# Has Digital Made You More Competent Or Lazy



## smoke665 (May 16, 2016)

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 (May 16, 2016)

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 (May 16, 2016)

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


----------



## tirediron (May 16, 2016)

pixmedic said:


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


I made me lazy!


----------



## KC1 (May 16, 2016)

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 (May 16, 2016)

I was born lazy.


----------



## fmw (May 16, 2016)

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 (May 16, 2016)

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 (May 16, 2016)

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 (May 16, 2016)

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 (May 16, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> 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



fmw said:


> 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 (May 16, 2016)

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


----------



## table1349 (May 16, 2016)

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 (May 16, 2016)

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 (May 16, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> 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.



JoeW said:


> 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".


----------



## Designer (May 16, 2016)

The term "competent" does not apply to me, but I will say that I'm happier with my results in digital than I was in film.  Usually my color transparencies turned out o.k., but my own home-brewed B&W prints were not up to the standards of the drugstore prints.


----------



## dxqcanada (May 16, 2016)

I'm still the photographer I was 30 years ago.


----------



## tirediron (May 16, 2016)

dxqcanada said:


> I'm still the photographer I was 30 years ago.


I'll bet your jeans would disagree!


----------



## dxqcanada (May 16, 2016)

Sadly I had to give up my white jeans long ago.


----------



## fmw (May 17, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think that doing so would make you a better driver?
> ...



Don't misunderstand.  I'm not against tweaking a digital image in post process.  I do it all the time.  I just think you need to do what is right to get it as good as you can in the camera.  When it comes to correcting serious problems, the image editing software may not be able to solve the problems without creating more of them.


----------



## JoeW (May 17, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > There's not that much in terms of editing that has changed
> ...



Not sure I'd say it's made me more competent.  It's made me a different photographer.  It has also absolutely affected what I shoot and what I don't shoot.


----------



## sec (May 17, 2016)

Competent or lazy? Hmm...maybe a little of both. Maybe neither. Depends on your definition. I started shooting film (if you can call it that) of the family dog at 5 yrs old on my mother's old camera.  Thirty seven years later dogs and photography are still my hobbies. I only switched to digital in 2012 when the film door latch broke on my camera while I was on vacation.

I was definitely more likely to think about what the final print would look like with film and would it be a photo of something I would want to go back and look at again. I still try to take the best photo I can in camera with digital but there is always the possibility that something that is not totally right can be fixed on the computer. I find I take far more photos with digital since I'm not worried about having to buy film and then pay to have it developed. I don't think my increased competency is a matter of film vs digital. That is a result of years of experience and a desire to move from "I was there" snapshots to quality photos. The way I take pictures has not really changed at all. What digital has provided is instant feedback and the ability to take another shot and/or correct any problems later.


----------



## rexbobcat (May 17, 2016)

I'd say higher education and paying attention to the photographic community have hurt me more than anything as odd as it seems.

Then again, I'm young enough that I've always shot digital.


----------



## gsgary (May 17, 2016)

The one thing digital has done for me is make me go back to film 100%

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## Ysarex (May 17, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> 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'm a senior member. I remember decades of working with film. I reject your premise as faulty from the start. With film an image was not primarily created in camera. What was done in the studio and in the developing tank and in the darkroom and in the pre-press shop carried equal or greater weight.



smoke665 said:


> 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?



"Many" are the same now as "many" were -- with limited skill behind the camera, in the studio, and in the darkroom (and writing books?). Assuming you had film in your camera what would you do to create something better in the camera from this scene?




 

That's the JPEG embedded with the raw file -- unedited except to re-size it.


----------



## AlanKlein (May 17, 2016)

Wait for better lighting.  Digital or film, that shot is boring.  The point is that neither film or digital is better in getting meaningful shots.  Content, lighting, perspective, etc. can rarely be helped with post processing other then some simple adjustment to color, contrast, etc.    I find that when I'm shooting medium format film, I'm more deliberate than when I shoot digital.  I use digital but mainly to record vacations, trips, parties, etc.  But that's me.


----------



## Ysarex (May 17, 2016)

AlanKlein said:


> Wait for better lighting.  Digital or film, that shot is boring.



