Todays photographers have it too easy

[andrew_gale]

<p>When I shoot digital, i ALWAYS take too many shots and regret it later.</p>

<p>Taking a hundred shots instead of thrity five is not free, it is false economy, becausee time is not free and it takes a lot of time to throw away the 64 extras.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p><em>"Ton. You're just trying to pick an argument but I don't think I will participate. I wish you the best"</em></p>

<p>I'm not Dick, nor am I directing my comments to you or anyone else directly. apart from anything else I haven't got the time for it right now. The simple truth is still this. All this new technology is great but it's not the technology that produces great photography. It's still a limited amount of talented photographers that do.</p>

<p>Digital hasn't led to an increase in talent. What it has led to is accessibility and an increase in oooh's and aaah's over mediocre work which is fine by me. What we should do however is being a lot less pretentious and a bit more objective. Great photography is still as hard to produce as it was before, only the methods have changed.</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p> Never give up, never surrender. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Today, it's easier to cook (convection ovens, rice cookers, auto timers), easier to write a book (word processing software that keeps track of versions and have spell-check), easier to do math (calculators), easier to do your banking (ATMs), easier to wash clothes (automatic washers and dryers), easier to have sex as you age (Viagara), easier to paint (acrylics), easier to sculpt (power-driven tools).</p>

<p>So it stands to reason that parts of photographing are easier. </p>

<p>The claim in the OP is, however, that these parts are "too easy." Joseph would need to say a little more about just what's "easy enough" or "not too easy" for his claims to have any real meaning. Joseph would also have to explain why he says "too easy" instead of "easier" for those parts.</p>

<p>Is it "too easy" to paint, sculpt, bank, cook, have sex? If not, why is photography being singled out?</p>

<p>Has it affected the quality of photographs? It seems to me, the "easier" methods of making photographs have made some aspects of photography easier, like getting a sharp focus if that's what you're after or getting a software-driven generically-correct exposure if that's what you're after. So there are probably more MEDIOCRE to DECENT photographs being taken, but I doubt there are any more really good photographs being taken, and the really good photographs being taken are often lost in the wash of decent ones. So, it may be harder to be noticed.</p>

<p>Learning to use a camera well and learning to post process with some amount of visual depth and aptitude is still pretty much a lifetime's worth of work (learned all of photoshop yet, have you?), so whether it's easier or not seems irrelevant. Most of us will still spend a lifetime learning and trying!</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>OK Lets take Ton's thought and look at it carefully. Everyone here will agree that it takes talent to be a great photographer. Your eye for composition and artistic creation are the most important parts. <br /> Now let go back in time. What if Rebrant, Divincci and Michaneglo had no knowledge of paints and how they worked and interacted with each other, or the different effects that can be created by blending different materials on different surfaces. they would still draw and paint great ideas, but the would be lacking that final touch that makes them masterpices. Minor differences would exisr because of their lack of technical knowlegde of the paints.</p>

<p>Its a good analogy for todays photography. Because you don't have to learn the old basics, and can let the camera worry about it, some very good photographs will also lack that final touch that can make them masterpieces. Cameras have become very good at what they do, but their not perfect. No camera will ever do what the human mind does - have a feeling for the situation and make adjustments because of that. To make those adjustments you need a knowledge of whats going on and how it works.</p>

