[navcom]

This keeps getting trotted out, but unless you bought your computer specifically for photography, it doesn't make sense to count it in the cost of photography. Most people these days have a computer already. It'd be like saying your film photography was cheaper because cars cost less in the past.

I understand your logic. But if you are an avid photography...even an ametuer/hobbyist...the use of your computer (even part time) still contributes to it's cost, though only a percentage. Unless you could say that if your computer puked, it would have zero effect on your digital photography? If you can say that, then don't count it in the cost.

We use our computer about 50% of the time for digital photography, so for our household budgeting, 50% of it's cost goes to that hobby. Without the computer, it would greatly impact the hobby.

I would not have purchased Lightroom or Photoshop if I wasn't into photography. I would not have purchased the printer I have if it wasn't for photography. I would have purchased the cheapest one I could find. Same with the monitor. All these purchases were partly influenced by my photography hobby, thus they add to the cost of the hobby. There is no way around that unless your budget is a lie made to make you feel better about where you spend your money.

Also I would not have the backup drives and off-site backup service if it was not for my photography....more cost figured in.

Everyone's cost for digital is different depending on what equipment you choose to invest in and what your level of involvement in photography is. My point is that so many folks think that since it's digital, all your pictures are "free". It's just not true. Depending on what you do with your photography it will cost more or less than film....but it still costs.

[Venturi]

Wordy and somewhat rambling thoughts follow...

As Mike typed earlier in the discussion - the operative word is can. If the photographer is dedicated enough, and the learning environment is disciplined enough, then yes I do believe that digital can accelerate the learning process.
But if you were to take two people of equal aptitude, mentality and resources (perhaps one is a clone of the other ) and hand one of them a PZ-10 and a couple primes and the other a K2000 two lens kit and set them loose, then review their photography after six months you would see that the first shooter with the K1000 has achieved a much higher skill level overall than the second one with the K2000.

My analogy to this is my experience over the past 30 years in computer programming.
When I first began programming in 1978 there were no "personal computers" and CPU time cost money. Every time you ran a program it literally cost you. So when we wrote programs first we wrote them out by hand on paper. Then we built logic tables and "ran" the programs line by line on paper. We debugged the code on paper. Only after we were "certain" we'd gotten all the logic right did we type the code into the mainframe (punch cards or dumb terminals) and execute it. We were seriously disappointed if the code did not run properly the first time.
By the mid-80s personal computers and minis were fairly commonplace and you had built-in compilers with syntax checkers and debug tools. We designed on-the-fly as we hurriedly churned out code - pausing every so often to "run it" and see what mistakes we'd made along the way - and often got to the end only to figure out that we'd totally botched a requirement and had to back track and re-write significant portions of the original code. The entire attitue had changed from expecting a first run success to elation if the code ran correctly, if at all, after the tenth "run".

I'm not saying digital is bad, far from it actually. But while digital does bring convenience it also can just as easily breed laziness. The "shoot now and fix it later in post" mentality - I'm certainly guilty of it.
The flipside of it is digital opens the door to photography to some people who otherwise might never have picked up a camera because the recurring cost of processing and printing is prohibitive or too bothersome. I'm not referring to the $10 per roll at Walgreens cost, but the cost of printing 8x10 and larger prints. There is a huge intellectual and emotional leap from viewing a photograph printed at 4x6 versus the same photo displayed full screen on a 19" monitor. That simple difference itself can be the bridge between someone looking at photography as simply a means of "snapping pics of the kids" and finding a real creative outlet for their own art.

[MRRiley]

Yes, a master photographer knows his equipment inside out, the lighting, everything, so he sets up the shot the way he wants or to the best way possible and shoots knowing in advance how they'll come out. He takes just 2 or 3 photos just in case one comes up bad.

"The pro can do it in just a couple of shots" is a MYTH!!! Look at a typical National Geographic spread of say 12 photos. I guarantee that the photographer spent weeks if not months in the field and shot hundreds or thousands of photos. A pro will shoot as many shots as possible in the understanding that he may not get it exactly right every time he hits the shutter button. Also consider that most pro sports photographers like 9fps cameras so they can blast away with the hope to get the split second in time that they need.

