English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Perhaps too many modern gadgets destroy our imaginations.
I'm just as guilty as the next person, but what do you think eh?

2007-11-10 14:17:07 · 14 answers · asked by keefbeef 3 in Arts & Humanities Visual Arts Photography

14 answers

In my experience working and teaching photography is that a lot want to be able to "run" before they can "walk". First and foremost you need to learn the technical side of photography and it does not matter if this is film or digital. You need to know what your camera can do and how to be able to shoot under difficult situations and "get the shot". Most photographers starting out might get a lucky shot and when asked how they did it most have no clue because it was on one of the "AUTO" modes. Ask that same question to a professional photographer and he will tell you what camera, lens, f~stop, ISO, tripod and ball head he used. You can not do the artistic photography without knowing the technical aspects first. A lot here will think other wise and say that a lot can be done in the computer with Adobe Photoshop. This then shows your level of experience shooting if you need to rely on the computer so much. What would you have done if you were shooting with a film camera with slide film??? With slide film what you see is what you get there is very little room for error.

Hope this helps,
Kevin

2007-11-11 01:48:29 · answer #1 · answered by nikonfotos100 4 · 0 0

From photography and DSLR camera basics right through to advanced techniques used by the professionals, this course will quickly and easily get your photography skills focused! Go here https://tr.im/PIfYa
By the end of this course you will have developed an instinctive skill-for-life that will enable you to capture truly stunning photos that not only amaze your friends and family... but could also open the doors to a brand new career.

2016-02-14 21:54:36 · answer #2 · answered by Elicia 3 · 0 0

Isn't the spectrum of answers here quite amazing?

We hear from both sides of the fence and we MUST learn from both sides.

For some, film is the Holy Grail. It's true that learning on film and continuing to use it brings mastery of the medium that will not be enjoyed by anyone who has one year of experience for twenty years in a row. It's also true that digital is a Godsend for many amateur photographers who did not grow up in the "penny a shot" days of bulk loaded black and white photography.

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?"
-Rodney G.King, 1992

2007-11-10 18:00:28 · answer #3 · answered by Picture Taker 7 · 2 0

Just the opposite. Honestly, I can be more creative with a digital image and Picasa than I could with just a film camera and a 1-hour photo lab, because I don't have the thousands of dollars to spend on a darkroom and all the film photography tools. But anyone with a CD of the pictures they took with a film OR digital camera and a PC to play with them on can unleash their creativity to a much greater degree than they ever could before. In the days before digital, most people used to just get their pictures processed and that's the end of it. Now, everyone can be creative. All those ideas that would have stayed in their heads are now emerging from their printers.

2007-11-10 16:09:52 · answer #4 · answered by Me again 6 · 1 1

Digital has certainly meant that more people with little skill and no aesthetic sense are taking way too many pictures.

But just because digital makes it easier to produce crap doesn't mean that all digital photography is crap.

Indeed, I find that digital makes it easier for me to continue to grow and experiment in a field I've pursued for 40 years.

2007-11-10 14:34:03 · answer #5 · answered by Jim M 6 · 1 0

ok there is a mojor differnce from driving somewhere, tramping into the bush, setting up the tripod and camera, reading the light constantly, waiting for the perfect light, making an exposure onto a lrage piece of film at say F8 and 8 seconds, then packing up, going home.

puting the exposure into the lab, getting back a large positive piece of film scanning it to 4gb, then gettinga photographic print poster size.

the above is alot different from shooting 100's of crap images then spending days on a computer trying to "fix" them

people who learn on film find digi kids play........those only know digi are like builders trying to build a house with no foundations - thery rely on shotting lots of crap to get a few ok shots

spending hours setting up a scene and lights n stuiff is image making, an art most dont understand now


digi is for the masses, fine art is still made on film,

digi is about quantity for most users, film shooters generally take alot longer to make images in the camera and hence dont have to spend hours on a computer "fixing" things

both are great like any other skill the user is key not the medium used

EDIT: for some photography is taking crap and then doing "photography" on the computer - and PS can be alot of fun...........call me old fashioned but i prefer to spend time in the field with a camera to sitting in photoshop....we are all different........if people do what they like its a great hobby


a

2007-11-10 14:28:18 · answer #6 · answered by Antoni 7 · 3 1

There are die-hard purists for either side of the spectrum, I'm sure. However, the real issue boils down to exclusivity. If it took me forty years to perfectly learn which knob to twiddle and which buttons to press at exactly the right moment, and then some jackass comes along with his "Sony-find-the-face-adjust-everything-within-two-seconds-of-pressing-the-button" camera, then yeah, I'll probably be a little bit narked. However, if I, with my knowledge of everything photographic, were to pick up said camera and put my knowledge to the test, I would still get fantastic shots.
If people steer clear of the competitive aspects of this, then they will welcome it.

Justin

2007-11-10 14:27:45 · answer #7 · answered by cheezbawl2003 4 · 2 0

Digital is just annother tool in the photographers bag, you still have to have a good eye, great light and the ability to solve technical problems. I prefer film, but really folks should go with what they like to use.

2007-11-10 14:22:15 · answer #8 · answered by J-MaN 4 · 4 0

I do like traditional photography more, but we have to accept that digital cameras are here to stay and we have to get used to it. It does have advantages.

2007-11-10 15:44:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

No.

I learned more from two weeks with a digital camera than 20 years with film.

Why? Instant feedback and unlimited shots made my learning curve go right up through the roof.

Digital is the greatest gift ever for the amateur photographer.

2007-11-10 14:37:41 · answer #10 · answered by V2K1 6 · 3 3

fedest.com, questions and answers