# Has Photography become more or less complicated



## GDHLEWIS (Sep 15, 2013)

Morning, afternoon good evening,

During my last alcohol fueled philosophical discussion with a mate of mine the subject of how complicated has photography become? Is it more or less complicated now in the Digital age or was it more complicated during the film era?

Personally I think the digital age has made things far more complicated when it comes down to after the shot has been taken. Film was more complicated for actually taking the shot, if you messed up the exposure you wouldn't know until it had been processed and printed. But these days once the shots taken you most likely delve in to the world of Photoshop or other such software, then comes the flikr and other such websites, then comes copyright madness. Film from what I understand was a lot less prone to copyright infringement as the photographer has the original negative. Computer files are easier to duplicate, plus law regarding photo's and photographers these days seem to becoming a little gray around the edges to me. 
Today just the vast amount of choice that is available for equipment and accessories is just mind boggling, was it the same 20+ years ago? The digital age has from what I understand made things significantly cheaper and far easier for people to give photograph a try utterly saturating the world with a multitude of so called professional photographers making it impossible for the average persons to know who or what to expect when hiring.
These days Photographers are not only expected to be the Photographer, but the Editor, head of Marketing and customer relations officer taking more and more time away from the art of Photography was this also the case 20+ years back?


What does every one else think?


----------



## SCraig (Sep 15, 2013)

Photography has always been as complicated as one wants to make it.  We were able to buy "Box" cameras in the old days or point-and-shoot today.  We were able to buy SLR's in the old days or DSLR's today.  We were able to do darkroom work in the old days and software work today.  As I did all my own darkroom work back in the old days I really think that, if anything, photography is simpler today.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 15, 2013)

I think you should drink less.

Cameras are just tools.  The tools may change but the job is still the same.


----------



## KmH (Sep 15, 2013)

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adob...ly/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf



> *Camera rendering*
> Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do.
>  Donald Knuth
> 
> ...


----------



## runnah (Sep 15, 2013)

It's so much easier now. No chemicals, no waiting, no expensive film or worrying about exposing or ruining rolls. Time that was spent in darkroom is halved by sitting in front of the computer and it is much more comfortable and relaxing.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Sep 15, 2013)

OP...don't know. but i can say I would have never been able to blast away as much with film as I do with digital. And for complicated? Try spending 2 days making a dye transfer print when you can make a ink jet that equals or betters it in 5 minutes.


----------



## sm4him (Sep 15, 2013)

In an interesting coincidence, my answer to your question is pretty alcohol-fueled as well. 

I'd say it's easier, at least when you consider the ENTIRE process. Having shot film back in the 60s and 70s, I'd definitely say it's far easier for ME today, than it was back then.
As Scott mentioned, it was then, and now, as easy or as complicated as you want to make it.  

But for me, some of the major differences that make it easier today:
1) Not having to concern myself with how many shots I have. Back then, I was a kid, a teenager, a young adult--I was broke. Film cost money, and I often only had a roll or two with me. Even on vacation, I might have a total of 3 36-exposure rolls. So, I had to consider every time I went to actuate the shutter whether THAT was a shot worthy of the limited number of exposures I had. Today, I just snap away, with no concern about running out of "film."
2) Post processing. I find it FAR easier to process on the computer than I ever found it in the darkroom. For one thing, I couldn't see a thing in there! (My eyesight was ALWAYS bad--wore glasses since 2nd grade!). So, once I processed a photo, that was it. It was going to look that way FORever. Today, I process a raw file, post it here and then sometimes, based on what others say about it, or based on my own mood at the time, I decide to change it. I can go in and change it completely...AND--and this is really critical, imo--I can do it WHILE STILL WATCHING THE FOOTBALL GAME. :lmao:

Edit: I had a #3 when I started typing...but I've forgotten what it was, and I've also typed way too many words twice and three times trying to spell them right (see reference to alcohol-fueled response, lol), so I quit.


----------



## runnah (Sep 15, 2013)

Not to mention that setting up a dark room was expensive and a pain in the ass. Now it's just a PC or a laptop.


----------



## usayit (Sep 15, 2013)

Its easier.

It has resulted in opening up the hobby to more people of a all sorts of interest, commitment, and skill levels.

From a learning standpoint, seeing immediate results and experimenting is far easier.


