Has Digital Made You More Competent Or Lazy

[smoke665]

This is aimed at the more senior members on the forum, those who remember the days when an image was primarily created in camera. Granted there were some things you could do in the darkroom, or by your choice of film, but by and large it was in camera.
I started a book this weekend on creating in camera as opposed to relying so much on editing software, and it made me think. I went back and pulled out some old photo albums, and realized that I had actually created some decent images where the only options available on the camera were aperture, focus and shutter speed. Now even low end camera's have dozens of options and controls, yet it seems many are less creative in camera, relying instead on software after the fact to "create" something. Comments?

 

[robbins.photo]

Has the electric ignition system in your car made you lazy? If so have you honestly considered purchasing a car with a hand crank? Do you think that doing so would make you a better driver?

My thoughts, what matters is the final result. Not what tools you used to achieve them.

 

[pixmedic]

Automatic transmissions have made people lazy.
Auto focus made people lazy.
Roll film made people lazy.

 

[tirediron]

Automatic transmissions have made people lazy.
Auto focus made people lazy.
Roll film made people lazy.

I made me lazy!

 

[KC1]

I think it has given us more ability to get the shot in the camera than we had before. I don't use editing after the shot for 999 out of 1000 shots. And then I generally just crop.

The thing that made people lazy was the riding mower.
And the tv remote...and...

Actually, I think people today are able to do many times more productive work than ever before in history, so I don't think 'lazy' is a good word to use for someone that does a weeks worth of work (1800's) in a couple hours (2016).
More reliant on technology, perhaps, but not lazy.

To answer the opening question, it has made me a lot more productive.

 

[baturn]

I was born lazy.

 

[fmw]

Frankly, I make images the same way I did on film. I don't use all the editing features in a DSLR. I just use the exposure controls like I did in the old days. I do some editing in the computer but not much. The only thing digital has done for me is to make me ignore the cost of film and processing and, of course, it provides a preview of the image on the camera's LCD screen. There was a time when I used polaroids to preview the image.

 

[tirediron]

I think honestly, the answer is 'neither'. All that has really changed with the advent of digital cameras is the recording medium. There really isn't anything different now than there was 20 years ago, except that your hands don't smell like vinegar when you're done processing.

 

[manaheim]

I started photography shooting with a Canon AE1. I took some ok shots, but ok at best. The rest were clunkers. And, unless I was being insanely aggressive about processing, it was a couple weeks before I got back my results. And unless I recorded all my settings when I took the shot, I had no idea how I got the result I got.

At the time I knew digital photography for SLRs was coming. One of my customers had a 1MP DSLR that was like $50K. I'm a technologist. I know how it works. Just a matter of time before that would be a device I could afford. So I chose to wait.

Some years later I had a Nikon D100 in my hands. I could see a preview of my results (on a TINY screen) a split-second after I shot. I could see real results on my computer within minutes or hours (however long it took me to unload the pictures). All of my settings were recorded for posterity in the digital images. Amazing.

There is NO QUESTION in my mind that digital photography made me learn faster... at least the technical aspects.

The ARTISTIC aspects, however, are another matter.

 

[terri]

Definitely made me more lazy. I shoot film when the results matter more, and I'm interested in making the extra effort to develop my film and decide what I'm going to do next in the darkroom. That's reserved for vacation trips, special jaunts, etc.

Having a phone with a decent enough digi-cam is reserved for cute pics of my cats, and anything else that I consider Just for Fun, casual snaps. Point, shoot, crop, awww.... Lazy.

 

[smoke665]

Do you think that doing so would make you a better driver?

No but from someone who's hand cranked an old John Deere, I can tell you it makes you a better mechanic to keep it tuned for easier starting LOL

Frankly, I make images the same way I did on film.

Kind of the direction the author of the book is taking - create more in the camera and less in the computer.

Though not a professional, I can see the benefits that the digital age has brought to those who earn their living this way, and don't mean to imply that's it's wrong to use new technology as it becomes available. I'm sure there are many well versed in the technical aspects of all things digital to whom the whole process seems as simple as the film of yesterday, and no doubt some of the work done today wouldn't have been possible 30 or 40 years ago. Today a CNC and robots can manufacture a complicated piece, a 3D printer can build something from a pile of powder, Google can drive a car, and a lot of people now rely on post processing to "fix" what should have already been completed in camera. Maybe it has to do with the photographer as an artist verses one who only records images, but that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[DarkShadow]

Hey I have 53 years of rough milage,I am titled to be lazy.

