 Kay Beausoleil |
Going Digital: What Would You Like to Have Known? I'm preparing a talk for our local photography club on the agonies and the ecstacies of transferring from film to digital. I'm putting the emphasis more on the camera end of things, a little less on PS and much less on scanning and printing. What I'd like to know from you are the things you wish someone had told you about digital before or at the time you jumped in -- good or bad. For instance, it took me a long time to figure out whether to under or over-expose an image, and why there were spots on my images all in the same place. And I carried around all my film filters for quite a while before realizing that I no longer needed most of them. With 15 years' film and darkroom experience and three years in digital, I certainly have experiences of my own, but I'm sure some of you have interesting ideas on this that haven't occured to me. If you'd be kind enough to share, I'll be sure to mention the BP Forum to the group, and I'll be really grateful. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Damian P. Gadal |
CCD Dust
|
|
|
|
||
- Carolyn M. Fletcher  Contact Carolyn M. Fletcher Carolyn M. Fletcher's Gallery |
Lag time.
|
|
|
|
||
|
a n |
that you can clean the sensor yourself. Once I learned how, I did it after every shoot. I was so scared before that I only let the pros do it. Now if I have back-to-back weddings(Sat.-Sun.) I can take care of it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
a n |
Talking to often to the pros, if I ever book back to back. Maybe just once a month to start. I was looking to the stars there. No one ever told me that my pictures would come out square. I use round lenses
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jennifer W |
I'm totally new to this, but here's my "what I wish I'd known"... I got my digital SLR so that I could practice like crazy without worrying about film costs and then later go back to my film SLR. I didn't realize that I would use different techniques with a digital camera as a film camera to achieve proper results. Now I wonder if I'll be able to switch back and get the same quality pictures.
|
|
|
|
||
chrisbudny.com - Chris Budny Contact Chris Budny Chris Budny's Gallery |
I had no film experience just prior to getting my first camera (a digital) last fall... I'd shot 35mm as a teen, but never got into it as much as I'm getting into it now, with digital. I'd say the one thing to be wary of, if you were not already used to spending time developing your film in your own darkroom, is the amount of PC time you spend after the shots, if you are at all interested in editing. Even just file management and archiving. Man all that can chew up some serious time, compared to just dropping off your roll and getting prints back!! (Also, I wish I'd picked a camera with a remote shutter control option. Well heck, I now wish I'd splurged for dSLR at the time, but that is another story!)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kay Beausoleil |
Thanks to you all! I'd forgotten some of what you wrote, and others of you confirmed what I was going to say. All very helpful. Any other ideas welcome until Monday noon (Feb. 20), and I'll let you know how it all turned out. (And Brenda, can I use the Round Lenses thing? Loveit!)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
If I had known the Canon 5D was coming out, I might have thought twice about sending my kid to that private school. Just kidding! I tried various digital cameras for several years alongside shooting film. I didn't give up film until the Digital Rebel came out. I could finally get quality prints that were good enough for my wife to hang in the house, or use in her scrapbooks. I kept hearing people say, "most pictures from a dSLR need some sharpening." I wish someone would have told me, "Not THAT much!" I used to oversharpen my images quite a bit. I can't say I wish someone would have told me the benefits of shooting in RAW, because lots of people did. I was just too stubborn to try it. I can think of quite a few poorly-exposed images that would have been much easier to salvage if I had been shooting RAW back then. Good luck, Kay! Chris
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
That, after the trade off in costs between digital and film photography, digital doesn't really save much money at all. It's just a different way of capturing, organizinging, sorting, filing, ordering your photos. AND, ALWAYS BACK-UP!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Joanna Pecha |
I've been almost all digital for over five years. As I watch the members of my photo club move to digital, I'm seeing a lot of frustration in the computer side to the equation. Too many folks lack the requisite computer skills that go hand in hand with the camera. No longer is "just taking the picture" enough, now you need to master photo editing software, learn about backing up, storing and cataloging images...The learning curve is great, but the rewards outweigh that if you give it enough time. And ALWAYS shoot RAW, trust me.