You're not seeing the potential. How about a digitally processed version with a red filter to darken the blue and separate out the clouds in the sky for some drama?



AlanKlein said:


> The point is that neither film or digital is better in getting meaningful shots.  Content, lighting, perspective, etc. can rarely be helped with post processing other then some simple adjustment to color, contrast, etc.



How about like this?



 



AlanKlein said:


> I find that when I'm shooting medium format film, I'm more deliberate than when I shoot digital.  I use digital but mainly to record vacations, trips, parties, etc.  But that's me.


----------



## smoke665 (May 17, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> What was done in the studio and in the developing tank and in the darkroom and in the pre-press shop carried equal or greater weight.



Having spent most of my college days working my way up in a local newspaper and print shop, I got a lot of first hand experience in the dark room, pre-press room and as a press operator. By the time I graduated I was one of only a few in the place qualified to run full color. After college I spent 10 years in the publishing business as the owner of 3 weekly newspapers, and my own print shop. So, yes I understand a little of what you're saying, but garbage in still got garbage out. If the print wasn't good going in, we just didn't have time to screw around with trying to pull something out (unless it was 1 am in the morning of press day, and we didn't have another print). Now I probably wouldn't recognize most of the process in the press room. They have used technology to "become more competent" in their business. I suspect most of the photographers who have been in business for any length of time have done the same. Unfortunately I also suspect that the digital age has allowed an easier entrance of those who "assume" that all they need is a camera and business card, and allowed hobbyist like one of my friends to spend thousands on equipment when all he does is "point and shoot".


----------



## Ysarex (May 17, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > What was done in the studio and in the developing tank and in the darkroom and in the pre-press shop carried equal or greater weight.
> ...



And so nothing has changed. If you screw it up at the camera end it's screwed up. You can't make a critical error with the camera and expect to fix it, however, the camera alone is rarely enough to get it right. *It wasn't with film and it isn't now*.



smoke665 said:


> If the print wasn't good going in, we just didn't have time to screw around with trying to pull something out (unless it was 1 am in the morning of press day, and we didn't have another print). Now I probably wouldn't recognize most of the process in the press room. They have used technology to "become more competent" in their business. I suspect most of the photographers who have been in business for any length of time have done the same. Unfortunately I also suspect that the digital age has allowed an easier entrance of those who "assume" that all they need is a camera and business card, and allowed hobbyist like one of my friends to spend thousands on equipment when all he does is "point and shoot".



Digital may make the cost of entry a little easier, we have the new category fauxtography, I think more a result of the collapse of the chemical barrier rather than the advent of digital tech. Back in the film days we used the term, "uncle Charlie." When a young bride was looking for a wedding photographer Dad would often look at the cost and blurt out something like, "hey uncle Charlie has a nice camera."

What I'm reacting to in your original post is the "get it right in camera" myth that is suggested by your book. It's important to use the camera competently and correctly. That however will rarely get the photo "right." B&W photographers of the previous century didn't spend a huge effort learning to master the Zone System in order to avoid learning to use their cameras. They needed the Zone System because the camera alone wasn't enough. That hasn't changed.

You didn't answer my question above. Alan says wait for better lighting. Walking away isn't getting it right is it. Lighting is the problem with that photo. It's side to just beginning to be backlit. If you want to "get it right" in camera what do you do? Let's assume you're shooting transparency film. What can you do in-camera with a scene like that if you have a film camera loaded with Fujichrome? How if at all does a digital camera change the problem and/or solution?

Joe


----------



## smoke665 (May 18, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> You didn't answer my question above.



If I had taken it using film it would have been B&W, because all my supplies film,paper, chemicals were bought in bulk. Color separations where to expensive at that time for newspaper work. That said, had I taken this shot back then, I would have overexposed, to increase contrast and capitalize on the reflections leading into the trees. Maybe something on the order of.this. 


 
I would also have also tried an underexposed shot, though I think this look is better. I'm not sure the author was saying everything occurs in the camera, I think his statement was more to the effect that the availability of technology allows some to be "less careful or lazy" in getting everything right in camera, because they know there is so much that can be done to correct flaws later. I think he's using the term "more competent" as being able to make use of all the tools available from camera through computer, not as one replacing the other.


