for post processing (which basically a

curve is)

 

I think that when you start shooting the most important thing is not to involve

too many variables in your pictures. So dial in your own standard settings on

the camera so you have a starting point for the corrections you have to

program in when you start processing on the computer, and work from that

towards the final version, rather then constantly switching settings on the

camera and having to find completely new settings for each picture when you

start processing them. Thus you can standarize your workflow, which will help

speed and lessen frustration over all the work involved, because compared to

film, when you could let the lab do it for you, it definitely has, although not as

much as some stories might make you think it to have.

 

My two cents

 

Paul

[Brad_]

>>> distracting or frustrating?

 

Enabling.

[michael_madio]

I don't think it's much different than using the traditional wet darkroom. Yes, the "technology" is different (film emulsions, papers, developers, toners, dodging/burning, etc.) but it appears to me that the "apparent fussing around" is about the same.

[dg1]

I don't think it's that big a deal. Get a camera, a computer, and some editing software. Even the usually included Elements and others will get you started. Take some pictures, play with the results. You'll learn, and much faster than with film because the feedback is so much quicker. Things like lighting concepts, and exposure are the same, and it's so convenient to work with the images in post processing and even in camera..if you don't like what you see, take another shot. Think about what works and what doesn't. It's fun. There's nothing to fuss with and nothing to prove.

[brucecyr]

"have you ever shot daguerreotypes?"

 

What is that, Rob, one of them little bitty single shot things you stick in your sock :-)

[jcuknz]

Most people above seem to think you are after advice when you are posing a question about attitudes.

 

There is very little that is new or possible with the artistic side of photography, it has all been done before and most are merely regurgitating ad infinitum what others have done before so there is nothing to talk about but the latest gimmic or wheeze of technology.

In addition it is easier to talk about nuts and bolts rather than concepts.

[ron_sher]

Thank you everyone for taking the time to write responses to my question. It's time to get my feet wet.