Actually, taking 30 shots when 1 will do is BAD. Bad because it takes work to go through all those bad shots to find the good one. If you can do it right in one try you save yourself a lot of time.

Sure you can save time, but if you screw up and miss the shot because you only took one or two you screwed up big time. Better to have a shot that's close, than no shot at all (see the pro sports photographer comment above).

The question is...

If digital enables a person to shoot twenty frames in order to get one great picture, can that person get the great picture if he had time to shoot only three frames? Or is the digital camera encouraging the photographer to play a game of warmer/colder rather than thinking ahead?

This comes with practice and experience. its true that the better you get the fewer shots you have to take, but thats because you get better at knowing if you got it right already. Otherwise shoot till you feel you've gotten it right... Even a pro will do this...

It is true that the cost of operation of a digital camera is near zero compared to the price of good film. But my K1000 lasted fifteen years. I bought my K20D just 30 months after buying my *ist DL2. I think that ate the cost savings.

Did your istDL break, forcing you to buy the K20D? I doubt it. No, you bought the K20D because it offered improved capabilities and features. Film camera technology did not change as quickly as digital technology does thus film cameras lasted for decades versus years for digital. Given equal quality lenses, there is little difference in the negative produced by any 35mm film camera made between 1950 and 2009. However, digital cameras offer significant improvements from model to model (resolution, noise, IQ, etc).

But if you were to take two people of equal aptitude, mentality and resources (perhaps one is a clone of the other ) and hand one of them a PZ-10 and a couple primes and the other a K2000 two lens kit and set them loose, then review their photography after six months you would see that the first shooter with the K1000 has achieved a much higher skill level overall than the second one with the K2000.

Only if the guy with the PZ-10/K1000 had an unlimited budget for film processing. The K2000 guy can learn much faster from his mistakes and put those lessons to use. In the time it takes Mr. PZ-10/K1000 to get his film and prints back, Mr. K2000 has been reviewing his shots within minutes on his computer and has gone back out out shooting and learning even more.

My analogy to this is my experience over the past 30 years in computer programming.
When I first began programming in 1978 there were no "personal computers" and CPU time cost money. Every time you ran a program it literally cost you. So when we wrote programs first we wrote them out by hand on paper. Then we built logic tables and "ran" the programs line by line on paper. We debugged the code on paper. Only after we were "certain" we'd gotten all the logic right did we type the code into the mainframe (punch cards or dumb terminals) and execute it. We were seriously disappointed if the code did not run properly the first time.

By the mid-80s personal computers and minis were fairly commonplace and you had built-in compilers with syntax checkers and debug tools. We designed on-the-fly as we hurriedly churned out code - pausing every so often to "run it" and see what mistakes we'd made along the way - and often got to the end only to figure out that we'd totally botched a requirement and had to back track and re-write significant portions of the original code. The entire attitue had changed from expecting a first run success to elation if the code ran correctly, if at all, after the tenth "run".

Even if it did run the first time on the mainframe you had already RUN it multiple time in the much slower computer between your ears. Also, all the syntax checkers and such do is check that you've followed the construction rules. Neither your 1970s method nor modern tools insure that you don't make some logical mistake. The thing is, if you made a mistake in 1978 it could take you months to figure out if it was a syntax error or a logical mistake. Today, at least you can attribute the error to a logical mistake much faster allowing you to complete the program sooner.

But while digital does bring convenience it also can just as easily breed laziness. The "shoot now and fix it later in post" mentality -

Any "improved" tool can breed laziness.... Who wants to dig a fence post hole by hand when they can do it with a power auger? But does doing it with a power auger necessarily mean you are lazy? Not necessarily, if it allows you to get more post holes dug in a day. It often means you are working smarter, not harder.

In my opinion, the ability to work faster, trusting that the minutia and mundane has been taken care of, can unleash your creativity and productivity.

Mike

[navcom]

Any "improved" tool can breed laziness.... Who wants to dig a fence post hole by hand when they can do it with a power auger? But does doing it with a power auger necessarily mean you are lazy? Not necessarily, if it allows you to get more post holes dug in a day. It often means you are working smarter, not harder.

In my opinion, the ability to work faster, trusting that the minutia and mundane has been taken care of, can unleash your creativity and productivity.

