# Digital Photography - Wow! and depression



## franco stacy (May 8, 2011)

Ok, I am going to ask a lot here. I was a film photo enthusiast, better than average for a hobby guy. Film has kind of left me and I wanted to be a dinosaur. I fought it, moped about it, but a year ago I  relented and bought a D90. 

I use it from time to time and I love the hastle of no film and that is awesome. I ask myself why don't I use this every day, but thats where it stops for me. I want to get better, I have got over the film and the dark room depression and all that, but I have a little depression going on because I no longer feel like a photographer for the art. I feel like a point and shoot enthusiast with an over priced camera that is to big to fit into my pocket. I feel like a mom at a birthday party with her point and shoot and we both are snapping away, only difference mine cost 10 times hers and hers will fit into her purse.

In the film world, I felt like I had to plan my shots long before. I had to manipulate the film like it was world class recipe that I was cooking.  It was not the destination, it was the journey. With digital I feel like just shooting. You don't have to worry about bad pictures, bad composition, or any details of the camera, because you can fix it all in the end. Maybe I was a snob at photography and didn't realize it. I use to get a few pictures out of a roll that people would say, that's awesome! Now, mine or no different and anyone can get on their computer and do the things that took me some time to master in film. In fact, at my age, probably a 16 year old girl can get on her laptop and plug in her camera she had laying around and turn out better pictures than me. Maybe I am too old and technotard as my daughter calls me. 

So maybe I am missing something. Maybe I am only using the tip of the iceberg when it comes to my camera or editing. I do have to pull out the instructions every time I use it. So tell me about digital from a film person's perspective, how can I feel like an artist again?


Also, do you use your on camera editing, the software that comes with your camera OR
WHAT vendor software do you recommend for editing photos for a hobbyist?

Thanks


----------



## Trever1t (May 8, 2011)

While digital does allow for cheap experimentation it's not that unlike film in that the effort you put into the preparation of the shot will benefit the resulting capture. Consider the digital capture the 'negative' and the post process the 'darkroom'. I never use in-camera processing, shoot primarily in RAW and process with a number of tools on a computer.


----------



## e.rose (May 8, 2011)

franco stacy said:


> In the film world, I felt like I had to plan my shots long before. I had to manipulate the film like it was world class recipe that I was cooking.  It was not the destination, it was the journey. With digital I feel like just shooting. You don't have to worry about bad pictures, bad composition, or any details of the camera, because you can fix it all in the end.


 
That is *absolutely* not true at all.

You can't fix bad pictures in the end.  You can't fix bad composition or missed focus.

GOOD photographers DO plan their shots out long before.

Just because it's digital doesn't mean you can just pick up a DSLR and become a master of photography.

That's totally ridiculous.

Sh*t in.  Sh*t out, as they say.


----------



## Garbz (May 9, 2011)

e.rose put it nicely. However there's nothing you can do now in digital that you couldn't have done in the darkroom in the past. It is now simply easier and cheaper. 

I once shot through an entire roll of film to test out various lighting on a subject. The only thing that has changed is now this costs me 20 minutes, previously it would cost me $20.

The problem may be one of perception. If you think a 16 year old girl can turn out better photos than you then you clearly haven't seen the collections of many 16 year old girls. Take a look at photos on facebook and compare them to flickr. The problem these days is there are so many great photos because there are so many hobby photographers and there's such a wonderful thing like the internet that allows them to display their work en mass. 

As for the post production, I suggest you have a look at Adobe Lightroom. It comes very well regarded. Shoot in RAW to unleash its power as it is a RAW processor at heart. You can grab a trial copy here: photo management software | Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 Just a disclaimer, you may get addicted and it's not cheap either


----------



## KenC (May 9, 2011)

Second everything said previously, and would also point out that you have to figure out what you want to do in photography and go out and do it.  Don't worry about what kind of camera you're holding or what other people might be doing - if you concern yourself with these things you are not thinking about photography.

