Why digital cameras = better photographers
Mike Werner
Registered Users Posts: 90 Big grins
Found this one the web
Why digital cameras = better photographers
Dot.life - Where tech meets life, every Monday
By Jonathan Duffy
BBC News Online
Digital cameras don't only eliminate the cost and hassle of film processing, they should help do away with bad holiday snaps and see us all become better photographers.
The scenario will be familiar to most of us.
Having retrieved your photos from the chemist, you dart into a damp shop doorway and hurriedly rifle through the prints one by one, hoping to magically rekindle memories of a recent holiday.
And what do you get instead? A disappointing crop of pictures which bear little resemblance to the mental snap shots you filed away at the time. Exposure problems, poor focussing, bad composition, flash flare and "red eye" are the most common problems experienced by amateur snappers.
Many such headaches are a symptom of traditional cameras and film. But news that Kodak is quitting sales of 35mm and APS cameras in Europe and the US, in favour of digital, is a sign of things to come.
While some professionals still swear by the quality of film over digital, the new format is taking over. As more and more holiday-makers pack a digital camera in their suitcase, disappointing pictures should become a thing of the past.
Here are five reasons why digital cameras make us better photographers.
1. SHOOT AT WILL
How do the professionals get that exceptional shot? Sometimes, it's a case of just keeping a finger on the shutter button and seeing what comes out. That's an expensive exercise with film, but the "wipe clean and start again" nature of digital photography means it costs nothing.
Digital compact cameras seem to allow close-up shots more than point-and-shoot film cameras 
Daniel Meadows, photographer
Taken any good pictures lately? Send them to BBC News Online
"Professionals often don't know what they're doing," says photographer Daniel Meadows, "they'll just blast off up to 10 frames a second, and later look to see which works."
At National Geographic - to some, the pinnacle of magazine photography - snappers average 350 rolls of film per story. That's almost 12,600 individual pictures, of which about 10 make it to press.
2. EXPERIMENT
Snap happy, until you get the bill from the processors
The biggest buzz about digital is that it delivers results instantly. Commercial snappers used to rely on Polaroid cameras to test a shot, before shooting it on film. Now, anyone can do the same on a digital.
Instant results mean you know straight away whether it works, and if not, just hit delete. "It encourages people to experiment who might not normally do so," says Meadows, who confesses some of his best shots have been "out-takes".
3. FORGET FILM
Despite all the work to refine it over the years, there's no getting away from the fact each roll of photographic film is a mini chemistry laboratory. Heat and/or moisture are its enemies, as are the stronger x-ray scanners recently certified in US airports.
Film can react in odd ways, particularly in low light, making it hard to know how pictures will eventually turn out.
Digital cameras often give a more faithful reproduction and have a higher tolerance for poor lighting, so there is less need to resort to the harsh built-in flash on compact cameras.
4. COMPOSE FROM A DISTANCE
The LCD viewfinder seems to aid composition
All but the cheapest digital cameras allow you to compose the shot by looking at an LCD screen, rather than through a conventional viewfinder. This gives a completely flat image - just as the finished picture does, and should aid composition.
"Digital makes you stand back and study the thing in 2-D rather than the 3-D you get through a normal cameras," says John Henshall, one of the first professionals to embrace digital.
"You also see what is coming through the lens. On a point and shoot there's a parallax - the distance between the viewfinder and lens - which means there's a slight difference between what you see and what the lens sees."
Meadows believes it helps frame a shot. "I think you see fewer of those pictures where there's a tiny head in the frame, which was about 20ft away from the person pressing the button."
5. PHOTO-EDITING SOFTWARE
If all else fails, you can always rely on a little bit of what's known in the trade as "post production". Digital pictures are easily downloaded on to computers and most PCs now come with rudimentary photo-editing software that enables basic adjustments.
"If you've got the exposure a bit wrong you can adjust it," says Meadows. "You can even sharpen something that's out of focus." And, with a few deft clicks of the mouse, party snappers can bid a final goodbye red-eye flash syndrome.
Why digital cameras = better photographers
Dot.life - Where tech meets life, every Monday
By Jonathan Duffy
BBC News Online
Digital cameras don't only eliminate the cost and hassle of film processing, they should help do away with bad holiday snaps and see us all become better photographers.
The scenario will be familiar to most of us.
Having retrieved your photos from the chemist, you dart into a damp shop doorway and hurriedly rifle through the prints one by one, hoping to magically rekindle memories of a recent holiday.
And what do you get instead? A disappointing crop of pictures which bear little resemblance to the mental snap shots you filed away at the time. Exposure problems, poor focussing, bad composition, flash flare and "red eye" are the most common problems experienced by amateur snappers.
