Digital photography makes for lazy photographers.

[timmyquest]

I just read a post in the share pictures forum of two birds. It was a nice shot, nothing special and it was indeed soft.

Somone mentioned that it was a tad soft to which someone else replied

"your shots are not soft...PS will fix those up nice"

Yes, equipment plays a role in this, but i for one would certainly like to reach the point where i can indeed take a picture and print it directy from my camera without needing to fix it in photoshop.

Not that i'm taking away from what PS has enabled modern photographers to do, but i think it's always better to strive for perfect photographs in the first place.

Thtas my rant...move on

[Scottes]

...take a picture and print it directy from my camera without needing to fix it in photoshop.

Sure. That would be equivalent to taking a picture with a film camera and printing it directly from the camera.

If you want this, go with a Polaroid OneStep. That quality is fine.

You get what you pay for, or more accurately here, you get what you work for.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Well, Timmy, I'm going to rant right back. I think your argument is based on a false premise that producing a great image stops at the moment the shutter button is depressed.

All right maybe if you're taking holidays snaps and all you want is 6x4 prints to show grandma, fine, but there nothing illegitimate or invalid about the digital darkroom, which is what Photoshop amounts to.

Digital photography gives more people more control of the end-to-end creative process than does film. This is, in my view, a good thing. Yes, it does give the opportunity to fix errors that could have been avoided by more skillful use of the equipment in the first place, but it also provides the means for greater creative expression. Photography is not just reproducing the scene "just like real life" (though in some instances that it is a legitimate goal). If people wanted "real colours", Velvia wouldn't have been such a popular film. Prints out of the camera? Use a Polaroid.

Re-rant over.

Regards,

[CyberDyneSystems]

I especially like your reference to Velvia Roger,.

One of the many "complaints" we here about digital images right out of the camera is "the colors aren't as satutrated"

... no they are not,. when compared to the oversaturated film color we have grown used to in the last few decades..

Timmy,. if you were to read this article;

http://www.cps.canon-europe.com/articles/article.jsp?article.articleId=1240

You may find that even the manufacturer of the camera is recomending that the image is completed by the photographer in processing,. not by the camera.

[defordphoto]

I certainly don't mean to slam you here Timmy, but your title describes what you apparently want to be: A lazy photographer. If that's the case then get rid of the dSLR and get a point and shooter.

You really ought to take some real photography courses to see what photography is really about and then you will learn that the journey into photography just begins when you press the shutter. A virtual tip of the iceberg.

And with the tools we have for our digital darkrooms there is so, so, so much you can do with any photograph. The only limits are your imagination.

I do see snap-shooters getting lazier than ever. Point, shoot, print. That's is not what I want to do. That is not how I learned photography, fortunately.

Will the art be lost with all these digi-wonder so-called photographers running around? Nope. They will still shoot the same sucky photos they always shot. They'll just be able to see their sucky pics sooner.

Timmy: Take the time to learn this art. When you do, and discover your particular niche within it, it can be one of the most satisfying things you will ever accomplish in your life. It takes some effort. Be patient with yourself, but always challenge yourself.

[scotgasch]

I agree that digital photography CAN make you a lazy photographer but as far as wanting to take a shot and it be perfect, that's just not going to happen. When I shot film there were always some darkroom techniques I used to enhance the picture and make it MY OWN. Now it's just easier to do it on the computer....and the only limiting factor in the digital world of post processing is your imagination. Even Ansel Adams did alot of darkroom enhancements. Was he lazy?

[Tom W]

I agree that digital photography CAN make you a lazy photographer but as far as wanting to take a shot and it be perfect, that's just not going to happen. When I shot film there were always some darkroom techniques I used to enhance the picture and make it MY OWN. Now it's just easier to do it on the computer....and the only limiting factor in the digital world of post processing is your imagination. Even Ansel Adams did alot of darkroom enhancements. Was he lazy?

