Changes

[Bill Pierce]

I often ask other photographers what are the biggest changes that the transition from film cameras to digital cameras has brought about. Oddly enough, a fair amount of the time auto focus and through-the-lens metering get mentioned a lot even though they made their first appearance on film cameras. To me the biggest change is there are a lot more pictures.

Let me explain. Sheet film, roll film and 35mm film put a limited number of exposures in your camera before you had to stop and “reload.” Shooting off a burst of frames, even with one of those fancy new cameras with a thumb wind, was somewhere between impossible and ill advised. Besides, film was expensive. It cost to push the button. And then you had to develop the film or have it developed commercially (expensive), proof it and make or have made a set of prints. In other words, between memory cards and computer display, there are a lot more images being produced. And, of course, as a grouchy old person, my feeling is that quantity is often the enemy of quality.

There are a lot of other changes that are important - improved technical image quality, greater control over the final image in print or on the screen and so on - all more positive than my “more is less” mantra. (Remember, David Vestal said, “More is not less. More is more.”) What do you think are the biggest changes that digital has brought about? (And how do you feel about it?)

 

[jsrockit]

We can provide plenty of cynical answers, but I choose to refrain from that. Obviously, now-a-days, resolution. The fact that a "pocket camera" like the 42mp RX1R II can make a completely clean and clear 24x36" print easily is pretty extraordinary. It was a lot of work to make a print that size in the darkroom. And from 35mm... ridiculously hard.

Of course, high iso.

For me personally, it is the fact that I can work on post processing my photography in the comfort of my home i.e. I don't have to travel to a public darkroom and figure out the hours I'm allowed to be there while wrestling other's bad habits. The home darkroom solution was never perfect for me... the home post-processing set-up is.

Also, the ease of designing and printing a photobook digitally cannot be forgotten. A digital camera, Lightroom, In-Design, and send it off to your printer of choice. And it can look perfect... and not like a photocopied zine (though I like those too).

 

[Ko.Fe.]

We had film EOS. It is AF. First quality camera we had.
Pictures were typical lab. Analog prints first. Small and marvellous.
Once we moved to Canada everything became most expensive.
We ditched film. First it was cheap, odd digital P&S. It was way more convenient and no price of film. IQ was crap. Then we got advanced FujiFilm P&S and film went dead.
But the Change came with Canon 500D. It is was total break through.
I was able to see photograph anything and get pro results.

Another change came after I went for DIY film later on. More so getting involved with rangefinder.ru.
Back then it was about rangefinder photography. And film was way more affordable for it.
I learned a lot about photography, not about technical thing.
It still helps me even with been back to digital now.

 

[Dan]

A growing sense that an original digital image is not as precious as an original film image, particularly at the RAW (negative) stage. Unless one made a copy negative or shot multiple original slides, photographers seemed to worship the negative's uniqueness in the photographic process of finalizing one's vision. Perhaps not so much with the "original" digital file nowadays, since propagating a perfect copy is easy and routine.

 

[lynnb]

I agree with more.. by many orders of magnitude, since phone cameras became "good enough". Another big change has been image sharing via social media, along with the creation of digital image archives on the web.

More recently the widespread availability of easy-to-use (in some cases, automated) digital retouching and manipulation software has brought into question the authenticity of photographs as visual records. I remember my horror in hearing that a camera club judge suggested to a landscape photographer that the picture could be improved by "dropping in a few clouds"; and by seeing how portrait software can alter underlying facial structure to "improve" a person's appearance, where once we only relied on pose, make-up and lighting, and some gentle retouching of skin blemishes. Now photographers can perform radical plastic surgery in their computer!

These are reasons I've mostly gone back to film - I like both the look and the authenticity.

 

[Bill Clark]

The biggest change I’ve witnessed with the advent of digital is the false sense of self confidence by people regarding their ability to make quality photographs. Many use their camera(s) like a machine gun, thinking if I take a large number of photos some will turn out. The fees that generate a decent income to live on are now few and far between.

I’m happy to be retired.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I never shot a lot of film. Couldn't afford to do that for the reasons you cited. I really am pleased that I now have the ability to print my own images and they can come out looking as good as any photo I've had printed professionally when shooting film.
While shooting now, I often think about how things would be if I were using film. I think the biggest 'change' is the ability to change ISO on the fly to whatever suits the situation. No longer am I locked into one ISO for a given number of shots. I don't think enough shooters today appreciate how 'freeing' this is.

 

[shimokita]

auto WB and not having to fiddle with warming & cooling filters, including that colour temperature meter...

and in-camera rendering, with or without tweaking the user settings. Not to mention low light performance.

 

[Franko]

I had an 18x24 print hanging some time ago - made with a pocket camera in low light. That didn't happen, at least for me,, in film days.

 

[Dogman]

Unfortunately digital has led to a devaluation of photography. So many pictures, everywhere, all the time dulls the brain and eye. Photography is considered trivial and decorative, not essential. And, truthfully, most of it is trivial and nonessential decoration.