----------



## Ysarex (May 18, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't answer my question above.
> ...






smoke665 said:


> I would also have also tried an underexposed shot, though I think this look is better. I'm not sure the author was saying everything occurs in the camera, I think his statement was more to the effect that the availability of technology allows some to be "less careful or lazy" in getting everything right in camera, because they know there is so much that can be done to correct flaws later. I think he's using the term "more competent" as being able to make use of all the tools available from camera through computer, not as one replacing the other.



You don't have the benefit of having seen the original scene. That JPEG from the camera is not representative. I showed that as a way to illustrate the lighting problem that the scene presents.

Your original post definitely reads for me as a "get it right in camera" myth post -- no offense, but it is a common theme. It shows up a lot in the RAW versus JPEG blogs and debates where the JPEG shooter ultimately declares, "I'm a real photographer and not a graphic artist. I get my photos right SOOC," then slams the door and walks out.

If instead by "getting everything right in camera" your book author means, as a prelude to the rest of the process of creating the photo, then I can support that. The one real exception, and that's why I brought it up, is shooting transparency film. In a studio the tool that goes hand in hand with transparency film is the studio lighting. But under available light the only control you have is the camera. As a result then the photographer has to be selective and work with limited choices. A scene like the one above just isn't going to work and often the best thing a photographer loaded up with slide film can do is walk away, "wait for better lighting."

As such transparency film is an exacting discipline, AND with a limited range of acceptable outcomes. *However negative film assumes the darkroom and so getting it right assumes the darkroom. Likewise digital capture assumes post processing and so getting it right assumes post processing.*

So are people sloppier today with digital tools than they were in the past? I don't think so. Did I know film photographers in the past who would shoot with an untested camera and untested film and then try and beat a decent print out of a too thin or thick negative in the darkroom? Oh yes, many scores of them. Are they the same people who today shoot sloppily with an untested camera and try to patch it up in LR? Same people. In the amateur market today we have P&Shooters and back then we had Instamatic Shooters. The one thing that digital has done is just create a much larger group of participants.

Back to the Cypress trees. That's Big Oak Tree State Park, MO. The lake in the park literally dried up in the drought of 2012. One of the reasons the JPEG looks so bad and is not representative of the original scene is because I got the raw file right in camera. The best raw file is always the one that has the most exposure right up to the point of sensor saturation. The JPEG the camera makes from that will often appear washed out and overexposed. There's a nice dramatic sky there but because of the backlight you can't capture the sky with transparency film without seriously underexposing the foreground. So there's no get it right in camera option (someone out there is thinking graduated ND filter and that's why I picked this shot with the trees). I put the raw file (CR2) into DPP and reset the camera picture controls from neutral to landscape with +3 contrast and then dropped the exposure a stop and a half until the highlights in the sky were properly placed. This is probably a fair simulation of what transparency film in a camera would look like if exposed for the sky.




 

With B&W film we get Zone System controls and all the hoops we can jump in the darkroom. Getting it right in camera then is a prelude to finishing the job in the darkroom. The one single point that teachers of this practice stressed above all other points was what Ansel called pre-visualization. Everything hinged on your ability, while standing behind the camera, to see the final darkroom print. Otherwise how do you know what to get right in the camera? Getting it right meant getting the whole process right.

I shot the scene in color and I saw my final photo as a color image. So I'll show you that next. One thing I did do that's unique to digital tech is I applied a dark red filter to separate the clouds from the blue sky, only I did that and kept the photo in color. This is the photo I took and it required getting it right in camera so that I could get it right in post. Because of the tricky scene lighting it did require some involved post processing. One critical point about this photo: *not possible at all* using transparency film and *not possible at all* using the JPEG software in a digital camera. So getting the raw file right and then knowing how to do the post processing isn't a case of laziness behind the camera with a repair done in post it's a case of there's no other way to do this.



 

Here's a B&W conversion of the same photo:



 

Joe


----------



## astroNikon (May 18, 2016)

Digital has helped tremendously.

I used to hook up a AE1 or N80 film camera to a telescope.
Take a shot, send it out to developing, it would come back blank or OOF, etc.

