Originally posted by Bauie It could be said that digital ruined photography. Not many people know the joys of developing film and then printing it, taking a lifetime to master both, (well actually you never "Master" it) you just keep learning.
Not many people do, it's true - but that was the case during the age of film too, was it not? Going way back, some early Kodak box cameras were supplied with film loaded... the lenses were fixed focus... the "photographer" took their photos with a single shutter speed and aperture (or a couple of aperture settings if lucky), then sent off their entire camera for film development and re-loading. Fast forward to the second half of the 20th century, and many photographers using rangefinder, SLR and fixed lens viewfinder cameras would rely on labs to develop and/or print their photos. In the '90s, families bought fully-automated point-and-shoot AF film cameras and used their local supermarkets for one-hour developing and printing. Home developing and especially wet printing seem to have been very much the domain of enthusiasts and professionals.
Given that, I'm not sure we can lay the ruination of photography at digital's door. It has certainly made the end-to-end practice of photography, from capture to print (or digital distribution), more accessible to folks... but I don't think we can say it's ruined it (I don't think it
has been ruined - it's simply evolved)...
Originally posted by Bauie Look, I realise that digital is incredibly convenient but there is something about the "click and you have an image" that sort of divorces you from the whole process. I still love the "Clunk" of my Pentax 67 shutter and I still love loading a roll of 120 film onto a reel and developing it. It's like you have to work to make the image. Digital photographers seem to blast away (with auto bracketing) and take 1000s of images. with film you slow down and learn to take a few good ones and then work your magic in the darkroom. I actually feel a little sorry for people that have never "made" a photo in the darkroom.
"Click and you have an image"... blast away (with auto bracketing)... take 1000s of images... With respect, these broad characterisations are easy to level at digital photographers, but I'm not sure they apply to the majority...
Most enthusiasts and professionals are using fully manual or carefully-chosen semi-auto modes (some of which were available in the late film era) so they can control all - or at least some - aspects of exposure, depth-of-field, motion capture etc. Whilst some may rely on in-camera JPEGs, many shoot raw files and process them in software later - a sort of digital darkroom. That post-processing may only take a few minutes, but could take hours to achieve a satisfactory end product. The skills are different than those in a traditional darkroom (though some are comparable in terms of intent), but they're skills nonetheless.
Regarding "blasting away" and taking "1000s of images", I just took a quick look in my photo library. A very busy afternoon's shooting for me would be 150 - 200 shots, so let's say the equivalent of around five rolls of 36 exp 35mm film. A more typical shoot might be 50 - 100 shots, equivalent to two or three rolls. Is that so different than the days of film? I know there are
some photographers who use a strategy of taking many shots in continuous shooting mode, then picking the best of that bunch - including those capturing birds in flight, sporting and press events etc. ... but I'd suggest they're the minority.
In the last six months I've started shooting 35mm and 120 film and developing at home, though I'm digitising my negatives and processing them with software, rather than using a darkroom for printing. I love it (especially the old cameras - I agree, they're satisfying to use), and it's a whole new process for me with many skills to learn and much knowledge to absorb. I doubt I'll ever learn and master it all, even without darkroom printing... but then, as someone who started with digital photography, there's so much about digital that I have to learn too.
Would you be able to produce a gallery-quality shot of the Milky Way with your digital gear? I know I wouldn't. How about a National Geographic-standard macro shot of a large bug, with depth of field that shows the entire head and body in sharp focus using multiple image stacking techniques? Nope, I couldn't do that with my current level of knowledge and experience. Let's pick something more typical... a studio portrait of an attractive individual. Having achieved perfect exposure, could you produce a magazine-quality end result with perfectly-balanced contrast, highlights and shadows, finely-adjusted skin tone, troublesome skin blemishes removed, areas where the subject's foundation didn't reach the hairline blended in so they're not visible, stray hairs masked out, selected details sharpened realistically without affecting skin texture etc.? That's one I
could achieve, just about - perhaps not to magazine quality, but still decent. I'd guess there's a good many who can't, though, and plenty who can do it better than me
So, "
click and you have an image" might yield a pleasant holiday snapshot in full auto mode - but there's
much more to digital photography and post-processing than that, IMHO...