For me personally digital has led to better technical quality in my photos. I've always battled with film in trying to get the look I wanted. Now it's possible. And the improvement in working conditions is incredible. High ISOs in near darkness still produces good images. More latitude than I can use. Cameras with a never ending film roll and instant feedback. Printers that print beautifully in normal room light without need for a multi-gallon print washer. This is all Good Stuff.

 

[icebear]

....


There are a lot of other changes that are important - improved technical image quality, greater control over the final image in print or on the screen and so on - all more positive than my “more is less” mantra. (Remember, David Vestal said, “More is not less. More is more.”) What do you think are the biggest changes that digital has brought about? (And how do you feel about it?)

For me the biggest change is the direct check of the shot in case conditions are pretty difficult or the composition tricky when using a rangefinder. Checking the negatives after development and realizing that you missed the shot or screwed it up was frustrating at times. Checking occasionally that you got it on the screen is very useful. Although I refrain from doing that too often.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Unfortunately digital has led to a devaluation of photography. So many pictures, everywhere, all the time dulls the brain and eye. Photography is considered trivial and decorative, not essential. And, truthfully, most of it is trivial and nonessential decoration.
.

Nonsense. Sorry. During film only era it was same if not more of those who were crap or just average, non creative shooters, but Pro photographers at the same time. The only reason they had job was due to complicated technicalities.
With digital all technicalities were gone and it opened opportunity for creative people. I have witnessed it right within family. My wife took incredibly good portraits once we got advanced P&S and one of our daughters became first female photog in night clubs of Toronto. Digital made it possible.

 

[willie_901]

Garbage In – Garbage Out

Garbage In – Garbage Out

Except for a few unique situations (action and wedding/event photography), more purposeful photography can lead to better images over time.

Freedom and responsibility are mutually inclusive.

The freedom to produce a great number of images with little effort can be abused without the discipline to discard a high percent of those new images.

Ideally the problem of image glut solves itself. Deleting a lot of inferior images takes time and energy.

I always use raw files.

I typically make a burst of three aperture, 1/2 to 1/3 stops, auto-bracketed exposures to maximize technical image quality. Hopefully at least one of each set overexposes important highlight regions. I use auto-ISO parameters that minimize the camera ISO setting. So, I permanently discard a large percentage of my photos in the initial post-production stages. All obvious least interesting images are deleted. This takes time. As the project proceeds the interesting images become more apparent. For these I retain the raw file from the auto-bracketed set with the the optimum highlight-region retention. The other two raw files are deleted.

Sometimes I take advantage of my cameras' pseudo-ISO invariant data stream design. I ignore the meter (except for very bright scenes); use the cameras' base ISO(s); and manually set the appropriate shutter time and aperture. This produces fewer images. It has also has the advantage of making in-camera image review impractical - just like a film camera.

 

[markjwyatt]

Nonsense. Sorry. During film only era it was same if not more of those who were crap or just average, non creative shooters, but Pro photographers at the same time....

This is true, but I think two issues are being confounded. During the film era, very few people saw those crap images. Today, in the digital age, we have the internet, so more people see them. The rise of internet and rise of digital photography occurred more or less at the same time. So all the crap pictures out there is as much an effect of the internet as crap photography.

 

[JeffS7444]

Where to begin? Small cameras offering parallax-free through the lens viewing with close-focus capabilities blew my mind, and when Fujifilm's F30 compact arrived with an unheard of ISO 1600 capabilty (color!) I was hooked. Being able to seamlessly transition from sunlit outdoors to darkened interiors without too much fretting over the type of lighting used was a revelation.

More recently I've attempted to shoot film in a manner similar to how I shoot digital, and it can be tricky: Food photos taken in restaurants by available light, for example. Even if there's sufficient illumination and the vintage lenses focus sufficiently close, some angles are plain awkward to shoot at when you can't hold the camera at arm's length and compose via the LCD.

 

[maigo]

Changes

Oh god, is this another digital vs film thread? Dont we have enough of them here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Nonsense. Sorry. During film only era it was same if not more of those who were crap or just average, non creative shooters, but Pro photographers at the same time. The only reason they had job was due to complicated technicalities........
one of our daughters became first female photog in night clubs of Toronto. Digital made it possible.

Ko.Fe. I'm betting social media made it possible

 

[jsrockit]

These are reasons I've mostly gone back to film - I like both the look and the authenticity.

Authenticity? https://www.uelsmann.net/works.php 😉

 

[Bill Pierce]

Authenticity? https://www.uelsmann.net/works.php 😉

I haven’t seen Jerry Uelsmann since both of us, along with Will McBride and Pete Turner spoke at a Miami Conference many years ago, but I think all of us, or at least me, were minor leaguers compared to Jerry when it came to the ability to reach the audience so strongly as to produce an emotional response. To me, that’s sort of the point of art. He uses film and makes silver prints. Maggie Taylor, his wife, is a respected and widely exhibited photographer who works digitally. I suspect neither of them thinks the other is an idiot for shooting film or digital - which is probably a good lesson for all of us.

 

[zuiko85]

Years ago it cost me much more to make dull, boring and cliche photos. Now it’s much cheaper to make a lot more dull, boring and cliche photos. L