Digital has allowed me to see instantaneous results and corrects.
I gave up on film after wasting some money and film away on that endeavor.  But after getting a digital camera starting getting back into my hobby again.


----------



## table1349 (May 18, 2016)

Oh this will be fun....
How to Transform a Bad Snapshot Into 'Fine Art' with Lightroom


----------



## astroNikon (May 18, 2016)

dxqcanada said:


> I'm still the photographer I was 30 years ago.


but 30 years older


----------



## chuasam (May 18, 2016)

Competent.
In the film days there was too much of a lag between shooting and feedback.
I also held back my shots because I could feel the money slipping away.
To me it is about the pictures, regardless of the technology used to make it.
I started photography around 2001 so I was at the tail end of film and the start of affordable digital. I got my first DSLR in Dec 2004 and haven't shot more than 10 rolls of film in the 12 years past.


----------



## chuasam (May 18, 2016)

dxqcanada said:


> I'm still the photographer I was 30 years ago.


That would be my nightmare. To not evolve and improve over 3 decades.


----------



## petrochemist (May 18, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> 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?



I have never used a camera that restricted you to aperture, focus & shutter speed. Several I've used didn't have options for any of those but all have direction, position, timing... 

With regard to your question digital has made no difference in my laziness. I try to get my images as right as possible in camera & do minimal post processing (to lazy to learn post skills?).
Digital has allowed me to try photos I would never have bothered with using film - pushing the limits in just about every direction, sometimes knowing that post processing would be needed to combine multiple shots, often in ways that where not possible with film (such as focus stacking or HDR).


----------



## chuasam (May 18, 2016)

I take way more photos now that I use my phone


----------



## thereyougo! (May 24, 2016)

I  think it can make you *both* more productive *and * lazy.  

I shoot with a view to edit later much of the time, though I don't spend a huge amount of time editing.  As dynamic range 'improves' in cameras, I suspect editing will be more and more required to prevent flat images.  Already, images I take with my 645Z properly exposed need processing to make the best of them.  I put improves in inverted commas because I  think there will come a time when the amount of dynamic range is too high.  

In the end, it's the end result that counts and whether *you* like it and whether you are getting what you need from it artistically.  Everything else is just chaff in the wind.


----------



## Nickilford (May 25, 2016)

Speaking of my own experience only, I don't believe digital has made me lazy at all. If anything, digital has allowed me to progress at a much faster pace than I ever would have with film. I started taking pictures with film but at that time it was on it's way out the door.

RAW file processing and post production is an inherent part of photography today. Period. What does it mean when people say "get it right in camera"? Nailing exposure? Getting nice popping colors and contrast? Personally, I want my RAW files to be as flat as possible and slightly overexposed (while retaining detail in highlights), of course this will depend on the scene but basically that's how I roll. What matters to me is making images, the final product. That's it. And I shoot in such a way that gives me a file with as much information as possible, so i have great raw materials to work with in processing and so i can materialize my vision.

Things evolve all around us, photography is no exception. Digital has revolutionized photography in a great way IMO. 

Just want to throw a question out there about "lazy". Is it really that digital has made photographers lazy or are those that seem to hate on digital too lazy to learn digital and all that it entails, including post production?


----------



## smoke665 (May 25, 2016)

Nickilford said:


> Just want to throw a question out there about "lazy". Is it really that digital has made photographers lazy or are those that seem to hate on digital too lazy to learn digital and all that it entails, including post production?



The question was misleading in its simplicity, as I'm not sure there is one answer. As several have pointed out already those that embrace and use new technologies as supplements to their existing capabilties have become more productive. The ones who where lazy in film days are likely more so in digital because of the ability to correct mistakes post processing.


----------



## LARZRARZ (May 28, 2016)

Being able to review the shot as soon as I take it has increased productivity quite a bit for me. I can review the photo, have an assistant take a second look, and re-shoot if necessary to correct any issues. I started with film and my learning was very slow. I switched to digital and it was a game changer.

It's vexing to me when people say digital is lazy. It's had quite the opposite effect on photographers in my opinion.


