Photoshop or photography

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>There is no question that PS offers much more in the way of choices to manipulate an image than is available in the darkroom. But for me, the wonders of the darkroom far outstrip anything that can be done on a computer. When you work with film and print in the darkroom you HAVE TO BE A BETTER PHOTOGRAPHER than when working in digital and have PS at your disposal. Digital has made photograpers lazy in a lot of ways. Film cameras do not allow you to preview what you have just shot. You have to be confident in your abilities to transform what you see into what you want it to look like on the film. Sure, you can bracket, and for critical stuff, you should, but still, film is not "photography by braille". You have to get things right in the camera because unless you are going to scan your film, you have limited ways of correcting things you did not do correctly. </p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>Scott, I agree, with film you do have to be a a good photographer to get results with film. Not only confident in your abilities, but actually have those abilities. A typical roll of film, 24 shots, no preview, you have to get it right. If you did get that right, next you have to get it developed, either in your own dark room or pay for processing. The perfect shot on the neg can be destroyed by a mistake in the dark room. One mistake and the roll is lost. As a photographer you have to respect film and what it takes to get those good shots.</p>

<p>How many rolls of film have we shot learning the skills. 24 shots on a roll of 35mm...a lot of film but not since digital could I afford to shoot till I got my fill of it for the day.</p>

<p>Having said that, I ask, has digital given us the ability to become better photographers at far less expense.</p>

<p>I am not saying because it is digital and can be manipulated in Photoshop. I am saying with digital we can take a lot more photos to practice and make mistakes and learn and improve.</p>

<p>I can go out and in a few hours shoot 800 shots. Take them home and see what I got. Figure out what I got wrong. Shoot 800 shots a day, in 125 days you would have 100,000 shots. That would be 4166 rolls of film.</p>

<p>By the sheer numbers of shots practicing, study and learning and making mistakes. After a few years of this your skills should be really polished if you have been trying and not just point and shooting.</p>

<p>I started shooting 35mm film in the 1970's, but in over 30 years of shooting film I have never come close to the numbers of shots I have done in digital.</p>

<p>Has digital given us all a tool to become a highly skilled photographers. Wouldn't you expect someone who has been really working hard at this to be extremely skilled after a million shots. After a million shots, it should be like second nature, the camera becomes an extension of you, like having driven a car for 30 years.</p>

<p>As a photographer, I so highly respect film, just an awesome medium. But I am so grateful for digital allowing me to shoot to my hearts content.</p>

<p> </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Unfortunately I don't think most people learn from the quantity of shots. They just repeat the same habits they've developed and keep repeating the same mistakes. In fact I think that quantity makes it worse because you rush to get as many shots as possible rather than slowing down and seeing what you're doing. Heck. Stick it on continuous mode and you'll quintuple the shots.</p>

<p>Composing. Focusing. Adjusting exposure. Checking DOF. Checking the light. And moving into different positions to compose the shot to the best. That's what works. Snap - Snap - Snap - just forces one to skip contemplation; to stop and really <em>see </em>what you're looking at before you release the shutter.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>with film you do have to be a a good photographer to get results with film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You do not have to be a good photographer to "get results with film." You have to be a decent enough technician. That's it. Photography is about seeing, which has nothing to do with "getting results with film."</p>