The work that happens before you push the button.

[pdh]

I'd lay off the testosterone supplements, mate.

 

[jsrockit]

I guess it comes down to if you choose to be a fan of modern photography or not. I choose to be a fan and by doing so, I search out great current work. As long as you put in effort to find what you like, it is out there.

 

[DNG]

Well as was stated in the original post, there is nothing wrong with photoshop. This thread isn't about using photoshop, it's about changing attitudes towards process. There is certainly nothing wrong with using photoshop - really for anything - even bad HDR if that is what one really wants. The idea was simply that now that photographers can do so much to a photo after it is taken, that perhaps photographers don't spend as much time thinking about what they can do to make a photo before they take it.

I think it is about about a digital darkroom. and if [that] has changed a persons front end involvement.

As I stated, for "Photographers", I don't think so.
But, for those who care not to learn the front end... then any software may become a savior of their images as change in there workflow..

Also. many may have the attitude that "I can always fix it PS" (or whatever they use).

And that sounds like what you asked in post 1. Does having a good editing software make a "photographer" change their front end preparation to be less accurate because it can always be fixed later.. Again, a "Photographer" will not allow that to happen. They are a "Photographer" 1st, and the means to edit changes with technology. But, it is just a more modern Darkroom. "For the Photographer"

 

[tunalegs]

I don't think I could disagree completely, but I still feel that if you came into photography say 15 years ago, you probably have a different way of thinking about your approach than you would if you started 4 or 5 years ago. It seems only natural considering the changes in technology.

 

[Richard G]

I started photography 40 years ago when I was 12. I was a little better at 23. I was just noticeably better in one month at 26. There were some minor improvements through my 30s, mainly thanks to having children. Major improvements only came in the last five years, beginning deliberately, one morning, admittedly with a film camera and expensive film. The deliberation I lacked for most of my career led to almost uniformly mediocre results. I have been almost exclusively digital since March 2012 and I claim I have even improved since then, almost entirely on account of decisions occurring before I press the shutter button, and being less rigid about cropping and learning some useful darkroom-like adjustments in Lightroom.

That is to say, I don't think good photography has changed.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

This may sound odd but I've found that I do more pre-shot since digital than I ever did with film and this has spread over into my film usage.

Possibly because a LED is closer to the final effect than an optical finder, especially the newer ones, I've gradually reduced the cropping I do in post. Where previously I would "fix it on the easel", I now work on the basis that if the composition isn't right and there's no over-riding reason to make the effort, I hit the delete button.

So my photography has changed with digital but not in the way the original question implied.

 

[robert blu]

I would like to add a couple of comments about this discussion.
1- Do photographer now think less before and more after having fired the shutter? Yes, but this not only applies to photography. Years ago when I had to write a text with a type machine I had to think first, plan introduction, the main text and than a conclusion. Now with a word processor I have ideas and write all of them. Than i cancel pieces which are redundant, a move a piece of text from one point to another, I add something until it works. I mean it is a changing of most of our workflows due to the "easy" digital age.
2- In my photoclub if we plan an evening about composition or story of photography we have no more than 6-8 people attending. If we plan an evening about photoshop or lightroom we have 30-40 people attending. Not sure what does it mean but it means something...
robert
PS: having said this I still think before...

 

[hepcat]

I don't think I could disagree completely, but I still feel that if you came into photography say 15 years ago, you probably have a different way of thinking about your approach than you would if you started 4 or 5 years ago. It seems only natural considering the changes in technology.

I think you've hit something valuable here. I see a very generational difference in the way image-making is approached today as a craft. I think that there is a disparity between the way those of us who were brought up with film (especially medium and large format) and those who began with digital go about making images.

One of the things I see in forums posts (on other forums) over and over and over are laments over the lack of high quality ISO, autofocus speed, and metering complaints in digital bodies. Those of us who shot film for years using manual processes just roll with it... ISO 1250 in film was pretty much a three-stop push in processing and you just didn't have high expectations. Focus and exposure was where you put it, and if it was off, you knew where the blame lay. I think many of us from that era who shoot digital today shoot basically the same way we shot film.