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
You don't need to always shoot RAW, let's not get into that. Anyway, the point about computers is very important. Most people trivialize the importance on understanding color management. But, this drives people insane. So, not only do you hae to master computer and software skills, but also understand how to properly calibrate you monitor. Most consumers don't have monitors that can be correctly calibrated. And, even if they don't don't know how. There's an easy way, which can get you by. You just use your eye. Then, there's the more precise way, which requires software and hardware, and an understanding of the on-going issues with color management. It's important because the main thing I hear is people can't get their lab prints to come out the way they see them on their computers.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Damian P. Gadal |
The local camera club here is discussing going completely digital. Those who use film/slides will have to find someone to digitize their work for them. This has happened very quickly. Two years ago, they made the decision to accept digital. As for those who struggle with computers - they'll soon be dead. There's a whole generation who've always had computers ready to fill the void.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Debby A. Tabb |
Boy, all these are great and most of what I was thinking - so to add a new one: A simple thing like haveing someone disk sizes and how they capture would have been helpful. but Raw-that is a biggy. and cleaning. and yes, how different it is from shooting film, in some ways, sizing a image especialy. Best of luck to you in this Venture, you recieved wonderful help, Debby
|
|
|
|
||
|
David A. Bliss |
In some ways, there wasn't much change going from film to digital. I used the same lenses, since I stayed with Canon, and I use the same filters. I shoot the same way, with the same technique for exposure. Just like any camera, it takes awhile to learn how it is going to behave with metering and autofocus points, but once I learned those, it has become second nature. The 1.6 conversion took a little while. I had to get some wider lenses to compensate, but I do like that my long lenses have become longer. Also, being a slide shooter for so long, it was a hard habit to break that it wasn't better to under expose instead of over expose (to a point, obviously). With digital, there is less noise to compensate for slightly over exposed (pulling film, right?) than under exposed (pushing film? Do I have those right?) Processing is the big one. With most (not all, I know, but most) film shooters the lab did the processing work. With digital, it has fallen on the shooter to do this. Most of the time, if the shot is good to begin with, there is very little processing that needs to be done. That is when I am happiest, when I get the shot right (by using on camera filters and correct exposures) and don't have to fiddle with it too much in PS.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Debby A. Tabb |
OH David thank you! this is what I keep saying, but it does get me introuble,lol,lol. When you have been film, seems you learn "shoot to print" , but with digital sometimes it gets all confused with shoot you can fix it in PS. I love PS an dthe fact that now we do have more controll-this is good! but there is a lOT to be said for getting that Good to Great shot and not having to do so much if you don't want to.
|
|
|
|
||
|
David A. Bliss |
There are basically two types of digital shooting. RAW and JPEG. With RAW, there is no on camera processing, which means all processing will need to be done later on your computer. There will almost always be some processing with a RAW photo, just like there is processing from negative to print. There is a lot more control when processing RAW files, but it is not to say that anything can be fixed in PS later. Basic rule of thumb should be, you shouldn't need to do any more processing than what would be required printing from slide or negative to paper. I am always amused by both extreme sides of the argument about processing digital. On the one side you have the "purists," who think any processing is "manipulation." How many times have we had the lab redo a print to get higher contrast, different color rendering, or to push the exposure, etc... That is no different than processing a RAW file in PS. Then you have the people who think that digital means you can fix anything, and that every shot is a keeper. I have nothing against manipulation, if that is the art form someone is going for, but even then if you don't start with a good picture, the failings will show in the long term. JPEG shooting means that the processing is being done on camera. There is nothing wrong with this; many professional photographers shoot JPEG. It does mean, however, that you need to have an even better shot, because there is less control later with correcting the camera's processing. It is still important to use good shooting technique when shooting digital. Yes, a GND can be replaced with taking to photos, one for each exposure, and layering them in PS (just like sandwiching slides in the old days), but I still use on camera filters. Some cannot be replaced in PS, like a polarizer. Over or under exposed to the point of loss of detail cannot be fixed in PS, just as it cannot be fixed with pushing or pulling film. The "truth" to digital shooting is somewhere between the extreme viewpoints.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kay Beausoleil |
Thanks, Damian, Carolyn, BrendaLea, Jennifer, Christopher, Chris, Jerry, Joanna, Debby, David! Our club is in transition, but since our emphasis has always been on the output (we have two juried exhibitions a year) there's room for everyone, digital and film. You've brought up interesting points, and I particularly had neglected to emphasize the cost aspect and the necessity for computer skills (both unavoidable if going digital, but they need to be faced square on). Any more ideas of stuff about digital you wish you'd known sooner are welcome!