----------



## limr (Sep 15, 2013)

I'm the first to admit that when I read discussions about various techniques used in post-processing software, I go all cross-eyed. When I read the technical specs for a DSLR, I go all cross-eyed. This stuff can seem quite complicated to be sure. 

But does it all make _photography_ more complicated? I'd say no. When talking about higher quality art or commercial photography, the process from start to finish has probably stayed at the same level of overall complexity; it's just changed the details of the process. Instead of types of mechanical shutters, film emulsions, developers, and printing processes and materials, etc., you're dealing with sensors, pixels, layers, vectors, curves, and noise reduction...And of course that's not even talking about glass on either the film or digital side. Either way, it's going to seem complicated once you go beyond a novice stage and start getting into more substantive skills. 

But when you're talking about the average person picking it up as a hobby or just taking snaps of family and vacations? Then the process has become infinitely _less _complicated for sure.


----------



## TCampbell (Sep 16, 2013)

Absolutely no question that photography has gotten much easier.  You can do things with digital (which make digital complex) but you have to consider how complicated it would have been to do those SAME things with film.  We do things today without a whole lot of thought that would have been pretty daunting to do with film cameras and darkrooms.

It's definitely a LOT more "instant" now.  In the days of film, the film had to be developed.  Some film had to be prepped, sensitized, shot, and developed fairly quickly (wet-plate Collodion process) or it was ruined.

Dry film eventually replaced that so you weren't on a race against the clock, but still... you HAD to know how to get correct exposures otherwise you'd develop the film (long after the event where you shot the film was done) to see your results -- and it would often be too late to do anything about it if you screwed up.  You tended to learn from your mistakes a bit more quickly because a mistake was a much more time consuming and expensive than it is today.

Recently I checked the numbers for the cost to buy, develop, and print a roll of film using a service to process the film.  It was around $15/roll.  After about 30 rolls you've spent enough money to buy an entry level body and lens.  In the long run, digital is certainly a lot less expensive.


----------



## molested_cow (Sep 16, 2013)

Instead of "then" and "now", you mean "film" and "digital"? Cus if you practice film photography I think the same rules apply then and now.

So to me it's not the matter of more or less, but simply different. Time wise, there's less waiting, but like mentioned earlier in the thread, it's as complicated as you make it.


----------



## peter27 (Sep 16, 2013)

TCampbell said:


> Recently I checked the numbers for the cost to buy, develop, and print a roll of film using a service to process the film. It was around $15/roll. After about 30 rolls you've spent enough money to buy an entry level body and lens. In the long run, digital is certainly a lot less expensive.



You aren't comparing like with like in this equation. An entry level DSLR with kit lens is going to have issues with build and image quality and will only have a crop sensor. How many rolls before you hit a high-end camera with good glass, a full frame sensor and that will still be working 30 years from now? I'm not so sure that digital is less expensive when you compare on an even field.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 16, 2013)

runnah said:


> It's so much easier now. No chemicals, no waiting, no expensive film or worrying about exposing or ruining rolls. Time that was spent in darkroom is halved by sitting in front of the computer and it is much more comfortable and relaxing.



And boring and you end up with smooth plastic looking shots


----------



## gsgary (Sep 16, 2013)

Brian Duffy could do some fancy things with film Google Image Result for http://default.media.ipcdigital.co.uk/11134/000001f4d/2363/BH-bird-cage.jpg


----------



## gsgary (Sep 16, 2013)

peter27 said:


> TCampbell said:
> 
> 
> > Recently I checked the numbers for the cost to buy, develop, and print a roll of film using a service to process the film. It was around $15/roll. After about 30 rolls you've spent enough money to buy an entry level body and lens. In the long run, digital is certainly a lot less expensive.
> ...




And don't forget to cost in a faster computer every time you get a fancier fullframe like a D800


----------



## hamlet (Sep 16, 2013)

I don't want to sound controversial and i'm speaking from total ignorence. But when you edit your pictures, isn't that a form of perverting reality? And i'm not even saying that is something good or not, just that it doesn't represent what we actually see. And again, i am speaking from complete ignorance.

Examples:


----------



## amolitor (Sep 16, 2013)

People who like photography have always tended to be interested in technical things. I like to say that many photography enthusiasts actually like cameras, but not photographs.

Most photography ever done, but some immense margin, was done with the greatest of ease. Point. Click. Share. Virtually every photograph ever taken was taken in the last five years with a cell phone of P&S camera. There's some statistically insignificant collection of pictures from before that, and taken with DSLRs and things, but whatever.

