Become A Better Digital Photographer

Maybe...after reading the manual. Even then, unless he does some further reading, he's likely to overexpose the heck out of it.

By the same token, a very proficient DSLR photographer--after doing some reading--will also be able to take a decent picture with a view camera.

Neither photographer got to be "very proficient" by being stupid.

I wouldn't be very good with an ink well and a quill; that doesn't mean I can't write.

chauncey wrote in post #10358768
So Marine, how do you process your B&W, large or medium format, images, darkroom or scan them into Photoshop, and/or a plug-in like Nik Silver Efex Pro.

I haven't shot any large format in years but for the zone system to work properly you need to process all of your say N+1 negatives together. All or you normal negative together, all or your N-1 negative together, etc. You have tested to find you proper ISO and also tested to find your proper development times for normal, N+1, N+2, N-1, N-2 etc and you have also tested the paper you will be using with the film and the enlarger you will be printing from and you will even note the enlarger height and you will also find where your zone IX is (last perceivable tone before pure white) with grade 2 paper. So to really do it properly and see it all the way through to print you need to make prints.

I have scanned into photoshop some of my old negs but again I prefer silver gelatin prints over ink on paper, now anyway. B&W digital print quality has come a long way but its still the silver in my opinion that still holds the mojo for B&W zone system print because as I've already mentioned, I have tested the entire system for everything that is being used in it. What all of that does is give the photographer complete control over his image so its his vision or what he saw in his minds eye that he can faithfully and most import consistently reproduce what he saw in a print.

Many of these zone system photographers called color a barbaric process because, until digital, you didn't have that kind of control over the final image that you had with zone system B&W. Because if you start doing things like changing development time you start getting drastic color shifts that can't be overcome when printing.

Digital color is an entirely different thing and you now can control contrast easily as well as color. And this is why I think that learning some of these old horse and buggy techniques can be very useful in the digital world. Fully understanding what a full range print is, what it looks like and how to achieve it can be very useful when shooting digital. So this knowledge can ve a great tool to have. Knowledge is always a great tool and the funny part its out there and anyone can get it but its usually not easy but its all in the journey.

chauncey wrote in post #10358768
So Marine, how do you process your B&W, large or medium format, images, darkroom or scan them into Photoshop, and/or a plug-in like Nik Silver Efex Pro.

I don't think Silver Efex Pro would be much help with scanned and inverted B&W negatives since it largely relies upon a color image for its filters.

Tadaaa wrote in post #10358936
I wouldn't be very good with an ink well and a quill; that doesn't mean I can't write.

Yeah that analogy is lame and the equivalent wouldn't be a view camera it would be more on target if you said a camera obscura because both writing with a quill and ink would be the same as the way artist used this devise to from images.

Like I've already mention and is true a view camera is not that far from todays DSLR but instead its your brain making the decisions because it is all still light tight box. lens, shutter and aperture.

So I've stated why I think that learning things like the zone system and working with large format can make you a better photographer. I would like to hear why you think it won't help you become a better photographer.

And I also wanted to state again for the 3rd or 4th time I have never said its necessary. I have only said it can make you a better photographer if you take the time to learn it. But again I guess its the old jarhead talking why wouldn't anyone try to be the absolute best at what they do no matter how hard it is to get there. Instead of fighting it, try it. You might not only learn a ton on the journey but you might also enjoy the ride.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10359059
So I've stated why I think that learning things like the zone system and working with large format can make you a better photographer. I would like to hear why you think it won't help you become a better photographer.

as i stated earlier:

it's all about opportunity cost. when you dedicate massive amounts of time into one thing, you are taking from something else. if my aim is to become the best food photographer in the world, learning the craft of sports photography will not help me as much as studying food photography. using a view camera may make you a better photographer in general, but you are sacrificing time that may be better utilized elsewhere.

the burden of proof isn't as you say to provide evidence that "it won't help you become a better photographer". that is as lame an analogy as what you're claiming the ink and quill example to be. it will obviously make you better as you are learning something new, but whether or not it serves your own ends is a whole different thing.

ps: putting yourself through culinary school, getting a degree in graphic design, and becoming a professional ballet dancer could all potentially make you a better food photographer. the question is why that is good advice in contrast to studying the very field you wish to excel in instead. does that make sense to you?

RDKirk wrote in post #10358875
Maybe...after reading the manual. Even then, unless he does some further reading, he's likely to overexpose the heck out of it.

By the same token, a very proficient DSLR photographer--after doing some reading--will also be able to take a decent picture with a view camera.

Neither photographer got to be "very proficient" by being stupid.

An aperture is an aperture and most large view camera photographers are very knowledgeable just because of the beast and I would say also have experiences transparency film and many other formats so I think a quick spin around to know how to change shutter speeds ISO and a[erture and hes probably making fairly good images in less no time.