Can I get an Amen!

Those who become truly lazy with new digital technology will most likely never pick up a film camera...or if they did or have, would loose interest quicker. And most likely they will not excel very much with their digital camera either as the root of the problem is not the technology, but the desire to learn the art of photography. Some folks are just not as crazy about photography as we are here on the forum. They buy the expensive Canikon for the toy-factor, the social-factor, or just having a nice camera to take generic pix of their family with. Most will honestly tell you they are not head-over-heals in love with the art. They just want to take pictures. It's their business how much they want to spend to do it.

Those who truly do have the desire to learn will learn and use the advantages digtial offers to more efficiently master the art of photography. They understand that the camera is a tool to be used as a means to an end, not the end in and of itself.

The vast majority of folks who buy new cameras fall into the first category above. They are not in it for a career or solely for the art. They just want a cool camera to take pictures with. The smaller minority fall into the second category, which is why the pro photographer need not fear digital technology.

[Venturi]

Only if the guy with the PZ-10/K1000 had an unlimited budget for film processing. The K2000 guy can learn much faster from his mistakes and put those lessons to use. In the time it takes Mr. PZ-10/K1000 to get his film and prints back, Mr. K2000 has been reviewing his shots within minutes on his computer and has gone back out out shooting and learning even more.

Chimping on the LCD is only good enough to know if you are close or that you completely botched the shot. If Mr K2000 has to go home and download his shots to his computer, his lead isn't really so great. Mr PZ-10 (I chose these two camera bodies arbitrarily because they have fairly similar ergonomics and controls, btw) can drop off his film at Walgreens, go to Sonic and pick up a burger, come back and get his 4x6 prints in about the same time and know how his shots will print, not merely display on the screen. And since he's "out" already he's ahead of Mr K2000 (unless Mr K2000 has his laptop with him, LOL) and fed.

Even if it did run the first time on the mainframe you had already RUN it multiple time in the much slower computer between your ears. Also, all the syntax checkers and such do is check that you've followed the construction rules. Neither your 1970s method nor modern tools insure that you don't make some logical mistake. The thing is, if you made a mistake in 1978 it could take you months to figure out if it was a syntax error or a logical mistake. Today, at least you can attribute the error to a logical mistake much faster allowing you to complete the program sooner.

The key point, which I did not state well at all, is that because every execution of a program cost me money I was forced to be more thoughtful about the process of writing the code in the first place. And that simple thing made me a better programmer because mistakes truly were costly. Whereas with the advent of PCs and minis the costs per CPU cycle dropped through the floor, so did the impetus to get it right the first time. And because there was the motivation of real cost, our skill in the craft needed to be higher to meet externally imposed deadlines. And no, having the realtime syntax checker and compiling as you go doesn't really speed up the process. It makes it seem faster because you have results (bad) spit to the screen immediately and the marketing guys can go "oooh neato", but end to end the process takes just as long (sometimes longer because the marketing guys get to go "oooh neato, but what if we made that box blue...").

Mr K2000 can fire up Lightroom (or whatever) and "make the sky blue" with a couple mouse clicks. Mr PZ-10 has to take his negs to a pro lab (let's assume he won't have his own) and spend considerable time and/or money to do the same thing. Does that make Mr K2000 a better photographer? No, it makes him proficient in digital post processing. Mr PZ-10 however would likely learn from the guy at the lab that if he uses the right filter on his lens he can make the sky blue on his next shot. And that does make Mr Pz-10 a better photographer. Mr K2000 probably won't quickly learn that lesson on his own (unless he's posting his shots here on PF for critique) and has no motivation to do so because Lightroom can "fix" it.

But lets turn the tables a bit for sake of discussion.
Let's say both photographers had the same tools available to them for processing - they both have to take their exposures to a lab to be processed into prints. No laptops, no Lightroom. Then, the digital guy has an advantage because of his ability to chimp his shots in the field and it didn't cost him money to find out.

You can spin things again and put both photographers into a structured classroom with a master photographer as their mentor and wet darkrooms and digital workflow tools at their disposal. Digital again will probably win the day simply due to speed.

But neither spin applies to my original premise of handing two equally apt noobs a camera and saying "have at it!"