I think the original point seems to levitate towards the idea that the digital method is somehow easier than the film method. Perhaps this is true if you leave all the darkroom work up to the "experts" at the local lab or Walmart. But digital presents the capability, to the masses, of darkroom activity normally reserved only for those that have the ambition to work with their chemical images, post-shutter.

So, I wouldn't say that digital photographers are more lazy, but rather more ambitious on average that the typical film photographer. If one wouldn't agree that there is more ambition, one could at least note that there are more tools available to the masses with digital than are available to all but the select few that have an appreciable amount of real darkroom experience.

Personally, digital has opened a new world for me. Otherwise, I might be too lazy to even take the picture. :)

[scotgasch]

I wasn't saying that digital photography makes you lazy, in fact, I do a lot more work now than I ever did with film. :D Just that SOME photographers tend to say " Oh I will fix that in photoshop" when they should do it at the time of the shoot. I have been around alot of "Pro" guys who have this mindset. It's very unfortunate.

[Tom W]

I wasn't saying that digital photography makes you lazy, in fact, I do a lot more work now than I ever did with film. :D Just that SOME photographers tend to say " Oh I will fix that in photoshop" when they should do it at the time of the shoot. I have been around alot of "Pro" guys who have this mindset. It's very unfortunate.

Now that I can agree with. But as I learn to use the digital tools, I'm finding that they aren't nearly as good as a good original photograph. IMHO, you can make a good picture better, and you can make a fair picture pretty good, but you can't take a poor picture and make it excellent. There are limitations to photoshop, just as there are limitations to any post-shutter processing.

BTW, I apologize for quoting your post earlier, and then drifting off onto a different tack (I claim tiredness this evening). I wasn't responding to you directly as much as I was responding to the thread in general.

[scotgasch]

Ahhh....well don't let it happen again.


Note to all:

Get enough sleep so that you can stay up to the wee hours of the morning posting..... :lol:

[IndyJeff]

I have had this discussion about using PS to fix pictures with some pro shooters. Basically this is what I have been told, you don't have time to "fix" pictures. Get the shot right and you don't have to work it. One thing that surprised me is that it was a general consensus that you don't mess with the color, unless you have a calibrated monitor. If your color is shallow on a print then you haven't used the proper settings before you shot the frame, i.e. under/over exposed.
PS can't make a bad shot a good shot, nor can it make a good shot a great shot. It can however make a great shot a good print, whereas the great shot just might have made a great print as it was.
I had an assignment last year for an IRL team. When the race was over, I sat down at the laptop, did some editting and then saved to disk. About 40 images in less than an hour. They had the CD before they were ready to leave the track. They loved it and didn't expect them until Tuesday or Wednesday.
PS can be a good tool but I don't think you should rely on it to make your shots better. Get them right when you shoot them and you don't have to worry about post editting.

Ok, let the pile on begin!!!

[timmyquest]

LOL, you guys all make some valid points.

I'm not gonna lie, i PS the crap out of most my pictures. And i especially like RFMSports refrence to me being more lazy for wanting that. Never looked at it that way.

That still doesnt take away from my original point, at least not entirely. It just seems a lot of people will settle for less of a shot because they can do more in photoshop (more then say in a dark room).

I may very well be wrong, and i guess i hope i am.

[defordphoto]

And I agree with you Timmy. I think we will indeed see many, many lazy photographers who will not take the time to shoot the photo right the first time. Thinking they can just fix WB, or cropping later in the digital darkroom.

But, that is what the darkroom is for.

Even working with film we always tried to shoot the photo right the first time. The darkroom became a safety net in addition to an incredible creative space. There you dodged and burned and cropped and then performed any artsy-fartsy stuff you wanted and there ya go.

It is always best to shoot the photo right the first time, but that really doesn't make anyone lazy just because they have learned to use the massive amount of tools we now have available.

With RAW, you have so much leeway it's incredible. With RAW you can forget white balance. Just set it on AWB and shoot. Worry about actual color temperatures later. You get several stops leeway too. Over or underexpose? No big deal. Easy fix with RAW.