From my unscientific and entirely biased perspective "digital era people" tend to have less discipline (in terms of how "film era people" work) in their craft, tend to rely on more their equipment to get the image rather than their own skill set. They also have a greater expectation that things can be "fixed" in PS after the shot is taken rather than taking the time and effort to make the image "in camera."

One example is in wedding photography today. When I shot 6x6 film, I'd shoot around 100 exposures expecting to fill a 50 proof 4x5 album. When I switched to 35mm equipment, I'd shoot six rolls of 36 exposures... and expect to fill a 100 proof album. With digital today, I seem to shoot about 300 images and still keep around 200. I regularly read online about photographers who routinely shoot 1200-3000 exposures at a wedding... and I have to wonder how that's even possible? And yet it's happening. In talking to young wedding photographers who crank out 1500 exposure weddings, they talk about shooting enough frames to almost "film" the event and reception. Coming to weddings from shooting 6x6 film cameras, I just can't imagine what they'd be shooting to get that many frames, or how they'd have time to manage to control any of the setting, or to set anything up. They obviously have a very different approach to making images than I do.

Now obviously there are many exceptions to every sweeping generalization, and this one has many as well... but as you read forums posts in the future give this film-digital generational concept some consideration.

 

[FrankS]

I think you've hit something valuable here. I see a very generational difference in the way image-making is approached today as a craft. I think that there is a disparity between the way those of us who were brought up with film (especially medium and large format) and those who began with digital go about making images.

One of the things I see in forums posts (on other forums) over and over and over are laments over the lack of high quality ISO, autofocus speed, and metering complaints in digital bodies. Those of us who shot film for years using manual processes just roll with it... ISO 1250 in film was pretty much a three-stop push in processing and you just didn't have high expectations. Focus and exposure was where you put it, and if it was off, you knew where the blame lay. I think many of us from that era who shoot digital today shoot basically the same way we shot film.

From my unscientific and entirely biased perspective "digital era people" tend to have less discipline (in terms of how "film era people" work) in their craft, tend to rely on more their equipment to get the image rather than their own skill set. They also have a greater expectation that things can be "fixed" in PS after the shot is taken rather than taking the time and effort to make the image "in camera."

One example is in wedding photography today. When I shot 6x6 film, I'd shoot around 100 exposures expecting to fill a 50 proof 4x5 album. When I switched to 35mm equipment, I'd shoot six rolls of 36 exposures... and expect to fill a 100 proof album. With digital today, I seem to shoot about 300 images and still keep around 200. I regularly read online about photographers who routinely shoot 1200-3000 exposures at a wedding... and I have to wonder how that's even possible? And yet it's happening. In talking to young wedding photographers who crank out 1500 exposure weddings, they talk about shooting enough frames to almost "film" the event and reception. Coming to weddings from shooting 6x6 film cameras, I just can't imagine what they'd be shooting to get that many frames, or how they'd have time to manage to control any of the setting, or to set anything up. They obviously have a very different approach to making images than I do.

Now obviously there are many exceptions to every sweeping generalization, and this one has many as well... but as you read forums posts in the future give this film-digital generational concept some consideration.

I'm sure your view will be considered politically incorrect by many, but I share this view.

 

[tunalegs]

This may sound odd but I've found that I do more pre-shot since digital than I ever did with film and this has spread over into my film usage.

Possibly because a LED is closer to the final effect than an optical finder, especially the newer ones, I've gradually reduced the cropping I do in post. Where previously I would "fix it on the easel", I now work on the basis that if the composition isn't right and there's no over-riding reason to make the effort, I hit the delete button.

So my photography has changed with digital but not in the way the original question implied.

I find that interesting. I have nothing against cropping although I prefer to print full frame when using 35mm, so I generally considered composition carefully when shooting. Did you previously think it was easier to compose a shot by cropping it than it was to compose in the viewfinder?