----------



## sashbar (May 28, 2016)

I think first and foremost a black box with different specs or technology never makes us more or less lazy. It does not depend on what we shoot with, it depends on what we are. I am just as lazy with a digital camera as I was with a film one.
  In many ways a modern digital camera made life easier for some of us, but it also raised the standarts and expectations for others.
   Modern cameras are a blessing for beginners or casual shooters, allowing them to get into photography and to take much better pictures of their friends, kids, cars, dogs and cats. Has this wonderful new technology made life easier for professionals? If anything it made it harder for them, because of higher expectations and higher competition.
  And as soon as photographers, be it an amateur or a pro, start to aspire for some artistic creativeness, they find very quickly that a modern camera is ruthless, because it is so revealing.  And the first thing it will reveal, of course, will be their creative impotence (simply because 90% of photographers are creatively impotent or weak by definition, and that is just a sad fact of life, just as with any other artistic occupation). There is nowhere to hide with a modern digital camera and no post processing will fix it.
  So modern digital cameras are a double edged sword in that respect. They make life easier for some photographers and make others to work harder.


----------



## Fred von den Berg (May 30, 2016)

I try to get as much right in camera anyway and it doesn't matter whether I'm using a film camera or a digital one as far as that is concerned. Either way there is work still to be done after the camera part of creating an image is finished with.

That said, digital has allowed me a certain freedom to try shots that I probably wouldn't contemplate with film. For me film = to err on the side of caution whilst digital = nothing ventured, nothing gained.


----------



## Overread (May 30, 2016)

One day I want to meet these lazy people who can take snapshots in the camer and spend hours in editing fixing them up. Because I really don't think that person actually exists in the photography world. 

It's a boogyman of digital that many think and talk about happening; they say that "in camera doesn't matter in digital and you'll just edit it." And yet what we see is people taking reviews of histograms to perfect exposures; we see them composing; getting shots right in camera; shooting in RAW etc.... 

When one looks at "photographers" as a hobby or professional group people are still getting it right in camera; they are still perfecting things. If anything the lesser dynamic range of digital compared to film makes getting it right in camera even MORE important than before = especially with regard to highlights where digital is weaker than film (and despite huge advances in shadow detail restoration the highlights are still, far as I'm aware, a dangerous area to overexpose).



Also film cameras had auto mode; they had priority modes and AF and all those other fancy things digital cameras have now. Barring the medium aspect if we'd kept with film at the forefront they'd likely have most of the fancy features digital have today. 






For me digital made me a photographer.


----------



## gsgary (May 30, 2016)

Overread said:


> One day I want to meet these lazy people who can take snapshots in the camer and spend hours in editing fixing them up. Because I really don't think that person actually exists in the photography world.
> 
> It's a boogyman of digital that many think and talk about happening; they say that "in camera doesn't matter in digital and you'll just edit it." And yet what we see is people taking reviews of histograms to perfect exposures; we see them composing; getting shots right in camera; shooting in RAW etc....
> 
> ...


Most of the film cameras that don't have the fancy features are the ones that still command a high price because those feature are not needed 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## pgriz (May 30, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> 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?



Senior as in age, or senior as in ability?  Heh.  My first photos were probably taken around 1958 or so, with those kid cameras that had two setting: Bright and Cloudy.  Thanks to the wide latitude of negative B&W film, many of those were quite usable.  Over the years, went through several box cameras, then a 35mm Practica from about college years, to a Minolta, to a film Rebel, to various P&S digital to a Canon T1i (which is still my main "real" camera), and lately, my LG4 smartphone.  Along the way, experimented with Polaroid, various darkroom techniques, video, micrography, astrophotography, IR photography...  Pretty much everything I knew was self-taught, which resulting in a rather eclectic mix of pretty deep knowledge in some areas and abysmal ignorance in others.  Taking a few real photography courses in my 50's (in a photography club), showed me where my ignorance was especially obvious.  And that was in the area of flash photography.  The use of digital allowed me to experiment in ways that I could never do (economically) with film.  The horrible, deer in the headlight style, was in the space of a few months replaced by technically-competent images where I learned to balance the various light sources, finally understood how (and when) to use fill light, and started on the way of combining various flash units with modifiers to craft a reasonably well-balanced image (from the point of view of light control).  That knowledge in turn opened my eyes to seeing light sources even in natural light (ie, reflective surfaces, light toned by reflection from a wall, etc.).  

