[jolepp]

Steve Sasson shows off the digital camera he invented for Kodak

Photography firm Kodak has run into hard times, with critics suggesting it has failed to effectively adapt to digital. But four decades ago Kodak was credited with building the first digital camera, an innovation that has changed the world.
...
The impact on professional photographers has been dramatic. Once upon a time a photographer wouldn't dare waste a shot unless they were virtually certain it would work.

Margolis recalls the story of a photographer working in Berlin in 1939. The man had eight photographic plates - eight pictures - to use in six weeks of work. "He'd be covering Nazi rallies and would go the week before to plan it like a film shot, making sure he got the right angles. In the end, out of the eight plates he got four award-winning photos."
...

BBC News - Five ways the digital camera changed us

[Macario]

Nice article, I just totally disagree with it has amde us better photographers. In my opinion, the more shots you need to get the right one. the worse you are as a photographer. As then it is just a question of luck you nailed it that one time.

[GibbyTheMole]

I just totally disagree with it has amde us better photographers. In my opinion, the more shots you need to get the right one. the worse you are as a photographer. As then it is just a question of luck you nailed it that one time.

On the other hand, digital cameras allow unlimited opportunity to practice and hone your skills, thus making you a better photographer. Basically what it boils down to is whether you learn as you go.

[SpecialK]

A good photographer can pick out the good shot regardless of quantity.

---

Last edited by SpecialK; 01-12-2012 at 06:45 PM.

[vonBaloney]

Nice article, I just totally disagree with it has amde us better photographers. In my opinion, the more shots you need to get the right one. the worse you are as a photographer.

It is tempting to think that, but different personality types have different best ways of working. For some, taking a lot of shots is a form of thinking and others are just snapping the shutter hoping something decent ends up on the card (which also can be valid if they spend the time to find those decent shots). What makes a good or bad photographer is not the work process and how many shots they take but when they say, "Ok, here is a finished photo that I think is worthy" whether or not that final product it is actually worthy (by whatever criteria), i.e. it is the results that matter. Some people will take 400 shots to get a good result, others will take 4.

What digital does is tempt everybody to take a lot of shots (whereas film tempted you to restrain yourself). For some, resisting this temptation will create more focus and better work. For others, the opposite is true and being able to take a ton of "free" shots will free them up creatively and they will do their best work that way. The trick is to find what works best for you.

[RioRico]

Since the advent of 'miniature' (tripod not needed) cameras in the 1880s and especially the Kodaks of the 1890s, pros have lamented the mongrelization and degradation of photography. Yikes, there goes the craft, right down the loo! Since then, most photos taken have been crap. Ah, but sift through enough, and the gems emerge. Digital photography just means less wasted cellulose and silver and paper. Just as a larger world population produces more geniuses, so a vast increase in imaging devices produces more nifty-to-great images.

Oh but with spray-and-pray shooting, so many MORE crappy images are captured! What, film pros never burnt through film? I'm looking at a memoir by pioneering PJ Alfred Eisenstaedt, THE EYE OF EISENSTAEDT (highly recommended). Eisie shot some of history's most memorable pictures, most famously the sailor kissing the nurse of VJ Day. In the book are a couple pages of contact prints from 135/FF rolls. One is coverage of a boring post-WW2 UK political meeting. Winnie Churchill is seated onstage with other politicos. He's napping whilst others drone away. Snap, snap snap goes the shutter, on nothing happening. Then the band strikes up G0D SAVE THE K!NG. Winnie jerks awake, flashes a smile and a V-4-VICTORY gang sign, and SNAP! There's the canonical photo. And a roll or three or rejects. That's how event photography works.

Something not mentioned in the article: Not just individuals use photography. Organizations do too. Government organizations. Police agencies. Ubiquitous surveillance. Face-recognition warez that help track our every move. I'll argue that digital photography has led to dissolving privacy. We document ourselves whilst Big Brother Is Watching. And this is non-reversible. Welcome to Hell. Smile!

[rbefly]

What digital does is tempt everybody to take a lot of shots (whereas film tempted you to restrain yourself). For some, resisting this temptation will create more focus and better work. For others, the opposite is true and being able to take a ton of "free" shots will free them up creatively and they will do their best work that way. The trick is to find what works best for you

I tend to agree with this theory. At first I thought digital (SLR) was a magic wand, I could see what was being taken right away, a faster learning curve than waiting for film to develop, trying to remember what f-stop was used, etc.
And at first, a few lessons were learned, "I should have opened it up, blurred out the background", "Use a polarizer next time!" and so on.
But...here's the rub. The lessons came too fast for my poor brain to absorb and recall while I was shooting. I'd fall back on years of habits, some good, some not.
So, it may be that the non-film (background) shooters are better able to adapt than us old geezers? To take advantage of the technology.
Maybe.
Ron

[JinDesu]

On the other hand, digital cameras allow unlimited opportunity to practice and hone your skills, thus making you a better photographer. Basically what it boils down to is whether you learn as you go.

This is true. If limited to film, I may not have learned as fast as I have. In half a year, I have learned so much because I have taken 15,000 shots. If I were to have taken 15,000 shots on 24 roll film, it would have cost me far more than my camera itself.

People who want to learn have a better chance of accelerated learning. Of course, it does also allow people who don't care to learn to shoot, too though.