<p>Yes , some people are passionate and go out of their way to learn it. but its too easy not to have to learn it. some people with great eyes are going to miss that final pop in their photographs because they didn't know why or when to overide the camera.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Why not pretend that digital photography is the real world and is a thing unto itself, not needing to be compared to pre-digital photography? I don't think most contemporary musicians worry that their instruments start out sounding more rich and full than did those of Bach and Mozart and conclude that it's too easy to make music. And I don't think most acrylic painters worry too much about oils, though many of them still learn from reading about the process. Most painters and musicians I know read and learn what they can about art and music history and how it was created out of a desire to be more well rounded and have a deeper understanding of their craft and its roots. I think any craftsman or artist also learns about the qualities and processes inherent to the medium he is working in, knowing that he will not exhaust those qualities and processes. In previous threads, others have pointed out that digital photography actually has some of its own unique qualities that pre-digital did not, like the viewing potential inherent in monitors which are back lit, like the potential in digital noise that may be very different from film grain. Someone who's interested will begin exploring the unique opportunities presented by digital photography rather than wasting time worrying about whether others are taking the easy way out compared to the past. They will immerse themselves fully both in history and in what they've got. Most visionaries will not expend needless energy worrying about whether or not they have it too easy because they will insist upon challenging themselves and thinking up new ways to make things difficult.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I have never taken a great photograph. I have made pictures that were good enough that people were willing to pay me for them. All I was saying is that I can do things like skin softening in digitial post processing in minutes that I could not have done in the darkroom and would have had to pay a retoucher big bucks to do. That's all. If my pictures have actually gotten better which I think they marginally have then I have gotten better not the technology. Things like cropping, noise reduction on my 5D have gotten easier or better. As far as the OPs premise; you can't make a silk purse of a sow's ear. I have spent time trying to make a bad picture good in PS. It does not work for me. I loved my manual focus, hard to load, 15 pictures to a back, medium format Bronicas and did journeyman wedding work with them. What I did not love was reloading backs, sweating over a multitude of black and white wedding pictures in my darkroom because I did not send them out, waiting for the processor to return color wedding proofs to see if they came out, manually cataloging and editing four or five hundred wedding prints to put in a book, etc. Digital has it's own problems however as I think PS is way overly complex compared to Aviation systems we used to develop and it tends to make me sloppy because as someone said above I take way too many pictures of the same thing just because I can. I was much more careful with my Bronicas and had a better hit rate. But also, as I said earlier, I would happily go back to film and do just as well or maybe better. As I said earlier because of my age time is getting short and I like instant gratification but that's probably not good for the soul. I hope someday to make a truly great picture. My only point is that the wave has rolled over the industry and in a macro sense it cannot be stopped and it has made bad pictures easier to do by the great unwashed but that's reality and there is no going back. Once in while one of those unwashed, however, might get a memorable family picture for their progeny if the digital print doesn't fade out over time. </p>

[saskphotog]

<p>

 

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Pfft, most of these fancy new camera features mean little to me. Well, like everyone else, I just churn out any old worthless crap... And yep, my equally stupid friends still look at it and like it... :) That's the power of personal amateur photography, people... :) Any old poop will do... :)</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>Joseph,<br /> <br /> Why don't you just get yourself a pinhole camera and be done with it.<br /> <br /> Thanks.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>PS is way overly complex compared to Aviation systems</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lightroom is the right solution for you.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p><em>"I have spent time trying to make a bad picture good in PS. It does not work for me"</em></p>

<p>it doesn't work for anyone Dick</p>

[garrison_k.]

<blockquote>

<h1>Todays photographers have it too easy</h1>

</blockquote>

<p>My granddad said the same thing in 1940. My dad said it in 1970.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=22127">Mike Dixon</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" title="Moderator" /> <img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> <img title="Current POW Recipient" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" title="Current POW Recipient" /> </a> , May 20, 2009; 09:22 p.m.<br>

People who are interested in the technical aspects of photography have even more to learn and consider now than they did three or five decades ago. People who aren't interested in the technical aspects can just point and shoot, just like they've been able to do since the introduction of the Kodak Brownie a century ago.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Then and now, this is arguable. People that do photos for fun and once in awhile for birthdays and xmas, have it a bit more difficult going from point-n-shoot film to point-n-shoot digital. I have friends and family that don't give a toss about photography but like to take snaps for family events and they are stuck wondering what to do with their sd card and the 400 photos on it that they can't see. "How do I see them on my computer?" Is the first question I hear. "How do I adjust them?" or "Do I just print them all?" Over and over again, try Gimp2, it's free. Then I send them here if I can't visit them.</p>

<p>Then those who are interested in the technical aspects have it way easier, imo. I have a few young photo buddies that have never shot a roll of film. Their flickr accounts show this. Just rat-atat-tat machine gun fire. Like never before can one learn the tech aspects of photogrpahy with the web and the ease of sharing info. To be a "pro" is even easier today. It is for me anyways. I can shoot more, develop more, talk to more, reach more with a website. It's easier all around, obviously, as the market is getting more saturated by the day. Someone sent me a link toa rant on Craigslist. I thought it so funny to see the $500 Craigslist photographers getting mad at the "free" Craigslist Wedding Photogs. The internet and this forum makes it easier. We didn't have this knowledge sharing when I was cutting my teeth. You had to know other people in the flesh that were better and were willing to share their craft. a craft that cost them time and money in materials and yet were understandably a little apprehensive about sharing with their competition. If you were lucky, you got assist. You wanted to shoot fashion before the internet? Haha, lol, just try without assisting a fashion photogrpaher or three. My first post to PN was in like 1995 when at 1am one morning in the darkroom I had forgotten my push times in ID-11/HP5 +2 and needed to soup and print for a 8am deadline. If we were still film based today, even just the knowledge at my fingertips on the net alone makes life easier. A quick view on Youtube watching Nikon CLS tutorials and now we're all on par with a handfull of SB-800's. Anybody else here remember what it was like dragging four lights out into the middle of the desert?</p>