I don't know where you got the idea I was down talking digital especially since I went out of my way to say I was not and then expound on just one of its many virtues which you echoed in your rebuttal. But as for your analogy of digging a hole with a shovel versus a gas powered auger - I would never, nor would any competent construction foreman - put a gas powered auger in the hands of a worker that had never dug a hole with his hands and a shovel. What would likely happen is you'd end up with a royal mess to clean up and a worker's compensation claim to file.

[Wheatfield]

This keeps getting trotted out, but unless you bought your computer specifically for photography, it doesn't make sense to count it in the cost of photography. Most people these days have a computer already. It'd be like saying your film photography was cheaper because cars cost less in the past.

Not quite. I could happily use my very first computer still for most of what I use a computer for, which is surfing the net, answering emails and the like.
I can no longer use it for image editing simply because it won't support modern software or file sizes.
I've found that every camera I've bought has included a new computer as part of the package simply to allow me to continue working the new files at a reasonable pace.
As to whether digital can make us better photographers, certainly it can, but I think mostly it doesn't.
I see too much photo laziness from digital photographers to believe it is making us better.
The whole idea of shooting 30 pictures to get one good one smacks of lazy thinking, and poor conceptualization.

[MRRiley]

I don't know where you got the idea I was down talking digital especially since I went out of my way to say I was not and then expound on just one of its many virtues which you echoed in your rebuttal. But as for your analogy of digging a hole with a shovel versus a gas powered auger - I would never, nor would any competent construction foreman - put a gas powered auger in the hands of a worker that had never dug a hole with his hands and a shovel. What would likely happen is you'd end up with a royal mess to clean up and a worker's compensation claim to file.

I know you were not dissing digital because it's clear you feel both mediums have values as do I. I was just trying in my clumsy way to draw an analogy. I certainly wasn't trying to spin anything.

In the end, there is no real way of knowing if Mr. PZ-10 or Mr. K2000 would learn or progress faster since it's impossible to find 2 people with equal skills, motivation and resources to perform the experiment. As a fellow old-time traditional photographer perhaps I am giving digital too much "benefit of the doubt" since I have known the basics for decades. I do however think that I personally could have mastered various techniques much faster if I had had access to digital processes rather than limited by the expenses involved with film processing and printing.

Now, back to the shovel/auger analogy... The safe and efficient use of ANY tool presupposes a certain amount of ability, intelligence and common sense. This applies equally to a shovel or a power auger or a digital camera. Another example would be riding a motorcycle. A person proficient on a bicycle would have the basic skills needed to operate a motorcycle, but someone who had only ever driven a car would be a danger to himself and others.

In the end, the tool doesnt matter in the hands of a skilled operator. A skilled worker can dig a perfect hole with a shovel or an auger. The only difference is how long it takes and how much he sweats. The same is true with a camera. In the end, the same photograph can be produced with film or digital workflows and technology. The path between the click of the shutter and hanging the print on the wall is immaterial.

Mike

---

Last edited by MRRiley; 03-30-2009 at 03:15 PM.

[mattdm]

Don't know who he is...but in the end..that's his opinion and that's all it is. Does he take into account the kind of experience, the individual's learning curve, ability, ability to grasp concepts...etc...

Err, yes. He wrote a whole book about it, in fact.

[jsherman999]

.



In photography, as in guitar playing, batting practice, or surgery, iteration brings expertise. Digital simply increases the rate of iteration.

So, yes, it makes you better faster.




.

[losecontrol]

It can, but not always.

I am writing a book today about why film makes us better photographers.

I don't say it's all right, but at least it's a serios project that could make sense.

However in the end. Camera doesnt help you, the big work is to improve your skills. When you know everything you will be a master no matter what camera you wear around your neck

Regards Emil

[losecontrol]

As to whether digital can make us better photographers, certainly it can, but I think mostly it doesn't.
I see too much photo laziness from digital photographers to believe it is making us better.
The whole idea of shooting 30 pictures to get one good one smacks of lazy thinking, and poor conceptualization.

This comment makes sense! ....A lot!

[MRRiley]

As to whether digital can make us better photographers, certainly it can, but I think mostly it doesn't. I see too much photo laziness from digital photographers to believe it is making us better. The whole idea of shooting 30 pictures to get one good one smacks of lazy thinking, and poor conceptualization.

