Originally posted by Rondec There was an awful lot of film shot that just turned into snap shots and not art.
It always amuses me that people think that using digital vs film automatically means you're taking more shots. Some people do take hundreds of shots every time they go to shoot, even with film. Some people shoot digital and they come home with maybe 2 rolls worth of digital shots. Every photographer is different that way. I can take 200-300 shots per shoot and honestly not be just taking pics at random. Every now and again I will resort to that just as a way to keep on shooting when I am out of inspiration and I want to work through that, but mostly I'm thinking very hard about what I want to shoot and not doing much of that at all. But I can still come home with the digital equivalent of six rolls of film some days. FYI, my keeper rate is pretty high compared to most photographers, or so I am told.
The only reason I shoot less when I shoot film is because it costs me $8-10 a roll now to process negatives, because the only film lab here in town charges obscene rates for that and because I don't happen to have a darkroom set up. Digital, film, it's all the same to me now. I still go through the same process basically when using either. I think shooting film does slow me down even a bit more sometimes, makes me think just a little bit harder, a good thing, but I still think about every shot even when it's a digital cam. The only major difference is that it's a memory card I'm using and not a film cartridge.
I've had good teachers. I had teachers that insisted I learn to do it the right way, format notwithstanding. I think that has a lot to do with it, with how I shoot. A lot of people they never even read the manual for their cameras let alone learn to properly use them. Technology does make a lot of us lazy photographers, but it really shouldn't. The tech is there for a reason, and all of it can be a valuable tool, but in the end it's the person behind the camera that matters. No amount of post processing can save a truly crappy photo. It's like putting gourmet Belgian chocolate icing on a play dough cake. It might look like the real thing, but it's still not palatable, and on some level you will know that. I can always tell when someone has actually given learning how to use their camera properly a shot and has succeeded in actually becoming a real photographer vs a person who just uses a camera sometimes.
There's a world of difference. There are billions of snapshots out there, some good, some bad, but the real photography it stands out. It is absolutely art, and it moves me utterly at times. Photographers, real ones, those people, and the inspiration of their work, that's why I do what I do. That's why I picked up a camera in the first place. To try to learn to express myself via this art form. That being what's "art" can be rather subjective. What "I" think of art and some snooty pretentious gallery owner might think qualifies are often two very different things...