|
|
|
|
||
|
KIM SCHULTZ |
I should have purchased the new computer first! Because the image quality/size of each photo was so much bigger, I soon ran out of space on my hard drive. I didn't have enough RAM to work the images, and I was miserable.......... that is until I bought another computer! But it made my new camera even more expensive
|
|
|
|
||
|
xx |
how many trees I could have saved by going to digital sooner. I kept hearing, digital is not there yet so I stopped asking. Until I went to an art festival and saw a woman (Susan) photos and asked her what camera she was using. She told me the Canon D1. It had already been out for over a year! Guess I was asking the wrong people.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Diane Dupuis |
With film, unless you had a darkroom - all you needed to know how to do is choose which film and shoot the shot - then drop it off for developing. Now you need to have computer skills - serious ones if you want to take this seriously!! I love every aspect of it though! Buy a bigger memory card than you think you need! (i.e. if you think you need 256 buy a 512!)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Glenn E. Urquhart |
Hi Kay - 2 things come to mind. When I jumped to digital, I was 'timid' about the major cost of a digital SLR compared to the film cameras I have previously used. With that said, it paid for it self and then some by eliminating the cost of film and developing. This changed the way I took pictures. Now I experiment, plus I take many shots of each subject with out having to worry about cost. This alone has improved my skills and creativity! Second, as stated in other comments... buy a new computer. Processing 3 to 4 meg jpegs is slooowwwww! Trying to process an 8.2meg RAW is just about imposible with what I have now. I have already doubled my ram, but eventualy I will have to purchase a new, faster system. Good luck with your talk. Cheers, Glenn.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
LOL Diane! It doesn't sound like you EVER shot film ;)! Film photography is a little more involved than that if you want to get it right prior to "dropping it off for developing." As noted, if you don't have your own darkroom it's even more critical to acheive proper composition and exposure. I shot film for 20+ years prior to purchasing my first DSLR. I still use the same filters. That aspect hasn't changed for me. I would rather use a cross screen filter to create a starburst rather than adding it in PS. I still use neutral density and polarazing filters the same way I did with film. The technical aspects of transferring from film to digital has changed very little with the exception that most digital cameras won't do a double exposure. Yeah, I know, you can do that in PS, but again it's something I'd rather do in-camera. For a serious photographer owning a SLR film camera there isn't much of a transition. At least there wasn't for me AFTER I purchased my first DSLR. There was a HUGE transition due to the fact I bought 2 compact cameras prior to a DSLR. I am going to assume you are talking about a serious hobbyist going from a SLR film camera to any digital camera. So, to answer the question, I wish someone had told me I would HATE a compact digital camera. I did my homework. I knew about dust on the sensor. I seriously weighed the pros and cons of a compact digital over a DSLR with emphasis on the need to clean the sensor along with having to purchase a whole new camera system since my film camera outfit was old and outdated. I ended up purchasing 2 compact cameras and dislike using both of them. I could have saved myself well over $1,000 had I known this prior to going digital. As Carolyn mentioned, the lag is totally frustrating if you're used to shooting with film. The smaller sensor and zooms do not produce as nice (sharp) an image as you can get with a DSLR or film. You do not have the control and versitility with a compact digital that you do with a DSLR. Manual focusing is nearly impossible with the compact cameras, not to mention it can't be done at all with the less expensive models. So I guess the short answer is if anyone had offered me one piece of advice it would have been to skip a compact camera and go straight for a DSLR.
