Philosophy

[auke bonne van der weide]

In what way you see differently through your eyes when shooting

digitally. Do you become more aware of things in the frame, or do you

become indifferent and just shoot and play. What gives better

photographic results in the end, and I don't mean anything

technically, I mean photographically....... like making one hell of a

stunning photograph.

[andrew robertson]

Digital allows one's photographic skills to grow at a much faster rate than chemical.

Better photography through taking more pictures is a rule that stands with film or

digital, and digital allows one to explore without any cost!

[digitmstr]

Although my framing had to be adjusted to accomodate the 10D format, my eye hasn't changed, my sense of space, color, shadow & light is the same. No matter what format I use, digital, 120, etc...

 

In addition, because of the NO cost and faster feedback I have been able to re-discover photography, in a very real sense.

 

Being a hobbist with young children I no longer had the time to set up chemicals, clean up afterward, etc... So, to be honest, I had pretty much stopped shooting for a while. Or, I would have to use very expensive PRO labs. Ever since I got my 10D I have been able to put to fruition all the ideas I had stored in the "drawer", in the back of my mind, while shooting film.

 

Even if one were to shoot "simplistically" chances are the result would eventually lead to some learning and improvement.

[bleck]

Posting this question in this particular forum, you'll get one set of answers largely swinging towards digital as being a savoir.

<br>

Post the same question in a more film/chemical-based forum and you'll get people on the other side of the fence.<br><br>

Personally, the output (i.e. digital or a negative) has zero impact on how I shoot. The big difference for me was simply moving from rangefinders to an SLR.

[todd frederick]

I find the viewing screen very helpful for composition much in a similar way a ground glass is used in some MF and LF cameras. Viewing the results on the screen has been very useful.

[andrew_c2]

Heh, you want to talk philosophy! I've had several conversations with film

purists who, among many, many things, point out instant gratification as being

one of the problems with digital. Digital users (and I'm a recent convert! My

300D's great!) tout this as one of the strengths. But maybe there's something

to be said about having the need to always be evaluating yourself through

instant feedback that a digicam can give you. Long gone are the days when

the only option people had was to drop negs off and pick them up in 3 days!

Now, people get upset when their buffer won't clear the shot to be seen in 3

seconds (see: hobbyists desiring the fastest possible memory cards; why!?

What's wrong with my 4x card!?).

 

I agree wholeheartedly that your technique gets better faster with digital. It's

very humbling to be able to have access to your shots so quickly after 'the

moment', and see how much better you could have made them. But I don't

think my attitude toward subjects, i.e. do I take shots just to screw around or

only what I find 'worthwhile', has changed with digital. I still shoot only what I

find important.

 

I don't understand how you can separate 'technically' from 'photographically'

as you do: technique is imbued in every picture if you look for it to be. Now,

Barthes would object, saying, "forget technique; I take that picture because

the subject, not the art of photography, means something to me!" Maybe

digital improves your technique to the point where you can say, "that stunning

picture came about because of 'skill', not 'luck'!"

 

Andre

[elliot_n]

The type of person that gets hysterical about the instant feedback of digital has such

little interest in photography that they should be ignored,,,

[andrew_c2]

Lol; this person doesn't have a TV, nor does he drive... he's an art critic for a

newspaper!

[ellis_vener_photography]

Now that i have been shooting digitally for a couple of years, I "chimp" (hover over the

LCD on the back of the camera) very little once I know the histogram looks good. The

screen is just too small and too low of definition to really give me a good look at the

image. So I think shooting digitally frees me to "dig into" the subject a bit more

thoroughly and to explore my options and also to experiment a bit more as I now

bracket my ideas more than I bracket the exposures.

[brooks short]

Shooting digitally hasn't made me see any differently than when I was shooting film.

 

My technique and workflow has changed dramatically though. Most of my work is commercial studio shooting. When I shoot film, I'm usually shooting 4x5 transparency and testing with Polaroid.

 

Now that I'm shooting most of my work digitally, with a Kodak ProBack tethered to a Mac, I find that I'm much more willing to make a small change in lighting or prop arrangement and check it by capturing an image to the computer screen. With digital I'm able to make a very small tweak in lighting, exposure or propping and immediately see that change on a 10" image on the monitor.

 

In the past I would shoot a Polaroid only after a major change or several small changes. Shooting 8x10 Polaroids were expensive but easy to judge. 4x5 Polaroids also cost a good bit of money but are much harder to use for evaluating exposure and color. Once a shot was finalized I used to shoot 4 sheets of film at 1/3 stop brackets. It wasn't uncommon to spend more than $75 on Polaroids and film for one shot.

 

Now with digital capture, once I have the final image on the monitor I rarely shoot exposure brackets but I might easily shoot a propping or lighting or point of view change because it costs nothing and is so easy to do.

 

Digital encourages me to try different approaches to each setup. In this way,digital has made me a better photographer and given me complete control over how my images are reproduced.

[._._z]

Jay Maisel recently wrote about his going digital professionally. He wrote, in part,

<p> <i> " ... one

of the other important reasons I switched is that I feel digital has opened up more

doors to me on a conceptual, aesthetic level. I can now take pictures that I wouldn't

have taken before. Note that I said wouldn't, not couldn't. In digital, you have the

ability to elaborate, emphasize and expand on what you've just shot. In a minute, you

can interpret and improve your shoot without waiting hours or even days to see

where you are in your shoot.<p>

 

I'm a great believer in <b>always</b> carrying a camera at <b> all</b> times. Yet,

I never carried a camera at night because who knew if you would hit tungsten,

fluorescent, neon, a mix, or what speed you'd need. Now, I always carry the camera at

night as well as all day because, on my camera, I have color balance capacity for

daylight, tungsten, fluorescent, etc. Also, I can go from ISO 125 to ISO 800 and

higher." </i>

[._._z]

<i> Posting this question in this particular forum, you'll get one set of answers

largely swinging towards digital as being a savoir.</i><p>

 

Save yer' <i>savoir</i> for a savvier savior.

[digitmstr]

>>Posting this question in this particular forum, you'll get one set of answers largely swinging towards digital as being a savoir<<

 

not necessarily-I think I personally made a very rational point of why I switched. Now, I will say this: if time & costs were not a factor I would be shooting large format film (8x10) as well as digital.

 

If we are talking "purism" then, the ONLY medium is the medium that allows the artist's view to be exposed in the best form, be it film, digital, painting, whatever. In that respect digital is a medium in and of itself.

 

If we are talking "purist quality" then, digital is catching up very fast. Medium format backs are incredible (albeit incredibly expensive) and widely used in commercial and fashion. Full frame DSRL (like the 1Ds) are working wonders for a great many photographers.

 

Same discussion was happening in the Audio world and many still vow that analog sounds better. I don't think so but, it does sound different. Fact is, in the end, all music goes to CD therefore, it's largely a matter of taste. Some people like to record certain instruments (namely drums) on analog tape and then, re-record them into a digital system for mixing along the other tracks, for example. That would be the equivalent of taking a slide and scanning it (with the very best scanner). Would that be better than taking a picture digitally to begin with? I think different is not always better. In the end, it's what serves your purpose that counts.

 

For photojournalism digital is THE medium and it is almost as though it should have been from the start, way back when. How else can you take a pix and upload it to you paper (across the country or around the world the world) all in less than an hour?