Has going digital changed your approach tp photography?

I have been shooting digital for a couple of years, albeit with a pretty poor camera by today's standards. The limitations of the camera have held me back from using it as much as I might have done, but I nonetheless think that the following aspects of digital will inevitably lead to a number of changes.

1 The low cost (£zero if you don't print) will lead to greater experimentation.
2 Being able to see the picture immedately after shooting will lead to fewer lost/poor shots.
3 The ease of cropping pictures on computer means that the use of zooms might diminish somewhat. (I'm ditching some zooms in favour of primes or short ratio zooms.)
4 If zooms become less popular, so might auto-focus (prime lenses have larger apertures, and are easier to focus manually).
5 If prime lenses become more popular, quality will improve.
6 The end of "high street" print processing, with all the attendant colour balance problems, will enormously improve the quality of "snaps".
7 The ease with which pictures can be viewed on computer, and published on the web, will increase interest in good images, and increase the amount of time people spend looking at phototgraphs.

I think we are already seeing improvements. Shotgun's excellent images (see his "new gallery" post) are a case in point. If he had shot those on slide or neg we would probably never have seen them, and they probably wouldn't have been so good because fine-tuning would have been much more difficult.

Digital may never be able to replace the magic of seeing a black and white image appear in the tray, but otherwise I can't think of anything to say against it (except the current high price of cameras!).

George,

There are some interesting points you've raised...
I would certainly agree that digital has changed the way I approach photography. My first digital was the Canon S30 which I used solidly for a few weeks. When I went back to my Pentax Z1 it was like rediscovering photography I then knew what would work, and what wouldn't - rather than having to wait for the slides to come back and wonder why on earth I took that photo!

However, now I have the *istD, it is different again. There is the SLR feel, plus the digital convenience.

I find zooms fantastically useful, personally. You still need the change in focal length - narrower DOF for telephoto - as well as the 'cropping' ability. Indeed, going from 20mm to 300mm cannot be achieved satisfactorily on any camera (film or digital) with just cropping. I agree that primes are a better choice for quality. However, I have found switching lenses to be a real pain when with the family (it's more of a pain for them - "Oh, do get a move on and try and keep up with the toddlers!!") Having a good quality long range zoom has been very helpful indeed (the Tokina 24-200).

Ah, but the sheer convenience of digital is great. I read that the PhotoMe chain will be releasing public "vending" machines for printing real photos direct from memory cards, and cheaply too. It is just such a shame that Photoshop is so expensive (I know there are other great packages out there, like PSP, and Gimp, but PS works for me - just glad I can use it for work! PSE2 is a great package too though.)

And then, there is the subject of art... Having a good quality image (ie razor sharp) does not in itself make a good image! I recently stumbled on a very nice gallery that was shot with the S30 - most of the images were not particularly high image quality (some were really poor), but the way they had been presented, and the subjects themselves really made the shots. That gallery brought me "down to earth" - you can make great images irrespective of the image quality!

I do find that some "going back to basics" is always helpful - composition, lighting, subject material etc. The Pentax User Mag has been very helpful in that regard

Well, that's my penny-worth
Matt

I agree with the points you brought about, George!

For me, one change that's very obvious is the near-absence of shooting cost! (if you don't mind ) When I was shooting in film, I had to think properly before each shot and yet a lot of pics have been just thrown away out of every roll

In fact, I do have a lot of slides during my "film years" but they are all kept in my album, and now I'm too lazy to have them all scanned!!

On the subject of art, Matt is right. A very sharp, correctly exposed image does not necessarily mean a good picture. Aspects of art play an important role too, like composition, lighting, color, patterns... etc.. etc..
Sometimes, when a composition is very good, the technical details become transparent.

Somebody has said "Everyone can own a camera, but not everyone is a photographer"


Cheers!!

I certainly didn't want to suggest that a good photograph is just a matter of correct focus and exposure. It needs both art and craftsmanship.
But, more experiment, more clicks of the shutter, more editing, less High Street processing, and more exposure to the critical gaze of others SHOULD lead to a raising of standards generally. I hope.

It depends. I have never found conventional photography to be restricting - if the subject warrants it quite a few of my prints have been montages/combination prints for various reasons. Some of them I have recreated digitally by scanning the original component negatives. Physically cutting up prints and sticking them together and using layers in Photoshop can amount to the same thing and in the end the process has been driven by the desire to create a particular statement in visual terms.

I don't think my actual photography has changed at all - only the techniques used and the method of getting to the end result may be different. (And, as I still use my darkroom, maybe it will sometimes stay the same)

George, thanks for starting an interesting topic. However I can't really agree totally with the points you have made.
1. From a personal perspective the 'no-cost' side of digital shooting has no led me to greater experimentation, more likely a lazy approach to picture taking as I can always just delete the failures.
2. I do agree that the ability to see an effect instantly has benefits, though I am not sure it reduces lost shots - conversely I have found with the Grandchildren around that I have missed shots while admiring the instant play back from a few moments earlier!
3. Your argument about using the computer 'lightroom' for cropping and editing images is spot on. I find this even with scanned negs or slides - the quality of fixed focal length optics shines through.
4. Autofocus is here to stay! - having seen it move successfully into the medium format arena there can be no serious thoughts that the trend will be reversed.
5. The greater the popularity of zoom lenses the better the quality - but they are still judged against prime optics. Advances in design may improve both in the future.
6. I have not used any of the high street digital processors yet, but I do wonder if some of the problems around print quality from these outlets will be just the same regardless of the original media - and many people will use this form of print production rather than sit in front of the PC and produce thier own.
7. Anything that encourages more people into our hobby and help promote quality images must be a good thing. Interesting when browsing the numerous online galleries how many of the images are scanned from slides and negs rather than being 'straight' digital. No doubt though that direct digital imaging is gaining ground fast.

I scan most of my images from 35mm, medium format and can't really say that I find a great deal of difference in the effort required to manipulate these from straight digital images - likewise the quality from the scanned images is every bit as good. The main drawback with film is it is not instant, and a bit more care is required with the media to keep it clean and scratch free, but in its defense no hardware crash or corruption has ever robbed me of a film based image!

I seem to have got carried away here! - longer than my average post. I should end by saying I love my digital cameras (an Optio S4 and dare I say it a Canon 10D) but for now they co-exist comfortably with my more traditional film based kit with neither as yet being an automatic first choice (except the S4 which I carry everywhere)