|
|
|
|
||
|
chrisbudny.com - Chris Budny Contact Chris Budny Chris Budny's Gallery |
Amen, Sharon! My Sony has served me pretty well these past 5 months, for a digital beginner I think, but today there is no doubt that I wish I'd spent that $500 towards a dSLR! I honestly can't remember today, why I talked myself OUT of getting the Rebel XT at the time!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kay Beausoleil |
Thanks for your answers, Kim, Jessica, Diane and Glenn! Been thinking a lot about cost this week. Once the pricey heavy machinery is in place (camera, computer, printer, maybe scanner and lessons to learn them all), digital is certainly cheaper because you no longer pay for film and processing. I'm not sure that's a great selling point for digital, though! It requires a heavy investment in time to learn the skills and money to buy the stuff. For me and, I'm sure many of you, the added creativity is worth it. I'd glossed over the skills and cost aspect in my talk because I already had the big, fast computer and the skills to use it before jumping into digital imaging -- thanks for reminding me to factor them in. So far, so good -- Last night I practiced the talk with a huge, button-eyed bear, and he seemed interested. My biggest problem now is remembering all the technical terms in French because I learned computers and digital in English.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
Kay, Maybe you could bring the bear along for support. Bon chance! Chris
|
|
|
|
||
|
Diane Dupuis |
Good luck Kay - I'm sure you'll do fine! Sharon - just because I had a point and shoot - doesn't mean I didn't spend hundreds of dollars a year on film and developing. Not everyone has or had an slr. That doesn't mean I didn't take lots of pics. I have many boxes full to show you! I'm never going back!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kay Beausoleil |
And thank you, Sharon, Christopher and Diane; merci, Chris!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Rom A.G. |
A)DO NOT get cards bigger than 512mb. You get enough photos on 512mb as it is, why risk losing a 1gb or 2gb card? Something could go wrong with it, you could delete the pics, etc. on a 512mb, I get 620 photos with a 4mp camera. B)what's with the digital zoom lenses? C)whats going on with sensor size?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
Rom, A)Your 512MB card may be fine for you, but not necessarily for others. Are you shooting at your full resolution? I seem to recall that the JPEGs from my old 3.3MP Casio were more than 1MB each. I can fit about 65 RAW files from my 6.3MP Digital Rebel on a 512MB card, so that doesn't last me very long. B) I think your math is a little fuzzy. Any digital camera that has a sensor smaller than a 35mm film frame can be said to have a "focal length factor". For many of the popular dSLRs today, this is 1.5x or 1.6x. So a lens on these cameras will have an effective focal length that is 1.6x as long as it would be on a film camera. So a 20-60mm lens would have an effective focal length of 32-96mm. C) The dSLRs that I mentioned above are sometimes said to have APS-sized sensors, because their sensor is roughly the size of an APS film frame (remember that weird film format, that didn't really catch on?) Since a dSLR has a much larger sensor than a P&S, a 6MP dSLR will likely have a much higher image quality than an 8MP P&S. The pixel receptors do not have to be packed so tightly together. Does this clear anything up for you?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Diane, what I was laughing at was how you oversimplified shooting with film :o)! What I was stressing was getting it right before taking it in to Photoshop. Digital is no different than film in that respect. If a photo is inferior to begin with all the Photoshop skills in the world will not make it better and if it's good to begin with you don't need a degree in Photoshop for basic editing prior to printing. And no, I haven't gone all purist ;)! I still like to manipulate an image half to death occasionally :o)!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Rom A.G. |
Rom, A)Are you shooting at your full resolution? I seem to recall that the JPEGs from my old 3.3MP Casio were more than 1MB each. --My Kodak c330 is set to 4mp, and I never go above 800kb. I can fit about 65 RAW files from my 6.3MP Digital Rebel on a 512MB card, so that doesn't last me very long. --sure it does. compare that to 35mm, you get 3x more than 24exp, and 2x with 36exp. I dont see how risking damage or loss outweighs more photos on 1gb. B) I think your math is a little fuzzy. ...a 20-60mm lens would have an effective focal length of 32-96mm. --that's why it's confusing. Am I or am I not getting a 32-96mm lens? C) Since a dSLR has a much larger sensor than a P&S, a 6MP dSLR will likely have a much higher image quality than an 8MP P&S. --take that up with digital P&S manufacturers who label their cameras as 6mp & 8mp, while _not_ stating that the image quality in reality is 4mp as compared to 6mp DSLRs.
