I think I hate the culture of digital photography...

Digital photography has done so much to open the world of imaging the world to the masses I hate to criticize it. But I think it has also a very deep and ugly side to it. The camera rather then the vision of the photographer has almost become paramount. There is more discussion over super sharpness and noise rather then the moment captured. Grain and film texture used to me the mediums we worked with. Now it is all glossy pixel perfect representations of the world, rather then how the photographer sees the world. And it's not that there isn't some amazing work being done... it is just that the majority of the discussion seems to be on how to take perfect images that look just like everyone else's image. The technical side has superseded the creative side. I would love it if we didn't didn't have another camera body introduced for another 3 years - and we just spent time exploring what the ones we do have can do. Rather then worrying is my lens sharp... worrying if a moment was caught. I have tons of less then perfect images of my kids that I would never trade for these McPhoto's that seem to be all too common now.

Anyway... got that off my chest now. Thanks for putting up with the rant. Cheers.

Sound thoughts!

The technical side has always dominated the discussion but now more people are able to photograph and have some PP control so more are doing it (I am sure more copies of photoshop have been stolen than darkrooms were ever set up not to mention the copies sold). So with more people into photography there are more talking about the bits and bobs.

The creative, vision side has always been more limited since you cannot buy it. It is way harder to come up with ideas than hardware.

But I know the feeling when I have a project on, gear and technicalities hardly get a second thought. They become more of an obsession in the down periods.

Technology hasn't changed things, it has only amplified them. SI wanted the same clean, sharp images with film as they do with digital. Playboy wanted the same glossy retouched images of models. Measurbators and technical perfectionists bought L glass for sharp images and light tables & loupes for pixel-peeping. Now they buy L glass for sharpness and 30" LCDs for pixel-peeping.

Digital and the internet has only made it cheaper and more accessible, thus more people are aboard. Forums such as this are international photo clubs, much like you have at the local level.

I'm thankful for technology. If it weren't for dSLRs and the internet, I'd still be using my Kodak P&S and churning out crappy images. I snapshoot too but on a higher plane now.

cdifoto wrote in post #4371915
I'd still be using my Kodak P&S and churning out crappy images.

So you're still churning out crappy images, only now using more expensive gear?

:p

Karl C wrote in post #4371961
So you're still churning out crappy images, only now using more expensive gear?

:p

Yes.

Oh, me too.

As an engineer the technical side of photography is the easy part for me. It is also dangerous as I can easily manipulate my gear and I know pretty much exactly what different gear would do for me.

Where I'm weakest is the creative side. Seeing the interesting perspective, seeing how light will strike the subject. These items are where I most have to stop and make myself think before shooting.

Metering the scene, working with flash, controlling DOF...no problem.

Capturing really great light.....harder. Much harder.

I agree with the OP that it is strange in some ways that so much of the discussion here is about gear. But to take another tack....perhaps this is because gear is so easy (and fun!) to discuss while composition and light are more complicated.

Croasdail wrote in post #4371783
Digital photography has done so much to open the world of imaging the world to the masses I hate to criticize it. But I think it has also a very deep and ugly side to it. The camera rather then the vision of the photographer has almost become paramount. There is more discussion over super sharpness and noise rather then the moment captured. Grain and film texture used to me the mediums we worked with. Now it is all glossy pixel perfect representations of the world, rather then how the photographer sees the world. And it's not that there isn't some amazing work being done... it is just that the majority of the discussion seems to be on how to take perfect images that look just like everyone else's image. The technical side has superseded the creative side. I would love it if we didn't didn't have another camera body introduced for another 3 years - and we just spent time exploring what the ones we do have can do. Rather then worrying is my lens sharp... worrying if a moment was caught. I have tons of less then perfect images of my kids that I would never trade for these McPhoto's that seem to be all too common now.

Anyway... got that off my chest now. Thanks for putting up with the rant. Cheers.

Too many people also have the attitude that they don't have to be concerned with creativity or exposure because they can "always fix it in Photoshop"

I think that it happens more with people who never shot film.

Think of it this way:

Most users that used film didn't have a darkroom and most users only got 4x6 prints of their work.
Most users with a digital camera have a computer with photo "editing" software.

You couldn't check for super sharp focusing or have pictures sharpened more than they should be with film. Digital just allows for too much manipulation IMHO.

This is why I use PSE 5 to "develop" my RAW files. Convert from RAW and balance the colors, adjust curves and save to TIFF with zero sharpening added. Then I'll sharpen moderately after I crop and adjust image size for proper printing.

Mike R wrote in post #4372949
Too many people also have the attitude that they don't have to be concerned with creativity or exposure because they can "always fix it in Photoshop"

You know what you call people who get it right, or as close as right as possible, when shooting? Lazy!

Just think about it for a second how long does it take it check the exposure before pressing the shutter compared to fixing it in Photoshop especially if you’re shooting dozens of frames.

Lazy people check and verify their setting including making sure the ISO is correct for the situation. Lazy people look past their subjects to see what’s in the background and makes the necessary adjustments IE its a lot easier to change one's angle to the subject before shooting then it is to remove that light post from their head in 15 shots in PS.


So Yes I’m a Lazy photographer

Mcary wrote in post #4373353
You know what you call people who get it right, or as close as right as possible, when shooting? Lazy!

Just think about it for a second how long does it take it check the exposure before pressing the shutter compared to fixing it in Photoshop especially if you’re shooting dozens of frames.

Lazy people check and verify their setting including making sure the ISO is correct for the situation. Lazy people look past their subjects to see what’s in the background and makes the necessary adjustments IE its a lot easier to change one's angle to the subject before shooting then it is to remove that light post from their head in 15 shots in PS.

So Yes I’m a Lazy photographer

This is great

The technical side is much easier to discuss & quantify. The creative is more subjective, so much more difficult to discuss intelligently. Discussion forums, like this one, make it SEEM like there is more emphasis on the technical side

JeffreyG wrote in post #4372370
Oh, me too.

As an engineer the technical side of photography is the easy part for me. It is also dangerous as I can easily manipulate my gear and I know pretty much exactly what different gear would do for me.

Where I'm weakest is the creative side. Seeing the interesting perspective, seeing how light will strike the subject. These items are where I most have to stop and make myself think before shooting.

Metering the scene, working with flash, controlling DOF...no problem.

Capturing really great light.....harder. Much harder.

I agree with the OP that it is strange in some ways that so much of the discussion here is about gear. But to take another tack....perhaps this is because gear is so easy (and fun!) to discuss while composition and light are more complicated.

And then even harder putting your own finger print on your images. Finding your own vision. I do think that sometimes the easy thing to do is take photos that everyone will like but the danger is making images that all look the same. To make images that look only the way you make them takes courage and vision and that can be almost impossibly difficult and might come with some ridicule.
"No artist is ahead of his time. He is his time. It is just that the others are behind the time."
Martha Graham

When I was a young whipper snapper I had the pleasure of knowing Clarence John Laughlin, one of the Masters of Photography. One night after a few beers I had the audacity to tell him " Your prints look like crap, I can print circles around you." He laughed and replied "That may be true but I can SEE circles around YOU."

http://homepage.mac.co​m/photomorphose/cjlaug​hlin.html

Read his First Principles of the Third World of Photography

Didn't he do all those wonderful images of deserted rundown plantations in the south?