One example is in wedding photography today. When I shot 6x6 film, I'd shoot around 100 exposures expecting to fill a 50 proof 4x5 album. When I switched to 35mm equipment, I'd shoot six rolls of 36 exposures... and expect to fill a 100 proof album. With digital today, I seem to shoot about 300 images and still keep around 200. I regularly read online about photographers who routinely shoot 1200-3000 exposures at a wedding... and I have to wonder how that's even possible? And yet it's happening. In talking to young wedding photographers who crank out 1500 exposure weddings, they talk about shooting enough frames to almost "film" the event and reception.

I was finishing a roll in my Exa a few weeks ago by shooting some of the swans down at the lake, when a photographer showed up with DSLR and a large zoom and took more photos in about 30 seconds than I did in 15 minutes. I was a bit astonished because I would wait until the birds actually started doing something interesting before firing the shutter, but they were there just clack-clack-clack-clack - nothing. 😕

I don't doubt that they came away with a few interesting images, so I can't really fault them for it, but it was still amusing to me.

 

[FrankS]

While the camera you are using can't control your actions - a digital doesn't twist your arm to shoot indescrininantly, it can certainly influence your behaviour, knowing that more frames cost you nothing in film and development. When you carry a hammer, many things begin to look like nails.

 

[crispy12]

There will always be good and bad photographers. It's just that DSLRs are now much cheaper and more accessible, hence more newbies to the hobby (great),but it takes time to learn the fundamentals. Some people never do, no thanks to the automation in modern cameras.

 

[Richard G]

This may sound odd but I've found that I do more pre-shot since digital than I ever did with film and this has spread over into my film usage.

Possibly because a LED is closer to the final effect than an optical finder, especially the newer ones, I've gradually reduced the cropping I do in post. Where previously I would "fix it on the easel", I now work on the basis that if the composition isn't right and there's no over-riding reason to make the effort, I hit the delete button.

So my photography has changed with digital but not in the way the original question implied.

This is a very good point. I don't have CS5 and for architectural shots I know what I want in terms of straight verticals and parallel horizontals, with wide angle lenses, and with digital I keep taking the shot till I get it right. Cheating? Not necessarily. I can't correct perspective in post with my current software skills and I don't have an enlarger. I'm still thinking and planning, but have more options for getting it right on the sensor.

 

[lukitas]

a very interesting point.
the way we shoot has always had to do with the tech at hand. When the barnack came out, professionals still worked on glass plates.
My Grandma had an Agfa folder, 6X9cm or thereabouts. She shot snaps of the family and then contact printed them. She had cards in the right size, with curly borders, to print them on.
The pharmacist in her town had a leica, so he needed an enlarger, he was very proud of his set-up - who wouldn't be, it cost more than a car, even if you used the elmar in the enlarger - but all he did was take snaps of family and friends and town events.
In the thirties and forties, there were loads of magazines full of photos, which were often expertly retouched. Machinery made more brilliant, 'uncomfortable' people disappeared from photo's. We europeans learned the qualities of german glass through Signal, the nazi propaganda engine. Which demanded it's own 'way of seeing'...
Somewhere between the fifties and the sixties, photography became glamorous, and you had to have a motor-drive to indicate the size of your private parts, and actually, the shoot meters of film per second thing became fashionable in the seventies, long before digital.
The trend has always been to shoot more with less effort. And photographers worth their salt have always expended more effort than just clicking that stupid button. Even when clicking that button feels like a small orgasm.
It is a matter of course that the way we think of taking a photo changes with the thing we use to take photos. If my grandma had had a digital point and shoot, she would have shot it at everything, left us with thousands of silly nothings, and so would the pharmacist.
Some of us think mostly about the form of a photo : the light, the speed, the geometry, some of us are focused on the content : that's aunt Hildegard and uncle Wilfried disguised as devils during the carnival of '58. It's all good.

