How Digital Photography is Hurting You (And What To Do About It)

[@russellpruitt9008]

Right on. I'm increasingly surprised by the number of (especially young) people who consider themselves "a photographer" who are really litlle more than a "computer operator" who mostly just "turns it on" with a shutter trigger. And if there's something (even basic" that is "off" in the photo(s), they are essentially clueless about what caused it or how to fix it next time. And the concept of making a fairly large PRINT has rarely occurred to them, much less been done. Meanwhile, they're told by social media that what they do is "fine art" if all they did in post was click through 73 of the 100 filter-preset pack (made by someone else) which they bought online for $37 "this week only" until they found one filter that looks cool but have no idea what it did, why, nor how to adapt and apply it to another photo with different characteristics and get the same cool look.

[@raymondbenton5928]

I use Nikon digital cameras, after years of using Nikon FM2s because of cost of slide film which I used and its processing. That said, I treat my shooting excursions as if I am shooting film and try to see how many images I like from shooting 36 images at an outing.

[@PeltierPhoto]

It sure gets expensive...but that doesn't mean you have to change how you shoot. Glad to hear it :)

[@wilfs1196]

As a senior & using film probably longer than digital, I still shoot & compose as if I was using film. I have the time & patience ( unless my wife is with me). "So, get a lot of shot s today " the family asks. Maybe 15 or close to 20. Not sure how many are keepers. As the saying goes, " Quality photo, not quality image" There is a difference. I believe it was Ansel Adams said, The objective by the end of the year is to have 10 photos that you will keep, or words to that effect.

[@PeltierPhoto]

I mention the exact same thing to my students :) If they're unhappy because they didn't get 20 great images in one DAY, I remind them that Ansel Adams used to consider that an excellent YEAR. Thanks!

[@bassistadisinistra]

Digital Photography brought me actually back into photography because i could learn without going to the lab every time to find out that NONE of them were awesome. So i gave up photography in the nineties and restarted again in zeros. Now I’m shooting less pictures and some times i don’t press the shutter because i know the picture will not be good. I want to have more keepers nowadays. I like to think first about the shot even if i can store 1000 of them in my camera.

[@PeltierPhoto]

That's certainly one of the advantages of digital - instant feedback to know how your settings are affecting your photo, without having to pay/wait for development. So long as each photo is made intentionally :)

[@chelseal654]

A simple counter solution is a knitting stitch counter. Clover makes one that all you have to do is click the top and it auto advances, goes up to 99.

[@PeltierPhoto]

Great idea, thank you!

[@luzr6613]

I'll suggest a couple of caveats here: first, the problem obviously isn't the capacities that digital provides. The 'problem' is that there are some people, as there have always been, who don't take the time to assess all the variables in order to put a decent photo together. This was true with film, as it is true with digital, simply because while the tech has changed dramatically, people are essentially the same. But is this actually a 'problem'? It's only potentially a problem if you're someone who wants to 'improve' their photography... and many people who take photos probably aren't that fussed, which is fine. There are any number of shit golfers and tennis players for exactly the same reason, but they're having fun and they don't care (and neither should i). Moving on... 'spray and pray'. What i don't like is that this term is mainly used as a generalized disparagement while completely overlooking its photographic utility. The capacity for 'spray and pray' has brought us many of the most captivating and peculiarly unique images of the last thirty years. While it has made for little impact in certain genres - ie Architectural photography, others - ie sports and wildlife - have been transformed. The idea that thought, care, effort and understanding hasn't gone into getting these images using 'spray and pray' is just not universally true - it's actually the only way that these images were ever realistically attainable. One last point... the film era is (also) awash with rubbish photos - incompetence, laziness and the determination of the Professional using a bulk film-back to capture hundreds of images in order to get the one good shot have all contributed to the pile. All those sheets of negatives being reviewed with the occasional frame being circled... the career of a recognized Master in the Craft defined by a scant few images - photography has long been a numbers game. Cheers.

[@PeltierPhoto]

For sure, advances in technology have given us some amazing burst rates where the difference between a "photo of the year" and a shit photo might be a millisecond. There is certainly utility for that in sports/action/wildlife photography. What I'm referring to - and apologies if I didn't clarify my terminology - are the photographers who, for example, might be photographing a street market. They put their camera in burst mode, point it in one direction, fire off a burst of photos, point it in another direction and fire off another burst, and so on. Not only do they have hundreds of duplicate photos, but none of them had any consideration as to what makes an image compelling. It's just a numbers game like you said, and some will be keepers because, as another commenter mentioned, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Since we essentially have an infinite number of free photos available to us in the digital era, why not if you don't care about improving your craft? The scale of this kind of "numbers game" never existed in the days of film, where, of course there were people who still didn't care. Those who don't care to improve their craft and want to rely on luck, if that's what they want to do, go for it, but I doubt they're watching or care about a challenge like this. Those who want to improve their craft and maybe haven't thought about it like this before, I hope the challenge helps them think and become better. Happy holidays.

[@harikaimal5081]

Excellent comment, and a great reply, thus completely covering all the relevant points. ❤

[@GerritADHS]

That‘s why I‘be bought some 2GB cards. They give me around 50 exposures if I shoot RAW.

[@PeltierPhoto]

That’s one way of limiting your exposures :)

[@reinhard8053]

That might be an exercise for new photographers or those who just take burst of anything. But there are many situations where you can't control everything that happens or even can't control every detail on the viewfinder afterwards, only at home at a large monitor. In that cases taking some more pictures is not wrong. Not speaking of sports, animals or events where you have to react to often unforeseeable actions. Or where you use highspeed function to overcome lighting problems by shooting enough pictures to get even one sharp. I have the opposite problem. I started with film. I saw the restriction with underwater photography. You have 36 picture for one dive. How many do you keep for later ? Maybe a whaleshark swims near you at the end of the dive. Or there is absolutely nothing of interest in the end and the remaining pictures are lost, because you neer a fresh film for the next dive. Today with digital I still take too few pictures (e.g. at a trip). Composition might have been OK, but there was some detail I didn't see at controling the picture. Or there are moving parts and in the end every picture shows something I don't like. I need to do MORE pictures with different angles and with more details of everything or even use the highspeed function, which to me as a former film guy still is weird.

[@PeltierPhoto]

An “exercise” is an exercise regardless of your skill level. Andres Segovia was the best classical guitar player in the world because he continued to practice basic scales daily, even into his seventh decade of playing the guitar. Do I limit myself to 36 exposures when doing commissioned work or the like? Of course not, that’s not practical. But doing this exercise every so often helps me photograph more efficiently when I am doing more important work.

[@DavidSwinney]

Jeez. What a grinch.

[@nospam-hn7xm]

Not really. Having lived and worked in the days of "film" photography, I know exactly what he's talking about. There was one job I had that required a view camera. View cameras (think Ansel Adams) use "sheet" film. I usually used 4x5-inch sheets (on special occasions, 8x10, requiring a larger camera). The film sheets were loaded, by hand, into a flat light-proof holder, which held two sheets, one on each side. Before starting your shoot, this loading was done either in the darkroom or in a film-changing bag. So, if you carried three holders, you had six exposures. You made darn sure your focus and exposure were spot-on before pressing the shutter release. There was no such thing as multiple exposures--no bracketing. So yes, in this sense, digital photography has created a generation of "lazy" photographers. After all, even a broken clock can show the correct time twice a day.