The Hidden Dangers of “Going Digital” In Photography!

okay okay, that was dumb to say that i snicker at EVERY middle aged fat guy with a 70-200 2.8 BUT i have come across more and more people recently that cant operate the equipment they have. Going back to the fundamentals has helped me a lot and made me realize that in the end your equipment isn't going to improve your skills.

So we have a jillion people with a jillion cheap cameras making a jillion crappy photographs that they're perfectly happy with. This is different from the Instamatic age in what way?

The camera is not the problem. The "problem" is the acceptance of crappy, low-skilled work, by so-called professional photographers and the major photographic industry. Too many professionals distain elements of quality that would set them apart from Uncle Bob--don't want to learn lighting, don't want to learn composition, don't want to learn exposure, don't want to learn posing, don't want to learn about color and tonal harmonies, don't want to learn anything more than point the camera and shoot a lot...which is what anyone can do.

There is no point whatsoever in anyone paying a photographer to do what his Uncle Bob can do. Only if the photographer is showing a product that Uncle Bob most assuredly can*not* do is professional photography worth paying for.

But with all the crappy, inartistic work being done by so-called professionals these days (sorry, I'm not a student of the "everything is art" school), it's no wonder people are doing it for themselves. That's why I mow my own lawn.

RDKirk wrote in post #9854746
...Only if the photographer is showing a product that Uncle Bob most assuredly can*not* do is professional photography worth paying for....

The big falicy of this thinking is that your assuming that just because someone calls themself a professional that somehow that can acquire skills that Uncle Bob the amateur cant.

Photography is just not that complicated and I've seen plenty of middle age Uncle Bob's with their 70-200 and nice gear.. who also have taken the time to learn the skills needed to produce outstanding pics equal to a pro. Just look around POTN, there are many Uncle Bob's and Aunt Mary's who are stunning photogs.

If a pro can learn it so can anyone else. It's not rocket science.

RDKirk wrote in post #9854746
So we have a jillion people with a jillion cheap cameras making a jillion crappy photographs that they're perfectly happy with. This is different from the Instamatic age in what way?

The camera is not the problem. The "problem" is the acceptance of crappy, low-skilled work, by so-called professional photographers and the major photographic industry. Too many professionals distain elements of quality that would set them apart from Uncle Bob--don't want to learn lighting, don't want to learn composition, don't want to learn exposure, don't want to learn posing, don't want to learn about color and tonal harmonies, don't want to learn anything more than point the camera and shoot a lot...which is what anyone can do.

There is no point whatsoever in anyone paying a photographer to do what his Uncle Bob can do. Only if the photographer is showing a product that Uncle Bob most assuredly can*not* do is professional photography worth paying for.

But with all the crappy, inartistic work being done by so-called professionals these days (sorry, I'm not a student of the "everything is art" school), it's no wonder people are doing it for themselves. That's why I mow my own lawn.

You hit that right on the head. We see it here all the time, a post that begins I just got my first digital camera two months ago, how do I start making money with it. They don't have time to learn anything and think that just putting it in an auto mode and getting an image is akin to becoming a pro. I see publications now days with dog barf pictures in ads, along with a photo credit. That just tells me the photographer/button pusher did the ad for free and the advertiser got their money's worth.

So my question is this, is he talking to the pro, semi-pro, rank amaetur or the weekend warrior..seriously, maybe if he stopped to think about it, all the lowering of standards he is ranting about should only serve to distance himself from the herd...if his images are head & shoulders above the herd all the time he will be sought after...

How many are on here looking to improve their photos now that they have a digital camera. (i.e. wanting to learn)..!
Dumbing down for some mabye, but hasnt that always been the way for technology..a certain segment gets lazy...

pryan9 wrote in post #9854716
okay okay, that was dumb to say that i snicker at EVERY middle aged fat guy with a 70-200 2.8 BUT i have come across more and more people recently that cant operate the equipment they have. Going back to the fundamentals has helped me a lot and made me realize that in the end your equipment isn't going to improve your skills.

You think thats any different than the film days when people were dropping big bucks on slr's and didnt have a clue? I guess I have the advantage of being fat and over 40 that I can remember the film days. Honestly its not that different, sure new techniques have been created, but the basic ratio of those who get it and those who dont hasn't changed that much.

gjl711 wrote in post #9854832
The big falicy of this thinking is that your assuming that just because someone calls themself a professional that somehow that can acquire skills that Uncle Bob the amateur cant.