But a view camera, yeah some might be able to do it pretty quick but I would say the majority can't even use a incident meter let alone know how to use and decipher a spot meter. Then to be able to just focus a view camera, oh and why is the image upside down and do I really need this cloth thingy, and how to set the shutter speeds and aperture let alone dealing with the tilts, swings, rise's and falls. I can tell you I've done both a lot and a DSLR is a ton easy to master and the skills needed to use a view camera and master the zone system are much more difficult and RD you know that. And those skills can make you a better digital photographer no matter how you slice it.

alt4852 wrote in post #10359088
as i stated earlier:

it's all about opportunity cost. when you dedicate massive amounts of time into one thing, you are taking from something else. if my aim is to become the best food photographer in the world, learning the craft of sports photography will not help me as much as studying food photography. using a view camera may make you a better photographer in general, but you are sacrificing time that may be better utilized elsewhere.

the burden of proof isn't as you say to provide evidence that "it won't help you become a better photographer". that is as lame an analogy as what you're claiming the ink and quill example to be. it will obviously make you better as you are learning something new, but whether or not it serves your own ends is a whole different thing.

ps: putting yourself through culinary school, getting a degree in graphic design, and becoming a professional ballet dancer could all potentially make you a better food photographer. the question is why that is good advice in contrast to studying the very field you wish to excel in instead. does that make sense to you?

You have the rest of your life to learn. Why does it always have to be one or the other. I've like many others have found the time and its only made me a better photographer thus helping me get and keep clients and its also helped me with my personal work. If your serious you will find the time to learn.

But we are not talking about being a photographer and studying to be a chef and then trying to be a history professor we are talking shutter speeds and apertures. We are talking photography and becoming a better photographer. Being a great chef doesn't mean just knowing how to just make Italian. And even great chefs are constantly learning and changing. As are any greats in any field and they are usually very knowledgeable about the field not to just the things that interest them but everything and they are better for it.

If your just gonna take pictures of the kids or sunsets when your on vacation your camera usually has enough knowledge for ya but if you really want to master your craft be a sponge and don't shut the doors of learning to anything.

If I would have stopped trying to learn as much as I could I like nay others would still be shooting only film. But shooting film especially large format has made me a much better photographer as it has many others.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10359059
..

So I've stated why I think that learning things like the zone system and working with large format can make you a better photographer. I would like to hear why you think it won't help you become a better photographer.

What is driving me nuts about where this thread has gone is: this is not what the OP was suggesting. Leaning the zone system might be helpful (I don't know, I have never used it.. as I would bet the OP never has either). And learning how to use and develop "actual" film is probably still helpful. And I would not argue at all with the application of medium and large format film cameras (actually any film camera).

What the OP suggested is that a digital photographer can become a better digital photographer by imposing some of the limitations of film (no chimping, no use of histograms or the LCD at all, a long time between taking an viewing images and a limit of 72 shots per shoot) and dismissed any digital advantages (by not mentioning them). And while I get what he intended to say (take your time, think about your shot, think about the lighting .... before taking the exposure) his plan on doing that (driving an hour, only take 72 shots) is completely lame. Perhaps a better approach might be to limit yourself to 1 shot every two minutes and use that time, and all of the tools right on the digital camera to scrutinize that shot to death before taking the next shot.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10359011
I haven't shot any large format in years but for the zone system to work properly you need to process all of your say N+1 negatives together. All or you normal negative together, all or your N-1 negative together, etc. You have tested to find you proper ISO and also tested to find your proper development times for normal, N+1, N+2, N-1, N-2 etc and you have also tested the paper you will be using with the film and the enlarger you will be printing from and you will even note the enlarger height and you will also find where your zone IX is (last perceivable tone before pure white) with grade 2 paper. So to really do it properly and see it all the way through to print you need to make prints.

This is the beauty about shooting sheet film.. Each sheet can be processed individually,, pushed or pulled at will..

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10359230
You have the rest of your life to learn. Why does it always have to be one or the other. I've like many others have found the time and its only made me a better photographer thus helping me get and keep clients and its also helped me with my personal work. If your serious you will find the time to learn.

But we are not talking about being a photographer and studying to be a chef and then trying to be a history professor we are talking shutter speeds and apertures. We are talking photography and becoming a better photographer. Being a great chef doesn't mean just knowing how to just make Italian. And even great chefs are constantly learning and changing. As are any greats in any field and they are usually very knowledgeable about the field not to just the things that interest them but everything and they are better for it.

If your just gonna take pictures of the kids or sunsets when your on vacation your camera usually has enough knowledge for ya but if you really want to master your craft be a sponge and don't shut the doors of learning to anything.