<p>But this is nothing new. Advancements in technology always brings up these arguments. How about when Ilford released XP-1? Suddenly everyone and anyone that could take c-41 to the drug store was now a black and white photographer. That really upset the hen house. Grain structures in small format films became really good for enlargements. TL metering and ttl flash, no more adjusting your app on the fly as your subject changed distance. Main St studios soon started to disappear in the 80's. The one and only still-life assisting job I did (boring photography for me) was with a food photog that did 4x5 for the front covers of the fliers. $10K an image, we did 1.5 shots a 10hr day. It sucked compared to shooting people but the knowledge didn't. He was replaced by a Coolpix locked off on a tripod in the back of the warehouse. An $8/hr employee now drops roast beef onto a white seemless and a couple tungsen lamps light it up. Ask him how he feels about digital and he says he loves it. Surprised? No. He just rolled with the punches. Even better, he welcomed the changed and stayed one step ahead and makes more.</p>

<p>Yesterday I did street photography with a friend. I got him to hold a sb-800 20 feet out in front of me on a boom as I wandered around snapping away with wireless ttl. The light is fantastic. After setting a few things up, it's just click click away. Yes we have it easier and I love it. I never want to pay $1.50 a frame of E6 or smell stop bath again.</p>

<p> </p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Ton. One thing I learned in a Dale Carnegie course years ago was to speak from my own experience because it's the only thing I am truly an expert about and that's pretty shaky at times. So I use "I" rather than the collective "we" even though I am fairly sure what I say may be applicable to more people than just myself. </p>

[d_f11]

<p> I didn't say I agree with everything he says, he's blunt and to the point. There used to be a guy like that here on Photo.Net - Anyone remember a Scott Eaton? The rancor surrounding his comments was fun!</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Scott just seems to have gone away. Obviously he got tired of wasting his time strewing pearls of wisdom in front of the ignorant masses.

[jeff_livacich]

<p>I shoot film.<br>

I set exposure manually. At the time I started, AE was still new, and I didn't trust it. I still don't, preferring to determine it myself. People tend to forget that there's still one optimal exposure, no matter how many points are measured and how they're processed. Over time, I became good enough at determining exposure by eye and experience I often didn't even look at what the meter said.<br>

I also don't use AF. I just don't need it.</p>

<p>That said, I'm amazed at how well matrix-type metering works. I'm sure if I used it, I would learn when it could be trusted and when it should be over-ridden. I'm amazed at how often multi-point autofocus gets it right. And I certainly can't follow-focus as well. I'm sure if I used it, I would learn when I could let it do its thing and when to take control.<br>

I've used cameras with AE and AF, and as long as I have a way to lock AE and AF, I'm happy. Determining exposure by metering what I choose by AE and locking is very quick for me. If I were shooting action or fast-moving wildlife, I'm sure I would love having AE and AF as tools. A person who knows how to use these tools but can create good images without them has an advantage over someone who must depend on them. Someone who knows how to shoot at the peak moment will capture on purpose what the "8fps" person will only capture if they're lucky.</p>

<p>There's an upside and downside to everything. That was especially clear when I was just learning to shoot color. Slides gave me awesome color but meant I had to compose full-frame. Paying strict attention to composition out to the edges of the frame helped me see and use the whole image but also restricted me to the format ratio. Focusing and exposing manually gave me confidence and control but also led to missed shots. The cost of film and processing made me consider each image carefully. Because funds were limited, it also meant I didn't shoot as often as I wanted to, didn't experiment as much as I wanted to, and I progressed more slowly as a result. Still, the discipline from having to do everything in camera has benefitted me greatly. Whether producing a finished product in camera, or producing an image with post processing in mind, seeing the final image before you take it is the most important skill.</p>

