Become A Better Digital Photographer

One of the problems with digital photography is that there are no consequences for being a sloppy photographer, or just bad. You can shoot hundreds of images, and delete them all, and it doesn’t cost you a penny. There’s no monetary incentive to improve.

I went digital two years ago, but for the 33 years before that, I shot film and I believe that is one of the factors that made me a better photographer. When it costs $20 to buy and process a 36-exposure roll of slide film, you learn how to take good photographs because it’s just too expensive to keep shooting bad images that you can’t use.

If I went out and shot five rolls of film one afternoon, that was $100 out of my pocket. No matter how good or bad my images, it was still $100. That kind of expense really motivates a photographer to shoot the best images he can. I know it certainly motivated me.

To improve, I took classes, read photography books and magazines, analyzed every image I liked to see what attracted me to it. I learned all the rules, and how to break them. I did whatever I could to improve my craft, and it worked.

But how can you do this with digital when it costs no more to take 1,000 images than it does to take one? It’s simple, you add a cost to shooting. The next time you want to go out and shoot, do this:

If you want to read the rest of my article, go to my blog at http://www.TheCreative​sCorner.com

Have Fun,
Jeff

Jeff Colburn wrote in post #10326351
But how can you do this with digital when it costs no more to take 1,000 images than it does to take one? It’s simple, you add a cost to shooting. The next time you want to go out and shoot, do this:

If you want to read the rest of my article, go to my blog at http://www.TheCreative​sCorner.com

Have Fun,
Jeff

So the next time I want to go out and shoot, I should read your blog? I think I'll skip that one.

Honestly, while I understand where you are coming from, Digital has made it tons easier to learn the craft. I think film or digital, you still need discipline to learn the craft.

Oh, and I think I think we can pretty much stop qualifying the word photographer with the word "digital", no?

I used to think the same way, but there's an incentive to think before you shoot instead of spraying and praying.
I used to shoot anything and everything; shoot first, capture the moment, and think later.
Then I'd go through hundreds of photos that I ended up dumping.

I realized that I was wasting a lot of time either disgarding photos or post processing my photos.
So now I actually think before I shoot, try to get the settings just right in camera, and frame/compose/visualiz​e the shot in my head first before taking it.

I don't have stunning photos, but I'm consistently getting more keepers, and I've made leaps & bounds from where I was a year ago. I can only imagine what another year under my belt will bring me

The inexpensive side encourages you to experiment too, which is nice!

Jeff Colburn wrote in post #10326351
To improve, I took classes, read photography books and magazines, analyzed every image I liked to see what attracted me to it. I learned all the rules, and how to break them. I did whatever I could to improve my craft, and it worked.

But how can you do this with digital when it costs no more to take 1,000 images than it does to take one? It’s simple, you add a cost to shooting. The next time you want to go out and shoot, do this:
Jeff

I still do that with digital. I think you are confusing the P&S people who only want snap shots with people that are trying to create photographs. It's nice being able to shoot a subject several different ways, and if several different composure and just delete what you don't want. But not much different then my old film days. Sure all shot's got developed, but I only printed the ones that I wanted.

That's a problem with personal discipline, not a problem with digital technology.

This dont make any sense....there are a LOT of other incentives to be good at photography other than money spent on your hobby, been better just for personal satisfaction which is possibly the most important of all. I sense a disguised rant about how easy is to start in photography now compared as to 30 years ago.

Jeff Colburn wrote in post #10326351
One of the problems with digital photography is that there are no consequences for being a sloppy photographer, or just bad.

Alternate view from someone whose first camera was a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye when black-and-white television still ruled, and who went through a lot of rolls of Kodak, Fuji and Agfa:

The most important element in developing photographic skills is experience. The expense of processing and printing film artificially limited experience and the chance to take more pictures. Digital imaging gives learning photographers more chances to take more pictures under more conditions than in the era of 35mm film. More chances to take pictures means more chances to learn.

Digital imaging eliminates the cost of learning because there's effectively no cost in taking pictures, encouraging students to spend more time behind the camera and giving them more chances to learn what works and what does not work. The more repetitions at any task or art, the better the student will become. The limits imposed by 35mm film have disappeared in the digital era, and that's been a major benefit for the entire photographic world.

Writing as someone who switched from 35mm film to digital imaging in 1997, when a second generation of consumer digital cameras came onto the market, the extra time spent taking pictures with those digital cameras was the key in getting the experience to use the 21st century's superior digital cameras. After spending years taking a dozen rolls of film to an event, then having to find two minilabs to process that film because one lab couldn't handle the entire load, and having to handle the expense of that processing and printing, there's no reason for any sort of nostalgia over the passing of the era of 35mm film.

And it's hard to think of situations where people should be punished just because they want to learn how to take pictures.

You're probably right. In 2007 a survey of 1,000 professional photographers showed that 89% were using digital. This was either straight digital or shooting film then scanning it.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Good for you. Getting photographers to change from Spray and Pray to thinking before they shoot is what I hope my post will do.

And yes, you will be amazed at what your images will look like in a year.

Have Fun,
Jeff

robertwsimpson wrote in post #10326553
The inexpensive side encourages you to experiment too, which is nice!

Yes, shooting a lot and experimenting will improve your images, and being able to shoot a lot for free is great. As long as photographers think before they shoot, they will continue to improve.

Have Fun,
Jeff

dwarrenr wrote in post #10326611
I still do that with digital. I think you are confusing the P&S people who only want snap shots with people that are trying to create photographs. It's nice being able to shoot a subject several different ways, and if several different composure and just delete what you don't want.

I wrote the post for the P&S people who want to move up to the next level, or for those who have moved up, but their images don't look like they hoped.

Having the freedom to shoot a lot of images without paying for each shot is wonderful, and does allow for more shooting, as long as photographers think before they click.

Have Fun,
Jeff

I couldn't disagree more.

I think I've become a better photographer after switching to digital.

With film I was more conservative, now I find I'm experimenting more, getting feed-back immediately after the shot, trying something different, and learning about what works (and what doesn't).

FWIW, in the film days I (and a lot of others) strove to reduce the cost of pressing the shutter release (as opposed to the cost of a final print) by bulk-loading film, making contact prints, etc. So my attitude hasn't changed, the technology is just supporting it better.

DC Fan wrote in post #10326721
The most important element in developing photographic skills is experience.

I completely agree with DC Fan here ... experience was hindered when cost was a greater factor!

I actually stepped away from photography due to cost factor when film was the only option. Once coming back into the "digital age", I am actually more motivated and inspired to learn, because I know that additional costs are not going to hinder that process!

To me, it's so much more conductive to becoming a better photographer!

Brain Mechanic wrote in post #10326696
I sense a disguised rant about how easy is to start in photography now compared as to 30 years ago.

It's no easier to start in photography today than it was 30 years ago. There were point and shoot cameras then just like today. And professionals had to learn about composition, lighting, exposure and all the other things that photographers learn today. The difference is that when shooting is free it's easy to just Spray and Pray. With film, every photographer had that little voice in their head saying, "Click, there goes 55 cents." Photographers paid more attention to what they were shooting because every shot hit them in the wallet.

Yes, there are more reasons to improve your photography than the cost of shooting. But that was a powerful reason for shooters at all levels. Wanting to make the best image possible separates the casual shooter from the serious one, and my post was designed to give the photographers that want to make that move a little help.

And if you knew me better you would know that I don't disguise my rants. In fact, on the rare occasions when I do rant, I usually end with the sentence, "Let the flame wars begin."

Have Fun,
Jeff