Photography as a whole has gotten simpler, to the point of being trivial.

For the camera enthusiast, however, it has remained as complicated as you like. Would you like to spend days and days working on a single picture? You can do that, as you have always been able to. The tools and techniques available are much wider now, all the old stuff remains but now we have photoshop and HDR tools and so on and so forth. There are even a few people who like photographs, who are in it for the final picture, who slave away at great length over individual pictures, using old methods and/or new.

I don't think any element has gotten _more_ complicated, though.


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 16, 2013)

When I think of the old days of AE-1/N80  I think
1 - take picture
2 - take film roll to the store, fill out form, enclose roll in the envelope.
3 - pay $$ based on speed of turnaround (CVS, etc).  Later on they mailed it away
4 - look at pictures and realize that one shouldn't bother attempt to take pictures of Jupiter anymore

Today
1 - take picture
2 - look at screen to review
3 - modify setting to actually get a picture of Jupiter
4 - snap away trying to improve colors, scope tracking, etc

Of course, this excludes taking the picture to the computer for any processing what so ever, or into a darkroom.


Before I bought my D7000 I briefly thought of resurrecting my dusty N80.  But with batteries costing $20, then film and remembering those steps above and the cost of processing, I figured I'd pony up for a nice digital camera.


Of course now I'm enjoying taking pictures of everything else too.  At over 9,000 shutter releases now, I'd "shutter" to figure out how much that would be in film cost .. pun intended


----------



## Solarflare (Sep 16, 2013)

Overall a lot simpler. No more handling film.

And cheaper. No more handling film. Well, unless we talk medium/large format. Then film still might be cheaper. Of course - in the long run, digital will catch up here, too.

And higher quality. Sensors are pretty close to perfect planes, the different colors are all in the same plane now, and their resolution now surpasses what film can do.

And more reliable. Silicone digital sensors can reach efficiencies of 40% and more (even 90% for infrared). Even removing the losses of the Bayer Colorfilter, thats still higher than film.

And more flexible. Digital sensors can run at their base ISO (between 80 to 200, typically) and ISOs that are even out of the defined range (i.e. above 10,000), and the best ones can do so with relatively little noise.

There are disadvantages, too, though. A film camera can run on one battery for a year or so. Digital needs constant, large batteries. Well made film cameras can last for decades. Digital can last half a decade, tops, after that increasing incompabilities cause increasing problems.

And the possibilities increased, too. And if you want to use these new possibilities, of course the complexity increases.


----------



## EIngerson (Sep 16, 2013)

Photography hasn't changed at all. Editing on the other hand........


----------



## peter27 (Sep 16, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> Of course now I'm enjoying taking pictures of everything else too. At over 9,000 shutter releases now, I'd "shutter" to figure out how much that would be in film cost .. pun intended



Is it necessary to take photos of everything? Probably more thought would have gone into 9K exposures on film. I use various films and two labs depending, but working on my average cost of film and developing it would cost somewhere in the region of 2K &#8364; for 9K exposures, which means a 22 cents cost per photo (including print at 9x13). How that works out with your costs I don't know.


----------



## Nat. (Sep 16, 2013)

It's all just variation on a theme, isn't it? Focussing light on to a photosensitive medium. It's become more accessible, what with iPhones and digicams and stuff, instead of having to lug this around with you on the back of a donkey or small child.

Maybe it just seems more complicated because we're using computers. I think mucking around with chemicals is probably just as complicated as mucking around with photosites.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 16, 2013)

peter27 said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Of course now I'm enjoying taking pictures of everything else too. At over 9,000 shutter releases now, I'd "shutter" to figure out how much that would be in film cost .. pun intended
> ...



This is a slippery slope. Should everyone use wet plate? Sure, it's a little more expensive, but by golly you really think through every exposure. And, holy cow, the resolution cannot be beat. I mean, it *crushes* the D800e, and all your little roll film cameras.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Sep 16, 2013)

I'm not one of those people who've been around for decades but I find my time and expenses now using a dslr over my older slr next to nothing. I don't print much and as stated above, with film it had to be printed to see and share with friends. Now I load onto my computer, edit and share on here, Instagram, Flickr, and Facebook. Occasionally my mom prints off some of my landscapes for her house but I rarely do. 

