Modern photography, the thrill has gone ... not really!

[Keith]

I thought I'd post this thread in Bill's forum because I've noticed that he tends to open up these types of discussions without really inviting anti digital or pro film rants from those who apparently have to be one thing or the other.

A lot of people seem to resent the time they spend at their computers post processing digital files even though they accept digital as a chosen medium. Occasionally it can piss me off and a year ago I was really wondering if digital was worth the effort because I seemed to be spending an extrordinary amount of time processing files for what seemed to me to be a fairly mediocre output. Part of it was not appreciating the necessity for consistent accurate exposures and not really having a decent understanding of the methodoligy of working with raw files to extract somewhere near their maximim potential. I've still got a long way to go but I do generally feel a lot more confident with digital than I have done previously.

This brings me to the question of why the digital work flow seems to be so unrewarding for some people even though they don't have a problem with the digital image itself ... ie they are not analog zealots and accept that digital is just another medium but really don't enjoy the necessary steps that have to be taken to achieve a decent end result.

I must be crazy (no comments please! 😀) because I actually enjoy putting a CF or SD card into the reader and downloading a batch of raw files to my computer and as they open up in my chosen software I'm already visually picking out individual images and contemplating what I may or may not be able to do with them with the available skills I currently have. If I spend half an hour or more on a particular file because I can see it has potential even though there are some problems, I get a huge buzz if I can achieve something worthwhile as an end result.

Without this becoming a digital v film discussion, and personally I enjoy both mediums equally, can the digital work flow be genuinely rewarding as a journey to a satisfactory conclusion ... meaning a good image that gives you some sense of pride?

And of course, I'd be very interested to hear Bill's thoughts on this! 🙂

 

[aad]

I can't get happy about raw files, but I am getting happier with digital files in general.

I still haven't got to a consistent point where I'm as happy as much of my film output, but I think it is just a matter of time-plus no scanning, and no DUST cloning!

 

[jsrockit]

This brings me to the question of why the digital work flow seems to be so unrewarding for some people even though they don't have a problem with the digital image itself ... ie they are not analog zealots and accept that digital is just another medium but really don't enjoy the necessary steps that have to be taken to achieve a decent end result.

I've always thought that they either do not like computers, do not understand computers, or do not understand their software enough to get what they want. To me, it's just like the darkroom.

I must be crazy (no comments please! 😀) because I actually enjoy putting a CF or SD card into the reader and downloading a batch of raw files to my computer and as they open up in my chosen software I'm already visually picking out individual images and contemplating what I may or may not be able to do with them with the available skills I currently have. If I spend half an hour or more on a particular file because I can see it has potential even though there are some problems, I get a huge buzz if I can achieve something worthwhile as an end result.

No different than spending a lot of time in the darkroom...

 

[Gid]

Both my film output (scanned) and digital end up in Lightroom. I find Lightroom an excellent tool for the type of adjustments I normally do and I quite enjoy the whole process. It is rare that I would spend more than a few minutes on a image, but maybe I am easily pleased 🙂

 

[jky]

Once I've actually established a "flow", the journey became much easier...

The problem I had with PP digital files is the myriad of things you can do with it. Too many options & too many tweaks to attempt equates to too much time spent in front of a computer. Initially, I'd shoot first & then figure out in PP what exactly it is I want to do with that particular file.

What helped me was to go in a similar mindset when I was using film and establish then & there, at the moment I press the shutter, what my output was going to be like. After this, the challenge is what kind of "flow" do I need to get to my preconceived output... and once that's all figured out, life became easier...

 

[Nikon Bob]

I have never used a darkroom so I do get satisfaction from doing PP on a PC to get the final image. Shooting RAW has eliminated scanning which I did find to be a PITA. I also never had a job that tied me to a PC day in and day out. I can understand someone who is shackled to a PC at work wanting a different approach to getting to a print. So yea I do find the digital workflow rewarding.

Bob

 

[hipsterdufus]

I agree with Gid: Lightroom made my digital photography life much easier.

I've done both darkroom and PC processing. Currently, I scan my negatives and print digitally. I never want to go back to the darkroom, honestly. I wasn't a particularly good printer and it was hard to get the results I wanted. Much easier to scan and post process. Then, I get to use the cameras (and medium) that I love without the pain of printing in the darkroom.

