PHOTOGRAPHER’S JOURNEY.com

Up front I have to say I am such a huge advocate for digital photography. I could probably be hired as an evangelist. Hmm… now that you mention it… not such a bad thought!

I make my living as a television news journalist which involves far more writing than technology. But I have been a lover of computers since my parents bought one of the first Tandy TRS-80s back in the early ’70s. Never could I have dreamed that they would do what they do now…especially when it comes to photography.

But the fact is, digital technology and computers have opened up photography to the masses in a very powerful way. It is far easier now for a basic point-and-shooter to take a picture that looks decent than it ever was if she/he was to do so with an old 35 mm camera. Is this a good thing? I read some interesting thoughts on this over at A. Marques’ blog page:

Nowadays, from the most basic compact camera to the most expensive dSLR, one big advantage is that you can take 100 shots of the same subject and, on the spot, select your keepers. No doubt that this is a huge advantage, but alas, one that has its price: the learning curves of understanding photography are getting much more gradual. For the most part, even with good equipment (entry level dSLRs), users are just pointing and shooting, transforming photography into a snapshot game of chance. If it comes out good, fine, if not, let’s try again.

And camera manufactures are not helping: every new camera model comes packed with predefined “scene” modes that make knowledge of photography non-essential. I can understand their point of view: if a consumer is willing to pay higher prices for something, then they make it easier, and thus attracting more clients.

Planning of photos has mostly disappeared. Thinking about angles, lighting, and of course how this would translate into what camera settings were needed to nail that shot is something of the past (if ever) for many. Ask around from people with cameras what effect aperture has on the depth of field, just as an example, and you’ll probably get surprised looks or at most an answer taken directly from the camera manual.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I see his point. When I first learned photography with a fully-manual Pentax K1000 back in the 1980s I was forced to learn everything about the camera. From aperture to shutter speed to ISO (we called it ASA back then) to focal length to depth of field to color temperatures and on and on.

This made the learning curve for photography very steep and because every picture I took literally cost more money, my progress as a college student was slow. It took years and a lot of patience to get the kind of pictures out of my camera that I always dreamed of making. But to me, it was like any other art form — it took time, patience and practice to grow my techniques and my style.

As Marques points out, that’s no longer the case. But I disagree that it’s a bad thing. The best photography — digital or not — is still very easy to spot among the masses, in my opinion. The “average” shooter is more likely to walk away with images that at least they don’t have to be embarrassed about, and they don’t even really have to understand why. Occasionally, this means some people will make exceptionally good images without even trying. But is that a bad thing?

I don’t think it devalues a profession or an art form one bit if some amateurs occasionally stumble into greatness. Good for them. Maybe it will inspire them to go out and learn a bit so their batting average will get better.

To me, photography is a wonderful gift. Understanding it and understanding how to get the most out of each image is a big learning curve… even in the digital age. While it’s easy to get acceptable pictures, the really powerful stuff — true art — is still something difficult to achieve…and every bit worth striving for.

Popularity: 3% [?]

If you enjoyed this post, be sure to subscribe to my RSS feed!