Many such headaches are a symptom of traditional cameras and film. But news that Kodak is quitting sales of 35mm and APS cameras in Europe and the US, in favour of digital, is a sign of things to come.
While some professionals still swear by the quality of film over digital, the new format is taking over. As more and more holiday-makers pack a digital camera in their suitcase, disappointing pictures should become a thing of the past.
Here are five reasons why digital cameras make us better photographers.
1. SHOOT AT WILL
How do the professionals get that exceptional shot? Sometimes, it's a case of just keeping a finger on the shutter button and seeing what comes out. That's an expensive exercise with film, but the "wipe clean and start again" nature of digital photography means it costs nothing.
Digital compact cameras seem to allow close-up shots more than point-and-shoot film cameras Daniel Meadows, photographer
Taken any good pictures lately? Send them to BBC News Online
"Professionals often don't know what they're doing," says photographer Daniel Meadows, "they'll just blast off up to 10 frames a second, and later look to see which works."
At National Geographic - to some, the pinnacle of magazine photography - snappers average 350 rolls of film per story. That's almost 12,600 individual pictures, of which about 10 make it to press.
2. EXPERIMENT
Snap happy, until you get the bill from the processorsThe biggest buzz about digital is that it delivers results instantly. Commercial snappers used to rely on Polaroid cameras to test a shot, before shooting it on film. Now, anyone can do the same on a digital.
Instant results mean you know straight away whether it works, and if not, just hit delete. "It encourages people to experiment who might not normally do so," says Meadows, who confesses some of his best shots have been "out-takes".
3. FORGET FILM
Despite all the work to refine it over the years, there's no getting away from the fact each roll of photographic film is a mini chemistry laboratory. Heat and/or moisture are its enemies, as are the stronger x-ray scanners recently certified in US airports.
Film can react in odd ways, particularly in low light, making it hard to know how pictures will eventually turn out.
Digital cameras often give a more faithful reproduction and have a higher tolerance for poor lighting, so there is less need to resort to the harsh built-in flash on compact cameras.
4. COMPOSE FROM A DISTANCE
The LCD viewfinder seems to aid compositionAll but the cheapest digital cameras allow you to compose the shot by looking at an LCD screen, rather than through a conventional viewfinder. This gives a completely flat image - just as the finished picture does, and should aid composition.
"Digital makes you stand back and study the thing in 2-D rather than the 3-D you get through a normal cameras," says John Henshall, one of the first professionals to embrace digital.
"You also see what is coming through the lens. On a point and shoot there's a parallax - the distance between the viewfinder and lens - which means there's a slight difference between what you see and what the lens sees."
Meadows believes it helps frame a shot. "I think you see fewer of those pictures where there's a tiny head in the frame, which was about 20ft away from the person pressing the button."
5. PHOTO-EDITING SOFTWARE
If all else fails, you can always rely on a little bit of what's known in the trade as "post production". Digital pictures are easily downloaded on to computers and most PCs now come with rudimentary photo-editing software that enables basic adjustments.
"If you've got the exposure a bit wrong you can adjust it," says Meadows. "You can even sharpen something that's out of focus." And, with a few deft clicks of the mouse, party snappers can bid a final goodbye red-eye flash syndrome.
0
Comments
Luckily I am very tall and don't fall over easily when pushed. ;-)
But as far as the article goes, especially the point on how the digital cameras can help fix and improve composition, I totally agree. As a journalist, the instant feedback is absolutely priceless especially for one who learned/is learning in large part by trial and error.
-Rachel Brune
I got into Digital cameras because I support them on a help line for a living. In trying to get to know them better, I bought one. And haven't been able to put any of my digital cameras down since I bought them. I got bit by the bug, and got bit bad.
The sentiments in this article are things I hear customers say every day. And I have to admit. When it came to film, I never got into it. Once I went digital, I started with a camera that allowed me to take up to 1000 shots at the lowest resolution, and about 250 at the highest (not including TIFFS). The more I shot, the more I wanted to keep shooting. It became an uroboros of space and desire. All my cameras have had either an optical or electronic viewfinder. Purists seem to like this, personally, its a waste of case space. Give me that nice big 2 inch LCD or bigger. LCD's aren't perfect, but they are about 50x better than squinting into a quarter inch window and watching video that seems to be about 1/2 inch sunken in or optical that is just rediculously too small to see any detail.
I love digital because it breaks apart a lot of conventions of film photography. I love it because it gives me freedom to shoot as much as I want without having to worry that much about film.
When a professional sits there and says, I am a loyalist to film..my question is, "Oh, how many rolls did you use today?" , "5", "Oh, ok..I just shot 289 shots on my 512 SD card, and another 145 on my 256..." I just love the look of resentment that crosses their face. Its priceless!