<p>I remember thinking, "Wouldn't it be great if I didn't have to pay for the images I throw away?" "Wouldn't it be great if I could see that shot right after I took it and know if I got it?" Wouldn't it be great if I could change film speed whenever I wanted without having to change the roll?" or "Wouldn't it be great if I could push-process just this one frame?". And so on. Today, all that's available.<br>

Yet, it's still all up to the individual. The ability to take an unrestricted amount of pictures without cost is tremendously beneficial to the individual who is striving to learn and studies their images to see how they can improve. That person can experiment wildly and learn quickly. And they probably will still take fewer pictures than the person who just blasts away, producing multiple variations of the same dreck.</p>

<p>Recently, I used a neighbor's digital SLR. I instantly became addicted to checking the LCD after each shot. It wasn't until I realized it and reverted to my old film camera habit of trusting my ability to get the shot that things started to flow. Though he'd never shot film, my neighbor said he went through the same thing, and had to train himself to only check it when he had a reason to. A very useful tool can also become a crutch, and even an impediment. But it's not the fault of the tool.<br>

No doubt, a lot of people could benefit greatly from having an all-manual film camera put in their hand and being therefore compelled to learn how to consistently produce good images. But their fancy digitals give them the capability to do everything manually. So they already have the tool in their hands with which they can learn how to master technique and be masters of their machines.<br>

Machines which do everything automatically allow us to be lazy, but they do not compel us to be.</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>Jeff, I think that is pretty well said.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Actually, I think photographers learning the craft today have it harder, but I will keep the reasons why to my self. <br>

When I shoot digital or film, I rarely shoot in auto mode. The way light is rendered in a photograph is fairly important to me so shooting manually keeps my personal calibration of it at the forefront. <br>

And think about what you are seeing on the web in particular, more of everything, more good stuff, more average and more really poor photography. So maybe a technically good photograph may *seem* easier to obtain today, but when it comes down to how it compares to the best out there, is it really that much better than what we have already seen for the past 50 years?<br>

I sure don't think so...</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p><em>"Paying strict attention to composition out to the edges of the frame helped me see"</em> <br /> Sadly it's a lesson lost on most people<em>. <br /> </em></p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>The difficulties associated with film are low compared to the difficulties associated with getting a good idea, a good subject, and good lighting. Digital cameras make taking in-focus snapshots much easier than before, but they don't camp out waiting for the right time of day or baby-sit children while you go shoot.</p>

<p> </p>

[dried_squid]

<p>I think it's a lot harder today. I think it's harder to learn the basics. And, I think it's more involved to learn the techniques afforded by the new elements in the workflow - as color profiles or post-processing on your computer.<br>

So for the beginning photographer today, with heart and a passion, I wish them a complementary mentor to help them choose a path through the wilderness.</p>

[jim_devlin]

<blockquote>

<p>Recently, I used a neighbor's digital SLR. I instantly became addicted to checking the LCD after each shot. It wasn't until I realized it and reverted to my old film camera habit of trusting my ability to get the shot that things started to flow. Though he'd never shot film, my neighbor said he went through the same thing, and had to train himself to only check it when he had a reason to. A very useful tool can also become a crutch, and even an impediment. But it's not the fault of the tool.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p>I don't get why so many people seem to think it's so terrible to check results when shooting with a DSLR. In most cases, I find I merely validate the correct assumptions I made in the first place, with occasional minor adjustments. Why not use the tools at your disposal to produce the best image possible?</p>

</p>

[riley_s1]

<p>Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay the mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah.</p>

[darin_schaffer]

<p>These digital is too easy threads are all the same, film was hard because everything was manual and now all you have to do is press the button. Blah Blah Blah. Cameras are tools and you can use them in whatever way you like. Last time I checked, DSLR's have manual modes and at least on some you can use those same old manual primes from the past and you know what, they work great and are dirt cheap. There is no degree of difficulty in making a initial film image that can't be replicated with digital, you can make it as hard as you want. So if you aren't taking the time to meter, set DOF, compose, set your shutter speed, etc. it is all on you. Even better, if you don't want to do those things, don't, just pull out your AE-1 and let it do it for you(oops, sorry that's a 20+year old film camera isn't it.) There is very little difference in how I shoot whether it be with my Mamiya 645 or my D200, I spend just as much time on every aspect of each shot regardless. Most of my lenses are old MF primes and my newer ones are rarely in AF mode. Does that make me better than you or anyone else, most certainly not. The point is that it is the person holding the camera, film or digital, that chooses how to use it, not the other way around.</p>