More tools in the darkroom make for more time and more artistic composure out in the field. That is a good thing. Does that make them/us lazy? Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Does using a nailgun rather than a hammer make a carpenter less of a carpenter? Of course not. It sure makes him much more efficient and the hammer is then an uneeded tool. But, then when a nail goes sideways, the need for the hammer then becomes evident and the carpenter must then rely back on old skills to fix the problem. That does not make him a lazy carpenter.

That would be like saying we are ALL lazy photographers because we're using all these fancy cameras (film OR digital) rather than a homemade, wooden box with a hole drilled in it for lens.

What will happen is the p&s'ers will just become even lazier than ever before and that's okay. It didn't effect us before, and it won't now.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It occured to me that I AM A lazy photographer... back when I only had film cameras.....


I was allways too lazy to bring the film to be developed!!!!!!!

//I still have film in a camera tucked in drawer around here somewhere...

[timmyquest]

It occured to me that I AM A lazy photographer... back when I only had film cameras.....


I was allways too lazy to bring the film to be developed!!!!!!!

//I still have film in a camera tucked in drawer around here somewhere...

lol, me too. I went out west a whlie back, took about 12 rolls (24 exp) only developed about 7 of them.

Infact just yesterday i took out a roll of used film for the canister...i needed it to hold some screws

[defordphoto]

Oh yeah. The days of processing Christmas pictures in July...

The good old days. Now we see them a couple of eye blinks from the moment we pushed the shutter button...

[shelbix2020]

...Im a little lost .... what is this "film" you speak of?
Is it like something on your lens?

[iwatkins]

I'm a lazy photographer. I try to get the best shot possble in the field so I don't have to do too much work in PS. :)

Cheers

Ian

[nosquare2003]

No, digital photography will not make us lazy. We take much more photos than ever... :)

[wintoid]

I've got more manipulation skills than photography skills. I take many photos of each subject to make up for my poor photography skills. Every time I crop an image, I learn something to improve my framing. Every time I adjust the exposure/contrast/brightness, I learn something to improve my judgement of the light present at the scene.

For me, digital makes it easy for me to learn quickly. If I was sending photos to the lab, I'd have forgotten what I did to get that great shot. Usually, I'm "developing my film" within an hour of taking the shot.

One day I'll be able to take the shot I want first time every time. On that day, maybe I'll abandon RAW, shoot JPEG, and wonder what to do with all the extra shots I can fit in my camera :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

...Im a little lost .... what is this "film" you speak of?
Is it like something on your lens?

lol,. yep./ this is a classic forum joke... rofl! :mrgreen:


next you say

"er.. what joke? "

Too funny!

[Jim]

Digital photography makes for lazy photographers.
While I respect your opinion, I couldn't disagree more. The digital format provides me the perfect avenue for in-depth practice. I often challenge myself with different photo situations, difficult exposures, funky metering situations, shots with a large tonal range, etc. Being digital I can then run in the house, DL my shots, and learn what I did wrong in each situation while it's all fresh in my mind. Maybe a post subject of "Lazy people make for lazy photographers." would have been more on track.

I just read a post in the share pictures forum of two birds. It was a nice shot, nothing special and it was indeed soft. Somone mentioned that it was a tad soft to which someone else replied "your shots are not soft...PS will fix those up nice"
I sat motionless on the ground indian style for over an hour before those little fellows got close enough to shoot. You see, the longest lens in my bag (as well as the *ONLY* lens in my bag) at the current time is a Sigma 28-135. I don't own a tripod yet, and I didn't have my "kneepod" set-up. I can make excuses all day long, or I can go outside and work with what I have. Thank you for your compliment, and while the shot was nothing special as you stated, it was special to me. Not for technical reasons, as you can see it is very soft. The exposure could have been much better as well, but my brain locked up when they landed. Not for compositional reasons either, I'm fairly new to photography and my artistic side needs a lot of work. This shot is special to me because of the entire experience, but alas I cannot share that with you.