The one thing I'm always paranoid about when using film is that "did that shot turn out like I wanted?"  Sometimes I won't know for a while because lately I can't justify spending that much on printing film and waiting. Since getting my camera(aside from my new 50mm) I haven't spent much money. I think it's not complicated at all but then again I've been using Lightroom for a while and so it's not hard to go through a bunch of photos and be done. Like state above digital can do things that film couldn't easily do. I wouldn't be able to do it but I'm sure some people still have darkroom knowledge to be able edit ways you can digitally.


----------



## Newtricks (Sep 16, 2013)

Photography is no more or less complicated now then it was 20 or more years ago. Got my first (a Brownie Box) camera in 1970, set up was simple... put film in, set camera for ASA of film, meter for exposure, set A&S and take the photo, D7000 set up... set metering mode, set focus mode, set ISO, set WB, set AF, fine tune AF, check memory card, check battery (ies), assign function to the AE-L/AF-L button and the list goes on and on. Taking photographs has not changed, but making sure your DSLR is set up correctly sure has.


----------



## Newtricks (Sep 16, 2013)

Post production has however gotten a lot less complicated, I never had the space to set up a full time darkroom, loaded film from bulk rolls into a daylight loader, and from cartridges to reels and into daylight tanks in a changing bag, but when it came time to process... black out the windows in the kitchen, cloth tape the gaps around the doors, turn of the light and wait for your eyes to adjust just to sure there wasn't stray light leaking in, then set up the enlarger, the trays, the washer, the clothesline, the timer(s), the hose and those damn things that sat in the bottom of the trays that water flowed through to keep the chems at the right temp (can't think of the name), set your water temp, pull out the paper safe that had the paper needed for the printing you where going to do and the list goes on and on.

Today with digital, remove the card from the camera, put it your computer, transfer the files to a folder, open your editing software, delete the files you don't like and edit the rest.

One thing I've noticed (at least for me is), even though I've only been shooting with a DSLR for over a month I snap away much faster then I ever did shooting film. Came home from the SB the other morning with nearly 400 images on the memory card, shooting film,  I doubt it would have been more than 120 shots (3 rolls) in the can (loading my own I was able to get 40 exposures from each cartridge). The most film I ever shot was during a 6 week vacation in Colorado in '91, 300 feet of Kodak Technical Pan, 25 ASA exposed at 50, after getting home I  thought I'd never finish developing the film let alone printing the keepers.


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 16, 2013)

Scott pretty well answered this in the first response.

Prior to the late 1880s you'd have to say that film was the more complicated since back then you had to make your own. But around 1888 George Eastman introduced the iBrownie and trademarked the slogan, "You press the button, we do the rest." You didn't even have to put film in it. You bought the camera preloaded and just took pictures. When you reached the end of the roll you dropped your iBrownie (and $15.00) in the mailbox and got it back with your photos and the camera reloaded with a new roll of film. In 1888 it couldn't get easier than that.

*IF HOWEVER* you looked at one of those photos and asked, "Hey how come Spot is all blurry chasing that stick?" Or, "Hey I thought there were clouds in the sky when I took this photo, where'd they go?" Well now those are complications, and the answers could get just as complicated as you'd like them to be right up to, "I would never use a film without first running extensive tests that included a densitometer and characteristic curve graphs to see how the film responds to different developers."

Today the iBrownie is an iPhone. You could argue in favor of the iBrownie since at least the shutter release was physically obvious (more intuitive to use), but then the iPhone does show you the result instantly on a tiny little screen that you can't see in bright light. Does the iPhone take the same pile of cr*p photos that the iBrownie took? Go ahead and point one at a backlit landscape with white clouds in the sky and see. And the minute you look at the result as ask, "Hey I thought there were clouds in the sky when I took this photo, where'd they go?" Or, "Wasn't the sky blue and not green?" -- the complications begin.

And it all boils down to; For the past 125 years, either *YOU learn* and *YOU do it* (and the learning curve is as steep as always) or you blissfully settle for iBownie/iPhone cr*p and so not much has really changed.

Joe


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 16, 2013)

runnah said:


> It's so much easier now. No chemicals, no waiting, no expensive film or worrying about exposing or ruining rolls. Time that was spent in darkroom is halved by sitting in front of the computer and it is much more comfortable and relaxing.