Long answer turned short: yes, it is equally, if not more satisfying, to work on my images on the computer, even if they didn't start out digitally.

 

[Mcary]

Both my film output (scanned) and digital end up in Lightroom. I find Lightroom an excellent tool for the type of adjustments I normally do and I quite enjoy the whole process. It is rare that I would spend more than a few minutes on a image, but maybe I am easily pleased 🙂

Pretty much the same here, though not sure whither I'm easily pleased or just lazy 🙂 Most of the time if I'm not happy with the look of an image after a few minutes of processing I figure its not worth the time and effort and go on to one that is 🙂

 

[emraphoto]

I spend far more time in post with scanned film then digital. With digital it is usually under 5 minutes per file. A lot of that is spent saving the specific sizes for archiving, web and filing with agency. Growing up in the film era resulted in a 'get it right at shutter release' mantra so very little post is needed.

Now caption and tagging is a whole other nightmare!

 

[oftheherd]

I think my biggest problem is not being comfortable with PP on the computer. Seeing what others get, I attribute that to my own shortcomings.

That said, I still would prefer darkroom work if I only had the time. I did get fairly comfortable with that, but certainly not expert.

 

[gavinlg]

Post processing scanned film is like a bad nightmare when you have a lot of it. I had something like 20 35mm rolls from my last Japan trip and scanning and editing it made me want to never look at another roll of film ever again...

By comparison, digital file PP is easy and quick, especially with lightroom. I do need to upgrade my desktop though... my imac from 2005 is getting a little long in the tooth.

 

[claacct]

Digital killed the thrill of photography because it enabled everyone to take decent photos and that resulted in people being too busy looking at photos they have taken themselves rather than looking at the work of other photographers. What followed is the rise and rise of the amateur and casual shooter and the demise of the talented photo artist who took photos for others to see. As talent goes away or gets averaged by hordes of camera carrying people, so does the quality, artistic standards and the promise of recognition and even financial reward.

There are only two approaches left to photography, you can either bite the bullet and admit what you're doing is useless and will lead to nowhere so you might as well just enjoy the ride, or you can block all the negativity, carry on as before, but that scenario also assumes that one has to be really thick or senile to carry on like that... When everyone from kids to grannies and grandpas can take pictures, then where is the challenge, where is the art and where is the thrill?

 

[gavinlg]

Digital killed the thrill of photography because it enabled everyone to take decent photos and that resulted in people being too busy looking at photos they have taken themselves rather than looking at the work of other photographers. What followed is the rise and rise of the amateur and casual shooter and the demise of the talented photo artist who took photos for others to see. As talent goes away or gets averaged by hordes of camera carrying people, so does the quality, artistic standards and the promise of recognition and even financial reward.

There are only two approaches left to photography, you can either bite the bullet and admit what you're doing is useless and will lead to nowhere so you might as well just enjoy the ride, or you can block all the negativity, carry on as before, but that scenario also assumes that one has to be really thick or senile to carry on like that... When everyone from kids to grannies and grandpas can take pictures, then where is the challenge, where is the art and where is the thrill?

Digital enabled everyone to take decent photos? Hahaaaa this must be a troll acount. Thanks for the laugh anyway...

 

[Ronald M]

Digital allows one to get custom prints a consumer prices. Take your file, color bal if necessary, , levels and curves so it does not look flat, burn/dodge to your satisfaction and send away for a nice color print.

Some minimal computer skills are required, but you only have to pick up prints, FTP gets the files there. My lab calls when ready for pick up.

 

[Paul Luscher]

Well, as for myself, I'd put it this way:

I like digital, but there are times when I find it hard to sit down at the computer. Lets just say that having to go through several hundred images, pick out the potential good ones, and THEN winnow those down to the final few--which then have to be processed--can invite burnout. Plus, unlike film, because there's really almost no delay between shooting and downloading into the computer, projects tend to pile up fast ( I have four sitting in my computer right now). With film, there was a bit of a breather, given the time lapse in involved in having the film processed.

The other thing about film was that I could scan a sheet of negatives or slides and pick out the ones that looked like winners. Sure, it took a little time to scan them in, but there was nowhere near the overload I sometimes feel doing digital.

Guess it's a case of progress coming with minuses as well as pluses...

