Five ways the digital camera changed us

[jsrockit]

Hmh........

Ive seen A LOT of press grade DSLR's in the hands of Soccermoms at my daughters sports-meets, Big fat white lenses and all.

Which supports what I was saying.

 

[j j]

Anyone who wishes to spend six weeks taking eight glass plates can still do so if they wish. The kit and chemicals are out there still. And the results could be superb.

I'd rather take a few more and risk missing out on the awards.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

What bothers me is that under the title "People are better photographers", it says: "Sheer weight of numbers now means you can have better photos. If you're aiming to have five good pictures at an event and you take 240 instead of 24, your chances are better."

So, apparently, taking good pictures is a matter of chances, not of skill ...

OTOH, at the start of the article, it says (about the photographer in Berlin 1939): " In the end, out of the eight plates he got four award-winning photos.".

Do you think those "better photographers" get a ratio of 1 to 2 award-winning photos ? Or even 4 out of those 240 ?

Stefan.

I'm pretty much in agreement here.
I think the very ease and economy of digital technology which has rapidly improved since it was introduced, has encouraged a "spray and pray" approach to photography by many people in which there is temptation - even encouragement - to take a series of shots of a subject, leaving the decisions to the technology, and believing that out of 5, 10,20 similar shots one is going to be a winner. Maybe, but it's chance and not decisive on the part of the photographer. Good or bad? I don't know, but I suspect it's leading to a similar situation in photography as it has in driving cars. People who have learned and only driven automatic transmission cars are prohibited in many jurisdictions to drive manual gearbox cars - because they don't have the skill sets required.
I'm not suggesting that this is a likely outcome in photography but it does illustrate the potential loss of skill and knowledge, I think.
Does it matter? Probably not to most people.

 

[The Meaness]

We better hurry up and decide if photography is worse now than it was before digital...

All these manufacturers aren't going to sell the digital cameras they're making if we decide they're hurting photography! 😱

 

[celluloidprop]

So, apparently, taking good pictures is a matter of chances, not of skill ...

To some extent, this has always been true. The chance of being there, the chance of something happening, the chance of the light being there, etc..

Robert Frank shot, as I understand it, ~500 rolls of film over the course of his Guggenheim fellowship that became the Americans. That's 18000 exposures.

 

[bhop73]

Right, because the large majority of regular people used those cameras.

I would agree. Where I grew up in rural North Carolina, I rarely saw an slr or any decent camera until I got one myself, and that was only because i'd decided to take a photography class and had to get one for it. Maybe it was different in bigger cities.. dunno. My family was low income like much of the U.S. Those crappy cameras were what we could afford.

 

[bigeye]

... Of course I am not talking about serious photographers but just average phone or digicam users. Esthetics have definitely changed, to the worse imo.

It's hard to separate the sea of crap that the internet brings home from the good stuff, but good things are there.
.

 

[gliderbee]

To some extent, this has always been true. The chance of being there, the chance of something happening, the chance of the light being there, etc..

Robert Frank shot, as I understand it, ~500 rolls of film over the course of his Guggenheim fellowship that became the Americans. That's 18000 exposures.

Yes, I know, but still, for my own pictures, I find the best ones are nearly always the ones I had to "work" for.

What bothers me is that it seems to become the "norm": just shoot as much as you can and there will be a good one in there ...


Stefan.

 

[sojournerphoto]

To some extent, this has always been true. The chance of being there, the chance of something happening, the chance of the light being there, etc..

Robert Frank shot, as I understand it, ~500 rolls of film over the course of his Guggenheim fellowship that became the Americans. That's 18000 exposures.

And David Hurn reckoned on 1000 frames or 30 rolls for a 7 to 8 picture story. In his book with Bill Jay, Bill tells the story of David visiting the USA and going into the photo store with Bill. Seeing they sold his favourite make of film he asked for 1,000 rolls.

 

[celluloidprop]

Yes, I know, but still, for my own pictures, I find the best ones are nearly always the ones I had to "work" for.

What bothers me is that it seems to become the "norm": just shoot as much as you can and there will be a good one in there ...


Stefan.

That's one way of thinking - but on the other hand, there probably won't be a truly 'good' one there. Blind squirrels and nuts and all - but good in the sense of belonging in a larger project, having real meaning, etc., would require some kind of forethought or vision.

But taking a lot of exposures gives you the ability to experiment, to try different angles, to see how things look when photographed (to borrow from Winogrand).