 

[DNG]

I don't think I could disagree completely, but I still feel that if you came into photography say 15 years ago, you probably have a different way of thinking about your approach than you would if you started 4 or 5 years ago. It seems only natural considering the changes in technology.

With the fast pace of many have these days, some things just need to be learned and developed as one grows... hopefully.

For the neebeees....
I suggest shoot and develop B&W film for a few months to understand that the front part of photography is just as important as the back part... be it in a wet darkroom, or digital darkroom. Or, take a local photography class to at least learn the terms and functions of their camera. I can't tell how many times I answer Q's on another Forum I moderate that is about basic camera functions and what they do... I'm glad to do it.... but..... as long they learn it... I OK with it.

I started in photography in 1968....
Old School, self taught, with a darkroom...
Lots of reading on everything photographic... Popular Photography Magazine was my Bible back then 🙄
It takes discipline to shoot, develop and print good prints..
It starts in the Camera (any camera). Still Does, some things never change with time. Your imagination is worthless if you can't get it right (close) in the camera 1st. Techknolwdgy shouldn't change that, just offer more options after the fact.

 

[DNG]

I think you've hit something valuable here. I see a very generational difference in the way image-making is approached today as a craft. I think that there is a disparity between the way those of us who were brought up with film (especially medium and large format) and those who began with digital go about making images.

One of the things I see in forums posts (on other forums) over and over and over are laments over the lack of high quality ISO, autofocus speed, and metering complaints in digital bodies. Those of us who shot film for years using manual processes just roll with it... ISO 1250 in film was pretty much a three-stop push in processing and you just didn't have high expectations. Focus and exposure was where you put it, and if it was off, you knew where the blame lay. I think many of us from that era who shoot digital today shoot basically the same way we shot film.

From my unscientific and entirely biased perspective "digital era people" tend to have less discipline (in terms of how "film era people" work) in their craft, tend to rely on more their equipment to get the image rather than their own skill set. They also have a greater expectation that things can be "fixed" in PS after the shot is taken rather than taking the time and effort to make the image "in camera."

One example is in wedding photography today. When I shot 6x6 film, I'd shoot around 100 exposures expecting to fill a 50 proof 4x5 album. When I switched to 35mm equipment, I'd shoot six rolls of 36 exposures... and expect to fill a 100 proof album. With digital today, I seem to shoot about 300 images and still keep around 200. I regularly read online about photographers who routinely shoot 1200-3000 exposures at a wedding... and I have to wonder how that's even possible? And yet it's happening. In talking to young wedding photographers who crank out 1500 exposure weddings, they talk about shooting enough frames to almost "film" the event and reception. Coming to weddings from shooting 6x6 film cameras, I just can't imagine what they'd be shooting to get that many frames, or how they'd have time to manage to control any of the setting, or to set anything up. They obviously have a very different approach to making images than I do.

Now obviously there are many exceptions to every sweeping generalization, and this one has many as well... but as you read forums posts in the future give this film-digital generational concept some consideration.

I'm sure your view will be considered politically incorrect by many, but I share this view.

Hepcat...
I also share share your view...
I was raised on film, (started at age 15, 1968), I also did a few years of Weddings with a 35mm, (1990-93). I had 7 rolls, split between 100 and 400 ISO... I rarely shoot more than 6. and expected about 125 proofs. I had to be organized, and I had the Wedding broken up into Sections, with the "Most Have" frames required for each Section.
Yes, I think you are right, we, who where raised on film, still use the same approach with the digital camera.. It is still a camera in it's basic function.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Did you previously think it was easier to compose a shot by cropping it than it was to compose in the viewfinder?

Good question. I used to concentrate on the elements because the viewfinder generally didn't describe the image clearly, even though I always used SLRs or TLRs.

Since I've owned a M3, I find it the closest thing to a EVF and even better in terms of getting everything where I want it. BUT... there's a very loose relationship between what I see inside those framelines and what the image looks like printed or scanned.

Currently, I think the Pannie G2 is the best compositional tool I have but I'm sure there are better finders just waiting to be discovered.

😀