(Responding both to you and several others who focused on easyness)

Easier yes, but that wasn't the OP's question. Is sitting in front of the computer less complicated?  I'd suggest not. It's probably equally as complicated as darkrooms, because you have more tools and options, but you save on not having to know esoteric temperature curves, etc.  They probably about balance out.  Similarly for cameras, there are more buttons and options now on our bodies, but fewer steps to set them up and less mental math to do per shot for metering and such.


----------



## GDHLEWIS (Sep 16, 2013)

Am glad a few people who have dealt with Film have replied this this thread. Iv never had the joys of dealing with film and would utterly to give it a go at least once, doubt I would be able to get the chemicals here in Qatar. I do remember with my old point and shoot camera enjoying picking up the prints from the shop, a lot more than I do uploading photos to my computer. Maybe next time I am in the UK Ill join a class to process film, all I know is I hate dealing with photo shop, even tho it is a fantastic tool and the options are endless I'm just not much in to photo editing find it a tiresome process and would rather be behind the camera as most people on here would I'm sure. 

Cheers for every ones views keep em coming


----------



## o hey tyler (Sep 16, 2013)

It is not less complicated, it's just complicated in a very different way.


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 16, 2013)

KmH said:


> http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adob...ly/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks Keith. I read the referenced paper by Karl Lang -- very good! It just became required reading for all my classes.

Joe


----------



## KmH (Sep 16, 2013)

hamlet said:


> But when you edit your pictures, isn't that a form of perverting reality?



Every photograph ever made has perverted/edited reality.


----------



## KenC (Sep 16, 2013)

gsgary said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > It's so much easier now. No chemicals, no waiting, no expensive film or worrying about exposing or ruining rolls. Time that was spent in darkroom is halved by sitting in front of the computer and it is much more comfortable and relaxing.
> ...



You can end up with anything you want.  There is a lot of information out there about replicating the look of various films, e.g., which values and toning in B&W conversion will give you the look of a particular film.  One can also add film grain as desired.  The smooth plastic look (along with oversaturated color, oversharpening, etc.) is just the current fad.

As for complicated, it's what you make it.  People used to spend all night on a print to get it just right and some now spend that much time playing with it in PS.


----------



## runnah (Sep 16, 2013)

gsgary said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > It's so much easier now. No chemicals, no waiting, no expensive film or worrying about exposing or ruining rolls. Time that was spent in darkroom is halved by sitting in front of the computer and it is much more comfortable and relaxing.
> ...



I only shoot with expired SD cards. I find it adds lots of character.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 16, 2013)

runnah said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



I only process with old, outdated software. Its very hip you know.


----------



## runnah (Sep 16, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



So you are using the current version of Corel Photopaint?

BURN!


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 16, 2013)

peter27 said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Of course now I'm enjoying taking pictures of everything else too. At over 9,000 shutter releases now, I'd "shutter" to figure out how much that would be in film cost .. pun intended
> ...



I'm not taking pictures of "everything"
just more than astronomy type pictures nowadays

Sunrises/sunsets
storms, rainbows
clouds
flower creeks
flying birds
motion
learning to use flash, multiple flashes and all things fun flash 
etc.

of course I'm wasting alot of shots testing the speed of the camera on RAW, vs varies JPEGs .. playing with varying the Aperture, or ISO, or Shutter, or using focusing controls for DOF and all that.  Luckily it's not film otherwise that would be a TON of rolls of film.  With digital one can experiment all they want and the cost is negligible by comparison to film.

Just the other day I was at a carnival playing with motion.  The first time.  It's great to get instant feedback and adjustment.

There is a breakeven point between Digital and Film.  As I get better though, I might just use the N80 or AE1 to play with film.  BUt until then I need to really learn technique to be comfortable.


----------



## limr (Sep 16, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > It's so much easier now. No chemicals, no waiting, no expensive film or worrying about exposing or ruining rolls. Time that was spent in darkroom is halved by sitting in front of the computer and it is much more comfortable and relaxing.
> ...



Exactly - it's not about the ease of taking the shot. It's also not about cost. The question was about _complexity _of the endeavor as a whole , and as many have already suggested (me included), it's not really less or more complicated; it's just differently complicated.