I agree with this statement, but it's important to point out that the determining factor is the thought process and reasoning (or lack thereof) behind taking those 30 pictures. If you just blast away or take them with little if any change of settings or perspective, then you are probably just being lazy and are hoping to get lucky. If on the other hand, during that 30 shot set, you make conscious decisions on different camera or lens settings or change your perspective or POV, then you are not being lazy, you are being careful and methodical.

I think, on the whole, digital enables and encourages the second scenario IN THE MIND OF THE SERIOUS PHOTOGRAPHER. In the mind of the casual, "I just want photos of my life" photographer (in the vast majority) I'm sure digital does cause some degree of "additional" laziness since there is liittle if any perceived "cost" to taking the extra shots.

The point that gets lost is that someone who shoots like this on digital, probably also shot like this on film to some extent. How many crappy and barely different photos does the average photographer have in the stacks and stacks of Wal-Mart 4x6" prints in their drawers or photo albums. The problem with digital is that it is much much easier to "publish" all those crappy shots, thus the viewer (us) perceives an increase in crappy photos.

Mike

[Mike Cash]

The path between the click of the shutter and hanging the print on the wall is immaterial.

Mike

I would have to agree, provided one is considering the matter from the perspective of someone else viewing the print on the wall. But if it is my own photo I am contemplating myself, then the memories associated with taking the photo are as much a part of the viewing experience as the scene/subject of the final print itself, and I find the digital/film shooting process to be different enough that it does make a difference....even if only to myself. Not saying that one is inherently better than the other, by any means.

[lesmore49]

Err, yes. He wrote a whole book about it, in fact.

You posted that the author indicated and I quote "... order to master anything artistic (in a very, very broad sense: computers or law would count), you need to put in about 10,000 hours of serious work.."

I know he wrote a book about it, you had already indicated that he wrote a book about it...in your first post.

But....whether someone expresses an opinion in one sentence or writes a book about his opinion...doesn't give it any more credibility . I always look for the evidence and the context, in which a view is based.

My point is still, that individuals... all have different ways and rates of learning, different abilities to acquire knowledge , develop and master skills.

To say that people need to master anything artistic would need at least 10,000 hours of serious work...seems to be a generalization and I wonder how it could apply to all individuals ?

Certainly a significant amount of time is needed to master a skill set. But people have varying abilities and personal time frames in mastering different bodies of knowledge....some would be able to master a particular skill set in well under 10,000 hours, some would need more time...some would find 10,000 hours ...probably about right.

I haven't read his book.

To be fair to the author, I need to read his book... read the context in which you take the quote .

The book sounds interesting.

I'm sure it could well be very good and thought provoking...probably is...but I do question assigning a specific number of hours to acquire mastery in a skill set. I need to see for myself if this is what he said and reading it will perhaps put the quote in context.

[pingflood]

And no, having the realtime syntax checker and compiling as you go doesn't really speed up the process. It makes it seem faster because you have results (bad) spit to the screen immediately and the marketing guys can go "oooh neato", but end to end the process takes just as long (sometimes longer because the marketing guys get to go "oooh neato, but what if we made that box blue...").

I'll have to post some slight disagreement here. I am mostly an SAP R/3 developer but have been writing code as a hobby since I was 7 and have gone through ~30 different programming languages. On occasion I need to use the .NET environment, and the way Microsoft set it up makes it HUGELY faster to code -- I just start typing in the name of a function (or just view all the functions in an assembly) and I have right there all the interfaces for the functions, DOCUMENTED. I can see that I can call it with a single parameter called input, which is a string and should contain so and so, or with two parameters called input and extra which are a string and integer and should contain so and so... tell me that doesn't make it a faster process to write code. Or should a "real" programmer memorize every interface of every function in every assembly?

And yes, I've "paid my dues" writing Motorola 68000 assembly language programs(I absolutely hate the x86 architecture), so I can do "real programming", but to hell with that if I need to get a program written. I'd rather use something with a great and helpful IDE like Visual Studio to achieve the result, just like I'd rather use a camera with speedy AF and good AE to get the picture I want.