 

[Mcary]

Digital killed the thrill of photography because it enabled everyone to take decent photos and that resulted in people being too busy looking at photos they have taken themselves rather than looking at the work of other photographers. What followed is the rise and rise of the amateur and casual shooter and the demise of the talented photo artist who took photos for others to see. As talent goes away or gets averaged by hordes of camera carrying people, so does the quality, artistic standards and the promise of recognition and even financial reward.

There are only two approaches left to photography, you can either bite the bullet and admit what you're doing is useless and will lead to nowhere so you might as well just enjoy the ride, or you can block all the negativity, carry on as before, but that scenario also assumes that one has to be really thick or senile to carry on like that... When everyone from kids to grannies and grandpas can take pictures, then where is the challenge, where is the art and where is the thrill?

Replace the word "Digital" with Kodak, Box Brownie, roll film 35mm ext,,, and you pretty much have the history of photography for the last 110 years or so.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Digital killed the thrill of photography because it enabled everyone to take decent photos and that resulted in people being too busy looking at photos they have taken themselves rather than looking at the work of other photographers. What followed is the rise and rise of the amateur and casual shooter and the demise of the talented photo artist who took photos for others to see. As talent goes away or gets averaged by hordes of camera carrying people, so does the quality, artistic standards and the promise of recognition and even financial reward.

There are only two approaches left to photography, you can either bite the bullet and admit what you're doing is useless and will lead to nowhere so you might as well just enjoy the ride, or you can block all the negativity, carry on as before, but that scenario also assumes that one has to be really thick or senile to carry on like that... When everyone from kids to grannies and grandpas can take pictures, then where is the challenge, where is the art and where is the thrill?

Where is the art? In the art. There's a lot more to a picture than technical adequacy.

To take another analogy, many more people nowadays can read and write. But not many write well. (Some don't even read well).

Cheers,

R.

 

[dave lackey]

For me it is quite simple. I prefer to spend my time shooting. Then editing. And hopefully enjoying myself.

I have literally spent 10s of thousands of hours in PP over the last 10 years and that much more in computer design work for hundreds of land development and engineering projects. The result: nerve surgery and awful pain still lingering three years after surgery. Also, boredom and disdain for spending more than an hour on a keyboard per day.😡 I have had enough of computers and fully enjoy a day without them and away from even a cell phone.

Give me a camera and let me be a photographer, not a darkroom jockey, not a PS geek, not a printer, just a photographer. And with a little luck, I will produce an image or two worthwhile.😱

 

[claacct]

My argument is not that film is better than digital, my view is that the technological shift from film to digital opened the floodgates and that swept everything that was aesthetic and aristocratic about photography. With film there were many limitations, from the number of shots and rolls of film to the development, printing and editing. Digital made photography a one step process. People do fool themselves with post-processing but its basically another way of trying to better the folks who're not capable or lazy to post-process, but what they usually produce is HDR-like images that look like screen shots from a Japanese anime movie rather than photos of real life.

An art form cannot exist in a horizontal sphere of mediocrity, it has to be aristocratic and those with talent have to stand out appreciated and followed. That is no longer possible because the very notion of whats an artistic photograph cannot be ascertained due to the sheer volume and similarity of images produced with digital sensors and their linear post-processing software.

This is it, photography as a camera hobby or gear-testing hobby (posting images of brick walls and ISO comparisons) taking pleasure in having the best lens and best body and the rare film camera, that is the only small pleasures left. Photography itself has become as easy and convenient as using a phone, ironically speaking because camera phones are the last nail in the coffin of what we've come to know as still photography.

I don't know what the future holds but I don't think 3D and holograms would be the same.

 

[SciAggie]

... can the digital work flow be genuinely rewarding as a journey to a satisfactory conclusion ... meaning a good image that gives you some sense of pride?

The way I see it, if one is going to work digitally or have a hybrid workflow, it is just part of the process. You can't separate pressing the shutter and post processing - either wet or digital - it is part of photography. I like to cook, but I don't like washing dishes - well guess what - it's comes with the territory.

As for digital post processing having anything to do with damaging photography, well that was good for a chuckle. Has anyone watched "America's Got Talent" or been to a karioke bar lately? There are bad singers, poets, musicians, and writers - always have been - we just have more access to their work now. Great work still gets discovered and rises to a larger audience.