I know there are a lot of limitations to my camera. Its not a pro rig.. But I am starting to get offers for Photography services...and who knows, in a year, I might be able to afford a pro rig and a studio and lighting.
If not..well, I'll still be enjoying my camera. To see some things I've done just for fun..
http://mainfragger.smugmug.com
Enjoy, and if you want to reply to me, or comment on my images write to
fragger@verizon.net . I am always looking forward to compliments, flames, critiques, and general comments.
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
BTW, of course I agree with your main point. It's why digital appeals so much to me. If it's true that you must shoot a lot to improve, then digital is the way to go. Although, it's a mistake to think that you can get off cheaply in this hobby. It's quite the money pit.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
The only party I can invite you to that I know is in your area is DragonCon. http://www.dragoncon.com . Last year, it was mayhem. 50,000 people in three hotels. But it was also a lot of fun.
MainFragger/Brian E.
Almost makes me want to move to South Carolina. Ah well. The girls at Hooters in Bensalem are just as much an incentive to stay here in Philly.
MainFragger/Brian E.
I agree with a lot the article says, but this is just not true. Digital cameras, with the possible exception of the new SR stuff from Fuji, are substantially less tolerant of poor lighting. They have only about one stop of lattitude whereas film has about four; this means, for instance, that your exposure has to be spot on or you're going to lose detail. Also, digital is prone to blowing out highlights. And since most digitals use bayer masks for color reproduction you get flaring along high-contrast lines.
I'll grant that it's a lot easier to adjust digital for low-light situations, since you don't have to change anything but a setting, but unless you're spending serious money on the camera quality tends to drop much faster than it does with high-ISO film.
Here is a shot that illustrates every one of digital's problems (this taken with a C2500L):
In the dark areas there is a ton of noise. The highlights from sun reflecting off the water on the lilly pads blow out the sensor so bad that you get vertical streaking. And along the top edge of some of the leaves you see chromatic abberration from the high contrast line (this stuff is easier to see in the full-size shot at http://www.frostbytes.com/gallery-albums/insight-2004/P2240059.jpg).
You also say that the LCD gives better detail than the tiny viewfinder. I most certainly do not agree with that. The author of the article complains about parallax from point-and-shoot viewfinders, in which case I'd agree that LCDs are better since what you see is more or less what you get. But the resolution on the LCD is just not good enough to tell if the frame is really in focus. Notice that none of the high-end cameras use active LCD displays -- every one of them uses an optical viewfinder. It's not even an option, although it could be if you lock the mirror up. Why not?
If you've shot much you've certainly seen cases where the LCD picture looks great but you load the shot and it's out of focus; that illustrates the point.
Give me through-the-lens optical so I can see what I'm really shooting, and a review LCD so I can get a quick quality check.
I can't argue with the idea that digital is making for better photographers. For sure my technique has improved by leaps and bounds since I started using digital. How can it not when I feel free to shoot two hundred frames in an afternoon because there's no cost to throwaways? With film the only times I shot that prolificly was at weddings; it was prohibitively expensive to do all the time.
It used to be that quality degraded a lot with digital, but clearly that's not the case anymore. Most P&S cameras sold today have effectively the same quality as film (limited by their lenses, not their sensors), and DSLRs are matching and in some cases exceeding 35mm quality versus all but the slowest films. The excuses against shooting digital fall every day, and the process improvements are an easy sell -- at least for small format shooting. For medium format and larger digital is still a long way from equivalence, although my guess is that "a long way" means "by 2010" for medium format (at relatively affordable prices anyway).
I'm pretty pleased with current technology levels but it sure would be nice to have more exposure lattitude.
jimf@frostbytes.com
I shoot a lot with digital, and I find I'm constantly having to protect against blown-out highlights. I thank Patch for bringing it to my attention. Since then, I've bracketed like fury. And hurrah for histograms - another fine advance in digital camera technology.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Just wait until you start shooting RAW and regain a little latitude.
Really? Cool. I thought RAW mostly allowed me to adjust white balance. It actually has more range as well? I guess I thought the limited range was a function of the sensor - that it simply couldn't handle more. I didn't realize it was due in part to the processing.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Some cameras have more RAW capabilities than others. The pro DSLR's let you do a lot.
Really, because you're usually getting 12 bits of tone rather than 8 (or less, effectively, with JPEG). You'll still blow out easily but you can underexpose and still get detail enough to boost the brightness later. In the words of my portraiture instructor in film you expose for highlights and print for detail and in digital you do the opposite.
