The Hidden Dangers of “Going Digital” In Photography!

Perhaps one of you guys can help me find a recent post on this subject. It was in the past week or so and was from a letter to the editor of a photography magazine. The gist of the letter was that photography was being destroyed by this new-fangled film that allows amateur photographers to just shoot and shoot without really having to stop and think about what they are doing...

I couldn't even read this garbage with every single word capitalized.

What I could stand to read, reads like it was written by a 5th grader. "Digital isn't as good!" "High end digital cameras are just as good" "Digital cameras are way more expensive!" "Digital means you don't need to pay 4 bucks for a roll of film and 14 for processing making it way cheaper!" "Digital isn't any better then film! (Even though you don't have to buy digital film, can adjust ISO on the fly, it develops instantly, is more flexible, and is free once you own a memory card)

If these authors have a point, they have contradicted every single one that they've made.

Yeah, I really want to take classes from two people, who when they combine their IQ's, can only write on a 5th grade level.

I also think it's very telling that their other business is selling magical anti pain wands/bracelet/pendant​s.

I passed the link on to a friend to laugh at and they noticed that clicking the banner at the top of the page takes you to this website. http://www.reversedpai​n.com/

Socket7 wrote in post #9858223
I also think it's very telling that their other business is selling magical anti pain wands/bracelet/pendant​s.

I passed the link on to a friend to laugh at and they noticed that clicking the banner at the top of the page takes you to this website. http://www.reversedpai​n.com/

My friend... they're everywhere! One of my business contacts recently attended a seminar on "tapping into the energy of your animals" (house pets) and has been trying to convince everybody that if you can get into your dog's or cat's mind and "tap" the energy, your life will improve!

I have been very tempted to tease back a little with a forum post saying that if you have a male dog, you can softly massage his furry nad sack while chanting "ooommmmmmmmmmm" and in doing so, the mysteries of the universe will be revealed to you.

(I probably won't do it, tho. Burning business bridges, even with new age flakes, is not wise business )

Wow, this guy needs to learn some syntax. I couldn't make myself finish reading it.

Though, what's with the comparison to Ken Rockwell? I feel as though that would be an insult to Rockwell...

CannedHeat wrote in post #9858321
I have been very tempted to tease back a little with a forum post saying that if you have a male dog, you can softly massage his furry nad sack while chanting "ooommmmmmmmmmm" and in doing so, the mysteries of the universe will be revealed to you.

Theres a joke along those lines. 2 drunks are sitting on a park bench when a dog comes up and begins licking himself. The first drunk says "I wish I could do that." The second says "You better pet him first."

CannedHeat wrote in post #9858321
I have been very tempted to tease back a little with a forum post saying that if you have a male dog, you can softly massage his furry nad sack while chanting "ooommmmmmmmmmm" and in doing so, the mysteries of the universe will be revealed to you.

This is a PHOTOGRAPHY forum CannedHeat - you need to post photos of you doing the above! If photoed from the right angle, you may even get slowblink's attention!

theextremist04 wrote in post #9855974
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.

I have never shot film (with an SLR). I used to shoot 110 and eventually went to a Kodak Automatic (about 15-20 years ago). Never once did I worry about film or processing when I shot - that came afterwards.

Now shooting with a DSLR, I am far more selective than I ever was with film.

My point is that people shoot the way they want - film doesnt need to mean shooting selectively and it certainly didn't for me.

Since buying a DSLR, I have slowed myself down. My reason? I have spent ££££ on a equipment (camera, lenses, flash, filters,tripod etc) so why not maximise my return by spending time to craft a photo.

I too am a middle aged fat guy with the 70-200 2.8 IS, but I pretty much only use it for weddings

And as an old guy who's also into IT (Information Technology), I see a parallel between what's happening now with the transition from film to digital, and the transition from typewriters to word processors. When that first happened, people went CRAZY. They'd create documents with 5 different fonts and lots of bold and italic... and it looked just silly. So then there were a slew of articles about how it looks better to maybe use 2 fonts max, and when it's appropriate to use the font modifiers. Eventually everything calmed down as people got acclimated to the new technology.

I have no doubt that lots of film people would have taken tons of experimental pics if they could have, and a few probably did.

neilwood32 wrote in post #9860446
Now shooting with a DSLR, I am far more selective than I ever was with film.

My point is that people shoot the way they want - film doesnt need to mean shooting selectively and it certainly didn't for me.

Since buying a DSLR, I have slowed myself down. My reason? I have spent ££££ on a equipment (camera, lenses, flash, filters,tripod etc) so why not maximise my return by spending time to craft a photo.

This is a very good point. I spent almost 20 years shooting 35mm film before going digital a few years ago but I've learned more about the craft in those few years than I ever did in all the years of film. Partly because viewing a 10MP (or higher) image at 100% on a monitor shows far more detail than getting some 5x7 prints from the local Ritz. And part of this is because instead of just sitting at home admiring my own prints I'm uploading the digital images to forums like this, getting feedback and looking at pictures that other people have uploaded so I have something to compare against.

krb wrote in post #9861003
This is a very good point. I spent almost 20 years shooting 35mm film before going digital a few years ago but I've learned more about the craft in those few years than I ever did in all the years of film. Partly because viewing a 10MP (or higher) image at 100% on a monitor shows far more detail than getting some 5x7 prints from the local Ritz. And part of this is because instead of just sitting at home admiring my own prints I'm uploading the digital images to forums like this, getting feedback and looking at pictures that other people have uploaded so I have something to compare against.

Plus there are things that we can do now that werent practical for most photographers back with film. The whole strobist movement would have been nearly impossible with film. Thats not to say skilled folks werent doing location work with flashes. But the the idea that a relative novice could pop up a couple flashes and create some amazing portraiture in shifting light would have been almost unimaginable with film. The abilty to chimp, and review your results lets you build an image in ways that would have taxed the abilities of most veteran photographers before digital

I can see diametrically opposed paths that "going digital" provides. Not that these are the only paths.

The first path is that it can allow people to not learn and just rely on the "even a blind squirrel finds a nut on occasion" approach. Being middle-aged and fat is not a pre-requisite for this approach.

The second is that it can allow those actually wanting to learn to do so at a much faster rate (and cheaper) than was possible with film. They can experiment with whatever (settings, lighting, etc.) and get feedback much quicker - coarse feedback immediately, fine study just minutes to hours away. This learning feedback loop is accelerated greatly by digital.

So like most things in life, its up to how you use it.

gonzogolf wrote in post #9861046
Plus there are things that we can do now that werent practical for most photographers back with film. The whole strobist movement would have been nearly impossible with film. Thats not to say skilled folks werent doing location work with flashes. But the the idea that a relative novice could pop up a couple flashes and create some amazing portraiture in shifting light would have been almost unimaginable with film. The abilty to chimp, and review your results lets you build an image in ways that would have taxed the abilities of most veteran photographers before digital

Polaroid. There were Polaroid backs even for Nikon F and Canon F-1 for the professionals who needed to "chimp" in such situations.

RDKirk wrote in post #9861140
Polaroid. There were Polaroid backs even for Nikon F and Canon F-1 for the professionals who needed to "chimp" in such situations.

Of course, I shot lots of polaroid for that purpose. I didnt mean to imply there werent methods. I'm just saying digital opened up that technique to the masses in a way that wasnt very practical before.

I wonder if he still shoots Super 8 film instead of video...