Having the ability to see instantly the results also opened me up to experimentation with dark filters (the 10 stop neutral density filters) and use that to learn how to use the different motions (or lack of) in a scene to create new images (well, new to me).  Using digital, I've learned to focus-stack, or do extended dynamic range images.  In the past 10 years, digital has allowed me to learn more about the technical side of image-making than I have in the previous 40 years or so.  On the compositional side,  I always had a reasonable eye to framing images, so that has not changed dramatically.  What is changing is that I now use the smartphone to take my snaps, and I use my DSLR when its capabilities are needed.  One of these days, I keep promising myself, I'll get into the Photoshop post-processing...


----------



## Overread (May 30, 2016)

gsgary said:


> For me digital made me a photographer.


Most of the film cameras that don't have the fancy features are the ones that still command a high price because those feature are not needed[/QUOTE]

Yes but one day someone will give Lieca a calculator and they'll catch up to the modern computing times


----------



## gsgary (May 30, 2016)

Overread said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > For me digital made me a photographer.
> ...



Yes but one day someone will give Lieca a calculator and they'll catch up to the modern computing times [/QUOTE]
I don't want them to catch up

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## smoke665 (May 30, 2016)

Nickilford said:


> digital has made photographers lazy or are those that seem to hate on digital too lazy to learn digital and all that it entails



Not necessarily. My first experience with programming was Fortran, using key punch cards, that ran on a computer that filled a large room. Over the years I learned and adapted to the point that technology exceeded my capability, not my willingness to learn.



LARZRARZ said:


> Being able to review the shot as soon as I take it has increased productivity



Good point. I was fortunate to have a decent darkroom, so the lag in processing was shorter. I'll admit that I still took multiple exposures to be sure I had a decent negative.



sashbar said:


> In many ways a modern digital camera made life easier for some of us, but it also raised the standarts and expectations for others..



Good point. I hadn't really thought of this but it has raised the standards.



Overread said:


> Also film cameras had auto mode; they had priority modes and AF and all those other fancy things digital cameras have now.



Hmmm, the manufacturer must have forgotten the auto mode, priority, and AF on mine. My old Pentax Spotmatic had an on board light meter (needle) that worked (maybe). The K series featured a lot of upgrades, but still no auto functions.


----------



## Ysarex (May 30, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> Hmmm, the manufacturer must have forgotten the auto mode, priority, and AF on mine. My old Pentax Spotmatic had an on board light meter (needle) that worked (maybe). The K series featured a lot of upgrades, but still no auto functions.






 

Drop in a sensor and slap an LCD on the back and you have a 2000 vintage digital camera.

Joe


----------



## smoke665 (May 30, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> Drop in a sensor and slap an LCD on the back and you have a 2000 vintage digital camera.
> 
> Joe



Little after the time period I was referring to Joe. The K1000 (one of the last of the film camera's I owned) came out in 1975 and was a completely manual camera, ceased production in 1997.  I still have a Canon AE-1 program that came out in 1981 that I think might be one of the starting points for automation.


----------



## Solarflare (May 30, 2016)

Thats an extremely trivial to answer question in my case: more competent.

Because when it was still film, it was too much of a hassle and I didnt photograph ever.


----------



## smoke665 (May 30, 2016)

Solarflare said:


> Because when it was still film, it was too much of a hassle and I didnt photograph ever.



That's unfortunate because you missed out on some great experiences. I've always believed that if something is worth doing there are no hassles that will stand in my way. I've spent weeks hand crafting furniture, I've spent weeks creating carvings, and weeks creating other artwork, I never considered the work that went into any of it as a hassle but a necessary part of the process. While I've since moved on and embraced digital, I don't regret any of the film experience.


----------



## chuasam (May 30, 2016)

Film was fun though. I kinda miss the parties in the darkroom. Music blasting, dancing and goofing off during washing the prints. Smell of chemicals. The invented dances we did whilst processing the film.