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Why do keep losing 1gig cards but are able to hang on to 512mb cards?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Craig Paulsen |
That digital camera's came with a warning. MAKE SURE YOU HAVE OVER A MILLION DOLLAR INSURANCE POLICY WHEN SHOOTING FOR A CLIENT OR CUSTOMER I was lucky in the beginning and worked for really nice people. I made a few goofs that with the wrong people could have cost me my home, car or equipment. A good lawyer can sometimes get you out of a hole, but it'll cost you a pretty penny.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bunny Snow |
This is long after the fact, but I would have liked to have known all the money that would be continually spent on computer upgrades, RAM memory upgrades (because I'm constantly running out of memory) and camera upgrades. After spending $1299 on a new camera, the following year brought out still another upgraded camera, and another each year. All the research I did for the best camera may have been in vain. There is so much more to capturing good images with digital than the best state-of-the-art camera, which is only state-of-the-art for one year, and then, it may be obsolete in two. I had my manual camera for 24 years before I accidentally left it in an amo box and the camera needed repair. It was repaired after a year in the shop, and now parts are no longer available. But, I've moved on. Everything is changing, constantly changing, so fast. With bigger cameras, bigger or stronger tripods are needed, more memory, more hard drives, more ram memory. All this is far more expensive than film every was --I had shot film for over 40 years.
|
|
|
|
||
|
David A. Bliss |
I bought the 10D when it first came out because I had come into a little bit of extra disposable income. It was a great choice for me, as I was no longer limited by how much film I was willing to shoot. But I disagree about having to spend so much extra money. I shot the 10D for 5 years, and have just recently move to the 40D. I have used the same computer for all of those 5 years, and am just now pricing out the components for a new computer. Digital is only expensive if you are chasing technology. Obviously there have been some hard drive additions to store the amount of images I am shooting, but hard drives are cheap. I have spent more money of hard drives to store music and movies than images.
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
I would have liked direct, jargon-free, concise instructions fopr calibrating my monitor.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
#1 The importance of color management and monitor calibration. Even experts botch this -- or, worse, ignore it. #2 That manufacturers don't always help you with making good choices for #1. #3 That services don't always give you good advice about #1. #4 That #2 and #3 often contradict one another. #5 That owning a home printer costs more than using a service and you get worse results (they can use $60,000+ printers that use light process that you'd never buy for your home -- and they can justify the cost). #6 That automated corrections can't see your images and they can't make good visual decisions. #7 That expensive plugins for image editing just make you spend more money on image editing to learn another program. #8 That a pixel is not a pixel. Bayer and Foveon sensors are inherently different, as are CCDs and CMOS. Some cameras and manufacturers inflate resolution claims to gain market share/interest. Likely there is more...but that's a start. Richard Lynch
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kay Beausoleil |
What a surprise to see this up again! My question dates from February 2006, and the talk went well, thank you. My aim was to destress, unstress, whatever, a majority of the membership which, at that time, felt they had to go digital, but were lost at sea about how to jump in. Some were computer literate, but many were not, and that had scared them away, particularly since we were originally a club of printers. They also needed to hear the stuff you've all mentioned above. Richard's points would have scared me the heck away, back to my F4 and the darkroom. But his list would be great material for a second level talk. I know this because of the glassy-eyed stares in 2006 when I attempted to explain #8, but they'd probably be ready for the facts of life now. I'm so glad Richard mentioned #7 because there's so much depth to PSCS3 most of the extras are already there. Why, for instance, buy a B&W converter when the new Black and White function combined with Curves and a little masking do the job beautifully? (And if you don't know how to wrangle layers, buy Richard's Photoshop Layers book -- clear lessons and a CD to boot!) It's impossible to disagree with #1 through #4. As for the printer, control freaks like me prefer to do our own (or have their spouses do it). Our shiny new Epson R2880 does a beautiful job, even on black and white, and we don't have access to a bricks and mortar service anyway. And as Craig says, yes good lawyers can get you out of a hole, but insurance is cheaper. It's more important than even the camera if you're getting paid to photograph.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
