The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Has digital improved your photography?

Oren Grad

Active member
No.

I've enjoyed trying different digital cameras and approaches to inkjet printing and learning about the technology, but it's been almost completely unproductive for making pictures I'm happy with. I'm sure l'll continue to tinker with it now and then, both because I'm curious and to make sure I'm not missing anything that I might find useful.

I've certainly found digital cameras extremely useful for utility purposes. To follow up on Marc's point, one of those purposes is getting instant feedback as I grope my way up the learning curve to understand studio lighting. I suppose if I ever get to the point where I'm comfortable using studio lighting in my photography with film, digital should be credited with improving my photography. That's not meant as snark - good learning tools provide real value.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I'm finally getting around to "get out there and shoot slower".

I want to do that this year as much as possible.

I've been digital, really, as long as I've been serious as a photographer (since about 2004)... so I'm constantly fighting the instant gratification impulse.

All I can say is that digital has made me what I am as a photographer... and I'm trying to slow down and enjoy the process of shooting more... to make those moments of my life that I spend shooting mean more, regardless of results. What I'm finding is that the results of those shoots are starting to get better.

and... I bet I can play Guy's theme song on the trumpet better than he can sing it. :ROTFL:
http://youtu.be/PEMkLx5dAkc
Lovely. Really enjoyed listening to that :thumbs:
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
BTW my original point and was not saying I'm great or anything but my point really was not sure it has improved me or not. Sure 20 plus years more shooting has since I started digital has but that would be a normal occurrence anyway for anyone. I can say it has made my life more effective in the sense I don't have to guess at outcomes from a shoot but honestly before digital I learned more because you really had to work at it and I'm more talking about lighting and technique since you really had the unknown factor in there so you killed yourself to have it all down to a science. Now digital certainly has made it easier to learn for the masses but I think us old dogs learned more before digital and the technology just confirms what we do today and already know. So it's a tough question to answer as on one hand sure the technology helps us be more efficient and has improved us but a lot of us old timers would be very hard pressed to say we did not learn a ton before digital as well. So the answer is yes but I think the newer younger crowd has learned more from it. No question it is a excellent learning tool and one reason I teach it is because I love the technology for one and also it's fun to teach. I see students grow really fast and I won't name names but many of our repeat workshop attendees are out there really doing extremely good work and improved ten fold over when they started. So yes it's a great learning tool but I still think the folks that have been shooting a very long time the it improved me is more at a slower pace since they are already good shooters. That was more my point , we are already good at it but it has helped us grow as well just at a diffrent pace than folks that are just coming into it. Hope that made sense been working hard lately and brain dead
 

jlm

Workshop Member
interesting thought...most of those replying have been brought up on film, tweaking in the darkroom, maybe even into the zone system and that background has to flavor what they take from digital. we are now at a point in time where a new generation of photogs may never have used film, have never had their hands i the dektol and may not ever do so.

hooked up my old turntable last month after a very long hiatus and asked my 21 yr old to queu up an album and he had no idea how to do it. we did rock out until late at night however, so the message got through the medium
 

photoSmart42

New member
No, there's nothing particular about digital that has improved my photography. In fact I went back to film primarily because it allows me to take my time and focus on composition as opposed to taking snaps. I'd say my film photography has improved my photography (that, and a class I took a couple of years ago).
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
I think that in all honesty most of the photography that I do would just not have been possible in the film era without a level of investment which would make the endevour questionable in the first place. Certainly a good portion of my wedding photography just couldn't have been done with film (near medium format quality using iso 1600 as almost a default, shooting with crazy mixed lighting on the run, etc). I tried what became my stitching project in Jerusalem initially with a Horseman 6X12" back but it turned out to be impossible, I couldn't use the perspective I wanted (135mm lens) with the DOF I needed and still freeze people and foliage movement even with iso 400 film. It was just impossible. I can however do it with stitching and a DSLR. I don't believe I could achieve the tonality of my other projects using 35mm film due to the scanning costs necessary to achieve that level of quality.

I don't believe my vision or compositional abilities are particularly better due to digital, I do know however that I can achieve photographs that in the past would have been impossible without a level of financial and time based dedication that I would not and especially at present, can not achieve.
 

jsf

Active member
I think Ben, Marc and Guy are making the most salient point about digital. One it allows us to see in real time what before we either had to be super careful about, in terms of lighting, and truly some photographers simply shot a lot of poloroid back then, (I didn't, but I was pretty arrogant about my skill level, when I was younger) (now, I am more humble..) But also the added benefits of the technical ability to expose at high ISO's, the stitching capability, and in truth the sheer quality of image is staggering. I used a lot of large format (8x10 and 4x5) because I had to, MF didn't cut it. And when I needed even a PR shot MF was the only way to go, I literally never used 35mm unless there was a specific need. Now, if I were working, I am not sure that I would ever need more than 30MP on MF for anything, most of the pros I know still working simply have no call for more than that. I think we have become somewhat ensnared in MP+ and I am not speaking to those whose work involves very large prints, but for most of the working advertising world and such I would be surprised if there is a call for super MP. But it makes me curious, for those out there working, do clients insist on huge MP? And if so what do they use it for? Joe
 
Top