If I would have stopped trying to learn as much as I could I like nay others would still be shooting only film. But shooting film especially large format has made me a much better photographer as it has many others.

i think we're just thinking on different timelines. i would never advocate "shutting the doors of learning" in any sense of the phrase, but i think prioritizing is important. i mentioned the chef analogy because i think it's safe to say that becoming a world class chef will certainly improve the abilities of a food photographer. however, such an endeavor is a lifelong commitment and if the person's goal is to become the greatest food photographer out there, i think careful study of the final presented dishes themselves may garner results more effectively. if you are first and foremost a photographer, dedicating your life to becoming a chef is not the most efficient way to improve your skills.

as for photography, large format techniques are not fully applicable to every niche of the craft as a whole. yes, we are working with shutter speeds and apertures, but if your chosen focus is on work that involves learning the delicacies of extremely wide apertures and fast shutter speeds, dedicating years into learning how an image reacts to a different format size, apertures that creating massive amounts of DOF and shutter speeds that reflect the fact that you're always on a tripod.. it's simply not the same. if i had spent my time using a view camera the last few years, i would not be so well versed in the use of my f/1.2 lenses and all of the techniques to hand hold steadily at slow shutter speeds. they are the same form of art in the fact that it is all photography, but they are vastly different in real world use.

at the end of the day though, i would love to learn how to use a view camera and i have no doubt that it will make me a better photographer. however, i don't think this sort of advice is applicable until you have a solid foundation in your own focused area of study first. you cannot study 4x5 technique to learn 35mm skills as well as studying 35mm techniques would be for learning 35mm skills. it's not closed mindedness, it's just knowing how to prioritize. it's learning how to walk before you run.

hairy_moth wrote in post #10359274
What is driving me nuts about where this thread has gone is: this is not what the OP was suggesting. Leaning the zone system might be helpful (I don't know, I have never used it.. as I would bet the OP never has either). And learning how to use and develop "actual" film is probably still helpful. And I would not argue at all with the application of medium and large format film cameras (actually any film camera).

What the OP suggested is that a digital photographer can become a better digital photographer by imposing some of the limitations of film (no chimping, no use of histograms or the LCD at all, a long time between taking an viewing images) and dismissed any digital advantages (by not mentioning them). And while I get what he intended to say (take your time, think about your shot, think about the lighting .... before taking the exposure) his plan on doing that (driving an hour, only take 72 shots) is completely lame. Perhaps a better approach might be to limit yourself to 1 shot every two minutes and use that time and all of the tools that digital offers right on the camera to scrutinize that shot to death before taking the next shot.

Well I wouldn't look at that as limitations. If you have learned the zone system you really don't need histograms because you've tested everything and luck isn't in the game anymore.

But I have never suggested not using digital. In fact if you read I have said that for color I prefer digital. What I have suggested is it can be a great learning tool for digital because it gives you knowledge.

If you don't like the thread there are certainly many, many other threads on this site so you don't have to come in if it really bothers you but if you read the title of the post I certainly think this discussion is within the framework of "Become A Better Digital Photographer." And if its opened the door to some wanting to seek more knowledge then whats so bad about that?

You can certainly do what you want but what you've suggested is not going to give you the depth and understanding of exposure and how reflective light can be measured and how to interpret the info the meter is giving you. Most really good photographers even if they use auto modes know that there are many times the meter and the cameras auto modes need to be circumvented.

yogestee wrote in post #10359298
This is the beauty about shooting sheet film.. Each sheet can be processed individually,, pushed or pulled at will..

This is equally true of digital imagery.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10359163
An aperture is an aperture and most large view camera photographers are very knowledgeable just because of the beast and I would say also have experiences transparency film and many other formats so I think a quick spin around to know how to change shutter speeds ISO and a[erture and hes probably making fairly good images in less no time.

But a view camera, yeah some might be able to do it pretty quick but I would say the majority can't even use a incident meter let alone know how to use and decipher a spot meter. Then to be able to just focus a view camera, oh and why is the image upside down and do I really need this cloth thingy, and how to set the shutter speeds and aperture let alone dealing with the tilts, swings, rise's and falls. I can tell you I've done both a lot and a DSLR is a ton easy to master and the skills needed to use a view camera and master the zone system are much more difficult and RD you know that. And those skills can make you a better digital photographer no matter how you slice it.

This brings back old memories, in my first photography job I was told to shoot some copy work on 4x5. Up till then I had just used 35mm and MF, I set the camera up OK but when I was about to make the exposure I had to go ask my boss if the aperture was the same on 4x5 as on the other cameras. Duh, everybody has to start somewhere.

A problem here is the idea of a "digital photographer." What is a "digital photographer?" Robby the Robot holding a camera? "Danger Will Robinson! Overexposure imminent!"

I said earlier that a sports photographer would be better served to divide his time between using the equipment he's going to use for sports and learning about the sport...not learning to use an 8x10 view camera. If I were a newspaper editor needing to send a photographer to Iraq and had to choose between someone who was pretty darned good with a Canon 1D and someone pretty darned good with a Linhof, I know I wouldn't choose the guy with the Linhof.

What of all the old film photographers who found it hard as heck to transfer their knowledge to digital photograpy? Who were dumbfounded by the "learning curve" of digital photography? Who refused to even call "digital photography" "photography" at all, because to acknowledge digital output as "photography" marginalized everything they knew?

All those folk certainly didn't seem to believe that their film knowledge gave them a leg up. Maybe it did--certainly they didn't have to learn anything new about how the front end of the camera worked. But they somehow didn't think so. Many of them failed and just said, "Digital sucks. It ain't even 'photography.'"