Yes, equipment plays a role in this, but i for one would certainly like to reach the point where i can indeed take a picture and print it directy from my camera without needing to fix it in photoshop. Not that i'm taking away from what PS has enabled modern photographers to do, but i think it's always better to strive for perfect photographs in the first place.
You and me both brother! But you see, I *DO* strive for perfect photographs. However, I have found that I am far from perfect. And until such time as I become totally enlightened and transcend to the next level of photography (or come back as a shrew), I'll continue to post-process in PS or C1.
The funny thing is, folks were commenting about how I could sharpen that shot up and the shot had already been unsharp masked in CS. You should have seen it before. Yuck! :oops:
Take care my friend, it's time for me to go take some photos!

[timmyquest]

Trust me, i can understand the idea of a simple shot being a halmark in ones "history" of photography. I've got many "simple" pictures that to me are major steps forward. My knife picture for example:

http://www.antiwall.com/Photos/objects/images/B%26W%20knife.jpg

Looks simple enough, but it was 70+ photos, adjusting here...there. I spent 2 hours just getting the picture its self.

Then to people who see it, it's just a pair of knifes on a cutting board, but thats because they cant see what exactly went on before that fraction of a second.

You sitting there for an hour makes me apreciate the shot yet even more...

And i'm not going to lie, at this point, i rely on PS a lot. An ironic thread:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26515

[Chris1le]

Somone mentioned that it was a tad soft to which someone else replied

"your shots are not soft...PS will fix those up nice"

Actually it was the photographer (Jim) who mentioned the shot was handheld and to excuse the softness. Out of curiosity I opened the image in PS7 and did a simple Level and USM adjustment and the picture was instantly more colorful and sharp. In my opinion. I simply wanted the photographer to know that the image could indeed be made less soft with software. :? It turned out that most people liked the softness of the photo anyway. All I really meant to say was it could be made sharper if desired. :)

[timmyquest]

Somone mentioned that it was a tad soft to which someone else replied

"your shots are not soft...PS will fix those up nice"

Actually it was the photographer (Jim) who mentioned the shot was handheld and to excuse the softness. Out of curiosity I opened the image in PS7 and did a simple Level and USM adjustment and the picture was instantly more colorful and sharp. In my opinion. I simply wanted the photographer to know that the image could indeed be made less soft with software. :? It turned out that most people liked the softness of the photo anyway. All I really meant to say was it could be made sharper if desired. :)

I honestly didnt read the thread entirely, infact this thread isnt about that thread. It just made me finally say what has been on my mind for a short while.

[shelbix2020]

lol,. yep./ this is a classic forum joke... rofl! :mrgreen:


next you say

"er.. what joke? "

Too funny!

heheh only thing is, Im fully qualified to make that joke :D I just printed out 30 pictures of the same negative today in Photo class and still couldnt get the contrast and the dodging and the burning and the filters and the aperature and the focus working together right!!! :evil: :evil: :evil: I hate film :evil:

[Yance]

To get a great useable image without needing to manipulate in digital depends more on the camera. Definitely my point and shoot G1 doesn't give me perfect images with which I am satisfied without sharpening, bumping contrast and colors. I haven't used any of the SLRs but would think they would offer the possibility of an image that doesn't need manipulation. It also depends on if you are careful enough when making the exposure. Taking extra time to ensure that all the controls are properly set will give you a great image in any medium. Even in film, when I didn't take care before the picture was snapped, I had to do some dark room work. But the digital darkroom is much more accessible than the chemical darkroom which means that I am more likely to do edits on mediocre or even barely passable images. This means that I am either tempted to be less careful when photographing or more prone to experiment.

[IndyJeff]

posted by timmyquest
Looks simple enough, but it was 70+ photos, adjusting here...there. I spent 2 hours just getting the picture its self.


Digital makes it so much easier now. Now you know why pro's shoot hundreds of frames on a shoot to get one or two used shots.