 

[table1349]

Hand cranking a tractor does not make you a better mechanic. Our family sold Serial #1 or #2 back to International Harvester of their original Farmall tractor back to International Harvester. It didn't make us better mechanics. It just made us do what we should to take care of it and all the other farm machinery we own whether it was an old IH, a Cat D7 bought during WWII or our current modern machinery.

IH was suitably impressed. When they came to pick it up I opened the gas cock gave it a couple of quick cranks, fired it up and drove it onto the flat bed truck they brought. They picked their jaws up from the ground and started the long drive back to IH headquarters in amazement. They made farm machinery, they weren't farm folk.

Same thing with film to digital. Images were created in camera then and they are created in camera now. There's not that much in terms of editing that has changed. Now the darkroom is on a computer instead of being an actual darkroom. Printing positives is with a dye printer instead of paper and developer. Problem with the concept of digital being substantially different is that most of those people never really spent time working in a darkroom.

 

[JoeW]

Actually, I think it's the wrong question. I was a long-time film/negative shooter (started in...gulp...1968). It's not that digital made me "lazy" but it changed the way I shoot. With film, I would "ration" my shots. I'd pass up good shots b/c I only had 3-5 frames left and I knew there was something around the bend I'd been waiting for. With digital, I experiment more, I'm spontaneous more. I'll compose a shot, shoot it and then go "hmmm...wonder what this would look like in HDR...let's shoot 3 different exposures of this and find out." I was at Niagara Falls earlier today. I shot a couple of series of the same scene playing with a NDF where I changed the shutter speed and took different exposures of the same subject. I shot a rock in the middle of the river at f2.8 and then at f24. I would not have done that with film. Absolutely not.

I'm also more likely to experiment with shots without having planned them when shooting with digital. An opportunity presents itself and despite the fact I hadn't planned it, I went for it. With film, I'd do a lot more planning. And if it wasn't part of the plan or I was caught by surprise, I'd often pass it up.

With film, I'd plan a lot and then choose my film. And then shoot according to the film. If I put in some Ilford B&W, I'd wistfully pass up those gorgeous flowers or the woman in the colorful dress and focus on fog or strong forms. If I put in the Fuji ISO 1600, I was not going to waste it on shots in broad daylight so the lens cap stayed on. And yeah, I'd sometimes have a second body with me but it was often to have a different lens (so I'd have a shot that called out for the color but the wrong lens on and so on). This isn't to complain, it's to say that with digital, I became more quicker to respond to the unplanned, to be more spontaneous and go "what? there's an eagle over that cliff? Let me climb up and shoot 'em" rather than go "nah, I've got the wrong film for that...maybe another day."

Despite how digital has improved, I still will sometimes pass up high dynamic range subjects that I would have shot with film. I'll also take shots that I know are "flawed" (maybe some foreground clutter or a distraction in the frame) with digital b/c I know I can fix it while my darkroom skills beyond dodging and burning were never that good so I'd look at a great expression, a happy couple, a sleeping dog, a great still life of some fruit where one piece had a blemish and go "nah, it's got a flaw, it's a bad photo."

In short, I am a very different photographer with digital equipment than I was with film. I've changed how I "see" and I've changed how I "shoot" and what I shoot. You can argue that's a good thing or a bad thing. I don't think it's about getting lazy (or studying more). It's about different tools provoking different types of skills and approaches.

 

[smoke665]

There's not that much in terms of editing that has changed

Wow Serial #1 and 2 and still running, that would have been something to see. As a kid I hated those old JD's with their hand clutch. Set it loose enough to release, and it wouldn't stay in, tighten it up and it would take both hands and both feet to make it release. Have to disagree with you on editing difference between the darkroom and now, there's things we never dreamed of doing in the darkroom that are routine in photo editing software now. I do however agree with your previous comment about the importance of the final result and the ability to use all the tools at your disposal.

Actually, I think it's the wrong question.

Actually you answered the question, if I read your post right, it's allowed you to become more competent. Giving you the freedom to take more shots (in anticipation of the right one), giving you the freedom to experiment, and ultimately changed how you "see" and "shoot".