Re editing, I use either Canon DPP or ACR for raw conversions and CS5 for further processing and printing.  As you will see on here, people use a variety of software and you need to research the capabilities of the options and decide what you need.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 9, 2011)

ditto what everyone said.

In film you made decisions in big lumps the film, the in-camera stuff, the processing, the printing.

In digital the numbers of decisions and choices that the photog can make has gone up geometrically. True, the cameras are much more intricate and can take over most of the decision making if you let them, but when and if you want to be in charge, the controls are infinitely more sophisticated and complex from start to end of the artistic process.


----------



## analog.universe (May 9, 2011)

Like others said, shot planning in digital is no different than it is in film, except your test shots don't cost you anything and you don't have to wait for them.  Shooting in RAW is absolutely essential as well.. you can think of RAW processing as your digital darkroom.  That will change how you take your shots as well, with an emphasis on capturing the most data, instead of getting the exposure perfect in camera.  Lightroom is a great tool, and an industry standard.  Most likely your camera came with some kind of RAW software however, which will probably be your simplest way to try your hand at it.  (although in the end lightroom will give you more flexibility)   In film, every step of the process had upper limits and lower limits and something ideal in between, and getting awesome results came from balancing all those little bits.  Digital will allow you to just click and get a result, but to get the awesome results, you still need to take into account just as many variables, and make just as many instinct/compromise/fuzzy decisions.  The variables have just changed a bit, so read all you can on RAW processing and digital workflow, you'll get sucked in all over again.


----------



## KmH (May 9, 2011)

Shooting digital still costs on a per shutter release basis. The cost is not as direct as film cost was though, and the cost per shot is much smaller.

But, shooting digital is by no means 'free'.


----------



## analog.universe (May 9, 2011)

Just for fun I figured out what the shutter replacement cost + electricity to charge the battery would be for each shot, and I look to be a little under $0.003 per click, after 100,000 shots.  (assumes the shutter will actually fail at 100,000)


----------



## c.cloudwalker (May 9, 2011)

analog.universe said:


> Just for fun I figured out what the shutter replacement cost + electricity to charge the battery would be for each shot, and I look to be a little under $0.003 per click, after 100,000 shots.  (assumes the shutter will actually fail at 100,000)


 
That is just fine as an exercise in futility but not one in real life.

In real life you may have to add the price of that round-trip ticket to Sidney, Australia to get the shot, lol.


----------



## analog.universe (May 9, 2011)

Ahh... but I live in Vermont, more to photograph within biking distance than I will be able to capture in my lifetime!  :lmao:


----------



## c.cloudwalker (May 9, 2011)

analog.universe said:


> Ahh... but I live in Vermont, more to photograph within biking distance than I will be able to capture in my lifetime!  :lmao:


 
So long as you're not trying to make a living I guess...


----------



## analog.universe (May 9, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> analog.universe said:
> 
> 
> > Ahh... but I live in Vermont, more to photograph within biking distance than I will be able to capture in my lifetime!  :lmao:
> ...


 
ahh that would do it wouldn't it?   heh

but, no no, nothing like that...


----------



## Drew1992 (May 10, 2011)

Just give Photoshop CS5 or Lightroom a try and you'll feel like an artist all over again!
I agree with what was said above about that you still have to plan your shots and that you still have to put out an image that is in focus, has good composition, etc. It's true! Besides, not just anyone can take a good picture. I have a friend that said she wanted to become a photographer and she had a hard time not cutting off people's heads in her photos! You do have to have some skill! 

Just jump in and you'll be hooked!


----------



## j-dogg (May 10, 2011)

Film guy here.

I actually went backwards, picked up a DSLR and learned photography on 35mm Nikon pre-AI stuff. 

Don't feel too bad about the whole digisnapping thing, I felt the same way like "crap a 16 year old could do this" then I compared one of my drunk shots with my 5d to a 16 year old's facebook photos and I didn't feel so bad anymore.


----------