As with any skill, I'd also suggest that the specific elements that might seem more or less complicated will depend on the skills and inclinations of the photographers. I'm perfectly capable, for example, of improving my software skills, and I am certainly interested in this to a point, but that's just not what floats my boat. I much prefer the more tactile and mathematical and mechanical complexities of photography, and so I shoot film to challenge myself to improve those specific skills. There are others who go cross-eyed over chemicals and temperatures but really enjoy the work in front of the computer, and so they choose that set of complexities over which to labor. Potato, po-tah-to. It's as complicated as you make it and you also get to choose _how_&#8203; it's complicated.

If I were told that film photography was gone forever and I had to deal with digital for the rest of my life, it would seem more complicated to me (after I'd recovered from my heart attack and dark depression  ) because I'd have to learn a skill set that I'm not really inclined to enjoy. I'm sure it would be the same for someone brought up on digital who was told they could only shoot film from now on.

Snapshots will always be snapshots, and people who care about their images will always have to slog through a lot of complicated work to become skilled at _consistently_ producing good images.


----------



## terri (Sep 16, 2013)

limr said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



^^   And there you have it.    :thumbup:


----------



## runnah (Sep 16, 2013)

The advent of screens showing if you got the shot or not changed the game considerable.

The complexity of getting the shot right will never change but technology has made it so that you can work on the technical aspects in the moment rather than spending the time in the darkroom only to find you missed the focus or whatever.


----------



## peter27 (Sep 17, 2013)

*Has Photography become more or less complicated *(OP)

_Digital has had both positive and negative effects. It has really opened up photography to a lot more people, and made it easier for people to produce good images. Photoshop is amazing, really, and a lot of the pictures taken by amateurs are as good as those shot by professionals.

However, I think in some ways photography has become too easy. Many people dont really know how to operate a camera and just let it make all the creative decisions. In the past, you had to work hard to get a really good image, but now its so much easier and that makes it much more difficult to be unique. Technology has made it less of a challenge and I think that has taken some of the magic and mystery out of photography.

_(John Hedgecoe)

I can't help but agree with the late Mr Hedgecoe on this.


----------



## Nat. (Sep 17, 2013)

That just sounds like nostalgia to me.


----------



## runnah (Sep 17, 2013)

Nat. said:


> That just sounds like nostalgia to me.



Yep. Everything was better back in that day and kids nowadays just don't understand what good music/food/sex/photography/cars are these days.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Sep 17, 2013)

runnah said:


> Yep. Everything was better back in that day and kids nowadays just don't understand what good music/food/sex/photography/cars are these days.



I'm all about good music from before my birth. I don't listen to much current music and if I do it isn't the mainstream junk.


----------



## limr (Sep 17, 2013)

I don't think that was just nostalgia but a simple observation. When people were using the Brownies that have come up in this discussion, they didn't know much about photography and a lot of their pictures came out kind of crappy. No one was mistaking their shots for professional work. Then 35mm cameras became more automated and popular and it was easier to get good exposure and focus, but a person still had to know more than your average bear to produce really good images more than every once in a while, and to go professional, you needed a LOT more knowledge.

But with modern DSLRs or even non-DSLR digitals, how many more people can produce good images without ever taking it out of Auto or learning what an aperture even is? How many people can get that really cool image of a bee captured in flight? Anyone who knows how to press a button enough times. I'm not saying this is better or worse, only easier. Once again, it takes skill and knowledge to get a higher hit rate on a regular basis - and to actually know how to get the shot without relying on modes, continuous shutter, and a big SD card - but the average snapshot is better in quality than it was in the Brownie days, and it is easier to get that quality. And again, to become a professional, you have to gain a lot more skill and knowledge, so that hasn't changed. 

But things _have_ changed for your average snapshot taker. So if _so_ many more people can get better quality pictures and are taking _and sharing_ them all, doesn't it logically follow that it is going to be a little bit harder to stand out? If everyone can now take perfectly exposed landscapes or in-focus bird-in-flight or macro bug shots because the dial on their camera allows them to, then people have to work a little harder - and learn a little bit more and do things a little differently - to make their shots stand out. The bar for "commonplace" has been raised without people necessarily learning anything more about photography. Even if they haven't taken those shots themselves, more and more people have seen them or know more people who can take them. It was easier to stand out when those types of shots required much more knowledge and different equipment than Average Joe had.

I'll say it again: it's not nostalgia but a simple observation.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Sep 17, 2013)

The elements of a great photograph cannot be defined as digital or analogue. They exist only between your ears until the moment the shutter moves and freezes that moment. How simple is that?


----------