About 8 or 9 years ago I was approached by a race car driver to do shots of him for a brochure he wanted to make up for potential sponsors. I already had plenty of images of him on the track racing. He was wanting a good portrait style shot. We met at his shop, set up and I did 36 shots. He started taking his driving suit off, I asked him are you done? He said he thought I was. I told him I didn't want to have to do this again and the cost of film and development was cheaper than doing another setup and shoot. I shot 36 more. I had him from every angle, exposure, with flash, without flash and framing I could think of. After the film was developed we sat down. He came up with a group of 7 shots which he liked. Between him, his wife and I, we narrowed that down to 3 choices. He ended up using 2 of them, one head shot and one full body shot. 2 out of 72!!!
Of the 7 he liked, 5 of them were off the second roll and both that he used were off the second roll. He said that altho he could have used either of the 2 off the first roll, having more choices was much better.

If I remember correctly, my time in setup and shooting and teardown was about 2 hours. Maybe another hour in delivering and picking up the film and one hour to select the ones he used. Total time....4 hours, my cost was about a little less than $30 for film cost and development. I charged him $225.00 for those, $75 for the in car shot for a total of $300 He wanted the negs so I added another $50.00. If he wasn't a friend I probably would have asked for $150 for the negs.
If I remember correctly he had 1000 trifold color brochures printed up and his total cost was right around $850. They worked because he did get a 3 year sponsorship deal worth $120,000 from his first use of them. Not a bad 3 year budget for a sprint car team, plus secondary sponsors.

Maybe I should have charged him more LOL

Never be afraid of shooting too many shots to get the right one. It is better to have too many great shots to choose from rather than a few good ones to pick from.

[PhotosGuy]

I just printed out 30 pictures of the same negative today in Photo class and still couldnt get the contrast and the dodging and the burning and the filters and the aperature and the focus working together right!!! I hate film.

Well, why didn't you just undo the first print?

next you say...

Ctrl + what?

[Canuck]

Got an idea...
I am currently waiting on the site to update my pics section. [finds soapbox and stand on it.] I am posting the RAW file in JPEG and the modded pic to show that it is far from laziness to be a digital photog. In fact it is in some ways harder. You have a ton more to control w/ the DSLR camera then ever. This one is CRW_2765.RAW turned to a JPEG so you could see it on this forum...
Here is the before (RAW pic):
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3181058&outx=760&oq=0

and after modding in Canon FVU/PS Elements 2.0:
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3180716&outx=760&oq=0

I know it is hard to imagine, but the work needed to know how to turn a pic like the first one to the 2nd one making someone lazy, I don't buy what you are selling. I am still learning new stuff all the time about photgraphy and post processing. Believe me the first one looked a lot worse at full size, but the end result was the same. [/gets off soapbox and puts it in location for future use.]

[stoneylonesome]

In some respects I agree with timmy, One should strive to get the optimum results in the camera, post processing is the saving grace for those not up to par photos. The photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson(sp) would shot fantastic B&W photos using a Leica camera and have the film processed at the local photo developer I guess similiar to todays walmart,etc. no post processing on his part.

http://www.photo-seminars.com/Fame/bresson.htm

http://www.npg.si.edu/exh/cb/

[dpanicc1]

Apply the 81B at the lens or what the heck do it with post-processing.

[kanwingshing]

I think digital photography is just like every other tool. It shouldn't be responsible for making people lazy. Lazy people can make a lazy tool out of anything. :wink:
IMO, digital photography actually required photograher to be less lazy in a way. Yes, PS can help you to get away with so degree of error. However, it does open up A LOT more options for photographers. We now can choose ISO shot to shot. With film? No way. We have to determine our workflow after we take the shots e.g. type of profile we use, type of file we like to work with so and so. And I can say that now with digital photography, more photographers are doing their own dark room work then ever before. You just can't be lazy anymore and complain to the processor how the color turns out. Cause they can now say to you "It's your file sir, we just output what's on the disk, we don't know what adjustment you made... blah blah blah."