I use raw all the time (mostly because of poor in-camera white balancing on the 300D) and it's still nowhere near two stops of lattitude. If I'm a stop down there is significant loss of detail; I can pull the shot out, usually, but it's not going to look very good.
I have a lot of examples of that :-).
Oh, that brings up a point: If you're not using software capable of manipulating > 8 bits per channel then RAW doesn't get you anything at all. Photoshop Elements is locked to 8 bits, for instance.
jimf@frostbytes.com
Ok, my point about the LCD was not one of resolultion or parallax. It was of looking through a tiny hole to see a big picture. Even when shooting film, I've always been frustrated at the jerk who decided the Optics should be 1/8 of an inch to a 1/4 of an inch. If the optic viewfinder were 2 inches like an LCD, I'd probably agree its the better choice. At the smaller sizes, I feel like someone trying to pretend he's asleep, and still see whats going on in the room by slitting his eyes barely open. That does not work for me for what I consider desirable (maybe good/maybe not) composition.
I have noticed what you are talking about with screen blur. It works both ways actually. I have seen LCD images look crystal clear, and then be blurred on the computer screen. I have also seen images look blurred on the LCD, and then look crystal clear on the computer. This is why I like 512 and bigger SD cards. It affords me the ability to not have to get rid of images right away. You have no idea how many cool images I'd have gotten rid of if I judged off of the LCD. Now I don't bother that much with blurry pictures until I get them home.
As it is, you'd probably think I'm wierd if you saw the way I shoot to begin with. 90% of my images, believe it or not, I can't even see on the LCD or EVF when I shoot. In full manual, indoor lighting, the LCD of my camera is pitch black at fast shutter speeds and f5.0-f8.0 . I use the LCD not as a viewfinder, but a focal point for direction of aim. For shots where I need more wide angle, I rest the camera toward the back of my shoulder and shoot.
MainFragger
I hate it because I cannot tell if a shot is properly focused. And often, as MainFragg says, I can't see anything in a low light situation. I have to switch to auto to frame the shot, then back to Manual to shoot it. That's no way to run a railroad.
But even as I rush pell mell towards buying a dSLR, foremost in my mind is that with one it will far more difficult to quickly try creative angles. It will be physically much more demanding, because instead of just holding the camera low or high and twisting the LCD, now I'll be contorting my body, going down on my knees etc. to test the shot. Practically speaking, I'm less likely to try the unusual angle.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
The point made of film being subject to environmental, chemical conditions out of the photographer's control is exactly the reason it has superior artistic value. Digital is like an unpsontaneous actor, plotting everything out, leaving nothing to the accident/influence of each moment. But that is not art, it's math. You can be artistic of course with either film or digital, but the latter presents more obstacles, for it takes randomness out if you let it and always
reverts to a standard-effect that is programmed. Think if a sculptor used a computerized chisel.
That's no longer true for Photoshop Elements 3, which has limited operation in 16 bit.
I never bought into the romanticism of film photography even though I shot that way for 20 years, and my SLR is still a film Nikon. The ingredients of film photography, other than light, are optics, chemistry, precise timing, and mathematics (f8, 1/125, 2:1 Dektol, 3 stops...). The darkroom is full of glass beakers, exotic chemicals, timers, precision instruments, and more optics...looking more like a scientific laboratory than an art studio. It is hard to find an art form more dependent on technology than traditional chemical photography. Not to mention that for a very long time chemical photography was deemed invalid as an art form due to its unavoidable reliance on technology. Therefore, with all due respect, to say that digital is flawed because of its reliance on technology, planning, and math is to erroneously imply that technology, planning, and math are not key parts of film photography (*cough* Zone System *cough*).
To me, digital is simply photography exchanging one technology for another, and no less capable of serendipity and accident if one is willing to be open to it. PC columnist John Dvorak wrote an article about the wonders of old digital cameras, how they can produce a certain unique "look," and then someone in response wrote that the reason he saw that was that old digital cameras have more quirks and are more pre-programmed with fewer controls. I have a crappy old 2-megapixel Olympus and have seen the same "digital Holga" effect.
I see the same challenges with digital as with film. I have to watch the sky. I have to respond to changes in light and in the mood of my subjects. Those are all out of my control, so in combination with the camera settings that are under my control, we get images that are a relationship between the photographer, the subject, and the environment. Just like film. If you feel the results are too programmed, set your camera to manual shutter and manual aperture (which, by the way, are available on my digital point-and-shoot but not on my film point-and shoots), and shoot in RAW mode. Then you may have more possibilities for creativity than a film photographer, because the film photographer's shots will necessarily be constrained by the pre-programmed characteristics of the film stock in the camera, for example.