Photography is just not that complicated and I've seen plenty of middle age Uncle Bob's with their 70-200 and nice gear.. who also have taken the time to learn the skills needed to produce outstanding pics equal to a pro. Just look around POTN, there are many Uncle Bob's and Aunt Mary's who are stunning photogs.

If a pro can learn it so can anyone else. It's not rocket science.

There have certainly always been advanced amateurs who excel in the craft, but those aren't the Uncle Bobs who this thread is about and there aren't such numbers of advanced amateurs running out and playing professional to worry about.

These kind of articles imply that a professional photographer goes out with a single roll of film and a single 35mm body and comes back with great photos because of their superior skills and knowledge. It could happen, but it's not the way professionals worked with film, at least not 35mm anyway.

Professionals always shot many rolls of film (remember motor drives?) if necessary to get a single good shot. They didn't worry about the cost of film and processing and they usually carried multiple camera bodies and or film backs for ISO coverage. They could afford to bracket all their shots as insurance. His one film camera cost versus one digital camera just doesn't hold water IMHO.

Sure there are people who think that just buying expensive equipment will automatically yield good pictures. But most people who spend a lot of money on a good camera, want good pictures and try to learn to use them properly. Digital affords the opportunity to shoot more and learn more. If practice makes perfect then that's an advantage.

pryan9 wrote in post #9854716
okay okay, that was dumb to say that i snicker at EVERY middle aged fat guy with a 70-200 2.8 BUT i have come across more and more people recently that cant operate the equipment they have.

Ditto. Except I generally don't snicker.

Many of them have even asked for "help" when I'm shooting for money (dance shows). I'll generally try to help out (assuming I'm not busy), but there isn't much you can do, even with a DSLR, when the lighting is 0.1EV above black hole and all you have is an f/5.6 max aperture lens.

Most people tend to sit back and enjoy the show their kid is in once they have talked to me and found out I'm taking care of the pictures.

pryan9 wrote in post #9854716
Going back to the fundamentals has helped me a lot and made me realize that in the end your equipment isn't going to improve your skills.

Agreed. There are plenty of examples of people who can push even the lowly P&S cameras beyond what a lot of DSLR owners will ever achieve creatively. But at the same time, all the skills in the world can't compensate for inadequate equipment.

gonzogolf wrote in post #9854885
You think thats any different than the film days when people were dropping big bucks on slr's and didnt have a clue? I guess I have the advantage of being fat and over 40 that I can remember the film days. Honestly its not that different, sure new techniques have been created, but the basic ratio of those who get it and those who dont hasn't changed that much.

A digital photographer is used to shooting hundreds of photos and they are bound to get a good shot BUT when you only have 12 photos per roll you want to make them count. I tend to think long and hard about ever frame i shoot on film and its more fun to me then blasting off tons of shots on my digital. To each there own though.

Film was the cheapest part of the professional's budget--that was the standard, always-repeated maxim. A professional never skimped on film, although to be sure, the usual method was, "See a picture, take a picture." Professionals just went the extra measure to see more pictures, whereas today I think there really is a great amount of "just hold the button down" going on. But shooting a wedding, you didn't count shutter clicks--the limit was how many film backs you could afford to own and were able to carry, not some self-imposed pseudo-moral ethic of click-prudence above all.

The big problem with that writer's comparison of the costs is that most film professionals (not all, but numerically most) did not do their own processing. Those of us who did professional processing and printing can roll in the cost of a professional-level wet darkroom with automated water conditioning and temperature control and air filtering and humidity control, which was not cheap by any means. Start with adding a dedicated, plumbed room to any building budget, and then go upwards with professional level equipment able to efficiently turn out consistent-quality color and black and white archival work, and you're talking a very pretty penny.

mbellot wrote in post #9854560
Good for you.

Speaking as a middle-aged fat guy who owns the 70-200/2.8 IS I'm also quite capable of making the stuff I have work too, so snicker all you want.

THIS x 100

I think it's useful for everyone to shoot on film at some point when they're learning; I did for a while and it made a big difference. When I can I do like to stop and think about every picture, but there are also times (sports?) when it's not possible.

primoz wrote in post #9853332
I believe getting one good photo out of 500 sh***ty ones is no big deal, but that doesn't mean you are good. And that's what he is telling too. So in my mind, he has a point.

One good photo out of 500?
Man, that's a great hit ratio. More like one out of 100k for me.

Ok. He has a point. And i agree with some of his stuff. I shoot my first film and there where now keepers. 10 quid lost. I am a student and that's a lot to me. No more. Every shot counts form then on. Even digital.
Might be that some people get lost in the luxury of taking many shots, i don;t think thats is bad, if it works for them, but everything has it's limits