Kay, My points weren't meant to scare...you asked for what you'd wish you were told about. Perhaps we should list the positives as well ;-) I am, of course, a digital advocate. I've been using Photoshop since before there were digital cameras, and digital cameras from as soon as I could get hands on one (I got a Kodak DCS420 from Kodak in 1996 to use for my first book -- a $12,000 camera; 1.5 megapixels). When I started, color management choices were not even part of Photoshop. I own several film cameras and have not loaded any of them for more than 2 years. About printing at home...I used to be a pre-press guy, so if anyone is a control freak, I'm it. But I just can't justify $60,000 on the printer I want ;-). You don't need to go to a service. I live 5 minutes from mine but still FTP my work, and sometimes have it mailed! Anyway, glad this came back up, but not if it is going to scare people...Positives can be summed up pretty easily: * incredible convenience I hope that is less frightening! Richard Lynch
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kay Beausoleil |
Oh dear. Richard, I should have used a dreaded :-) writing about scary digital because I understood your intentions were the best. Your answer is certainly realistic, as is your reply, and yes, I'd be less frightened ... There are certainly more positives than negatives involved; my talk was directed mostly to people timid about making the leap. Therefore I had to balance the frustrations with the joys of encountering this technology for the first time, being soothing and realistic at the same time -- not particularly easy! Computer and darkroom literate from the beginning, I still found all the calibrating stuff daunting which perhaps explains my reaction, and why, quite honestly, I didn't dwell on this aspect in a two hour talk to an audience of (then) film people. As for printing, our needs are certainly not the same. Unlike you, I'm a struggling amateur, not planning to sell or paper-publish my stuff, so the 13" printer is sufficient and considerably cheaper! What's more, my spouse loves this end of the work, and he's more than happy to do the geek stuff, calibration, profiles and all. I get the fun, Photoshop, part.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bunny Snow |
Whatever printing is to be done, I take to a local processing lab. I cannot tolerate the toner, which is why I'm no longer doing chemical darkroom work, and we don't have the money to purchase the kind of equipment which would give us the best prints. I'd rather but my money into low dispersion lenses and education. I had hoped my husband would handle the computer end of this, but there's a value problem. He's content to do unprocessed snap shots without digital processing, and I want to learn to process raw with HDR. HDR definitely takes more space and I'm constantly running out of scratch disk space and have to delete my work. He calls me an extremist because I want to learn more and am not content doing his type of photography. I'm here to learn and photography has been my life since college almost a half century ago. But, he just doesn't understand. Hence, I need to learn the computer end also.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
Susan, one thing about the way Film shooters take photographs is that they are used to using the settings a LOT more than Digital Photographers. I learned from Film photographers so I use white cards, flash meters and most importantly camera settings. God, when I modeled I had to practice in front of a mirror held by an assistant...lame. The one thing about Digital is that it makes learning the cameras settings a thing of the past...for 90% of the people out there. I was on a shoot with my GF and the photographer took 300+ photos in one swimsuit???? You couldn't have afforded that with Film...
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kay Beausoleil |
Sure, if you put 50,000 monkeys before 50,000 word processors, you'll eventually get a Shakespeare play. I'm no purist, but I think it's still important in digital to know the effect of different f-stops and speeds and what a polarizer does unless you're happy doing snapshots on "P". The fun in digital is seeing the results right away. Another advantage of digital is also a curse: as Oliver points out, 300+ photos a shoot is more than possible. However, all that stuff has to be edited down, unlike film days when a few rolls of well-thought-out images would have done the trick.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
Ummm Kay that was 300 photos a look...she did 5 suits so 1,200 images. totally rediculous but the 8 images they used in the catalog were great. lol
|
|
|
|
||
|
David A. Bliss |
While I agree that digital has brought about the proliferation of spray and pray, I can say in regards to me personally, being able to shoot with impunity was a godsend. Once I moved to digital, I saw a marked improvement in what I was doing. I could shoot a subject from many different angles, with many different framings, and then study the results, learning what worked and what didn’t. And really, for professional photographers, blowing through 300 frames wasn’t that big a deal. On Art Wolfe’s site, he talks about putting 8 rolls of film through the camera in 5 minutes on one sunrise. I am sure he was probably bracketing, but that is still a lot of film! I don’t know if digital photography has really brought out more photographers, or if the internet has simply allowed more photographers to display their work. I have known many “photographers” who shot film who didn’t know how to use settings correctly. I’m sure it is a combination of many things, photoshop being one of them for sure. I have to admit I pretty much discount anybody who doesn’t show interest in learning how to use their equipment. The ones that make it are the ones that know.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||