----------



## Vtec44 (May 30, 2016)

I think digital has lower the entry point and made it easier for everyone to try out photography with higher end equipment at relatively no recurring cost.  However, I believe it's the same reason why it made me try much harder.  The question I always ask myself is that everyone can get the same shot, why should people pay me to photograph something?  So, I have to try harder to make my photos better.  My primary source of income is wedding photography, and my shots have to be better than all the people that brought their DSLRs shooting over my shoulders.  lol

BTW, I still shoot 35mm film regularly.


----------



## smoke665 (May 30, 2016)

That's what the red light outside the door was for. If it was on no one came in! LOL Lot of good memories


----------



## Moly (Jun 1, 2016)

Having cut my teeth so to speak in a darkroom processing honest to god actual film I have to admit to still not being able to buy into the ethos of firing off thousands of digital images. It all just seems so "arbitrary" when back in the day a single roll of 36 exposure film was not an insubstantial investment if bought in bulk and stored in the fridge. One day, one day.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 1, 2016)

Moly said:


> Having cut my teeth so to speak in a darkroom processing honest to god actual film I have to admit to still not being able to buy into the ethos of firing off thousands of digital images. It all just seems so "arbitrary" when back in the day a single roll of 36 exposure film was not an insubstantial investment if bought in bulk and stored in the fridge. One day, one day.



I cut my teeth in a darkroom processing honest to god serious film that came in single sheets. Those wimps shooting roll film and especially that dinky little 35mm sh*t had no idea what it meant to work for a photograph. Load up a dozen 4x5 sheet holders (24 exposures) and try sticking those in your pocket. Once out in the field then that was all you had, 24 exposures, you couldn't just reach in your pocket and grab another roll of film. We used to chuckle at those fauxtogs with the Nikon F2s hanging around their necks, as if they had a clue!

You see it's all relative. Notice I didn't mention 8x10 sheet film holders; we can notch it up some more.....

Tools matter, that 4x5 camera isn't a good tool to photograph sports action, but still the focus shouldn't be on the tools. I don't shoot 8x10 anymore (I did very little). I don't shoot 4x5 anymore (I did a lot). I sold all but one of my medium format cameras and stopped shooting 120 roll (my mainstay for decades; I'm going to die before I finish scanning it all). My darkroom is gone. I still have a 35mm film camera but use it infrequently. I use digital cameras now, but my digital cameras didn't come with a requirement to shoot thousands of images every time I use them. Over the course of 40 years I've changed tools when the new tools made my life easier, made getting the photo easier, and/or produced equal or superior results, but I'm still the photographer. My cameras don't take photographs.

Joe


----------



## Moly (Jun 1, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> Moly said:
> 
> 
> > Having cut my teeth so to speak in a darkroom processing honest to god actual film I have to admit to still not being able to buy into the ethos of firing off thousands of digital images. It all just seems so "arbitrary" when back in the day a single roll of 36 exposure film was not an insubstantial investment if bought in bulk and stored in the fridge. One day, one day.
> ...



Ahh....memories of daguerreotypes.......now that was REAL photography.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 1, 2016)

Moly said:


> Ahh....memories of daguerreotypes.......now that was REAL photography.



My neighbors growing up had at least one tractor that had to be started using a hand crank.  It was a temperamental beast that required a lot of effort to keep it running and you really had to have some skill to operate it.  Eventually they bought one you could start simply by turning a key and it was on the whole much, much easier to operate.

I don't recall anyone decrying that and saying that they were no longer "real farmers" as a result.

So yes, I have to admit, I find most of this pretty laughable.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 1, 2016)

Moly said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Moly said:
> ...



But they look like cr*p.

Joe


----------



## table1349 (Jun 1, 2016)

This was real photography............
















And when equipment mattered.  Focus was a challenge if you got a cross eyed bird.


----------



## kdthomas (Jun 2, 2016)

I feel like both film and digital have helped me ... I tend to be an impulsive type, so film helps me to slow down, and plan each and every shot. But digital has more flexibility. If I can get a good result that's great. And I'm doing more with film these days, because I like the craft (for lack of a better word) of it.

It might be my imagination, but I think that film many times has a different character about it, but I'm not quite experienced enough to articulate it.

And I've found, that the composition and essential design of the image is the worst place to get lazy. That's where a lot of images  (at least images of mine) go wrong.


----------

