Glen Barrington
Veteran Member
As near as I can tell, they are every bit as flummoxed as ever, jut look at the questions in the beginners forum, most of the questions are pretty basic with a minor digital twist.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is Digital Easier For Regular People Than Film Was?
- Thread starter V Ahrlenz
- Start date
Most 35mm snapshot cameras used by "regular people" back in the film days didn't have very fast apertures. I used to have a Canon Sureshot Z135 35mm film camera with a 38-135mm f/3.6-8.9 lens. I think this was a fairly typical, good quality 35mm snapshot camera that most "regular people" would have bought back in the film days. I know because I remember it being quite a popular, well-rated camera at the time. I don't remember it giving me much in the area of "creamy defocus". Remember, we're talking about "regular people" here. And "regular people" bought something like my old Canon Z135 with a slow zoom.
My other favorite "regular people" camera back in the film days was a Pentax Zoom 90WR. Great little camera. Weathersealed. A really rugged, tough camera with a rubberized body and an infrared remote that slotted into the side of the body. I loved that camera. But I don't remember "creamy bokeh" from that camera either. I found a posting about that camera, with photos taken with the 90WR, and my memory is correct: there isn't "creamy bokeh" in those photos either!
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/7-pentax-compact-cameras/105905-my-new-pentax-zoom90-wr.html
I think you're strongly over-estimating the level of "creamy bokeh" that a "regular person" was getting from their 35mm camera back in the film days.
Last edited:
You may be a very experienced photographer but as far as reading goes, you completely missed my point. I wasn't "blaming" either film or digital for my failed photos. I had ones that didn't turn out using SLRs and ones that don't turn out now, using digital. I don't brag about my photography because, frankly, if I get one great shot in 100 I'm happy--as true for film as for digital.
The point I was making is that, to me, "failed" photos (poor exposure, composition, etc.)--the ones you don't want to keep--will always be a given and, depending on how you shoot, there can be a lot of them.
My point was that with digital you can minimize that, if you wish, by (1) checking the photo immediately in camera--something you couldn't ever do with film, (2) retaking to correct whatever you didn't like, right there, on the spot and (3) not having to pay to have everything printed in order to see the (possibly just a few) good ones. With digital photography, many mistakes are correctable immediately and you don't have to pay a penny to see them, either. It is also a much -faster- way to learn which also makes it easier.
sportyaccordy
Veteran Member
Depends on what you want.
Beginners on these forums are a teeny, tiny fraction of the total number of digital-shooting "regular people". Most regular people are shooting with smartphones. Taking photos with smartphones is so much easier. The apps for editing photos on smartphones is tons easier, too. Smartphone apps such as Snapseed give lots of excellent editing control. Exposure adjustment, dodge and burn, saturation adjustment, temperature adjustment...all these things are so easy to do on a smartphone. That's what most "regular people" are now using for their photography.
BTW, beginners asked a lot of similar questions about photography back in the film days. Except that it was even worse back then because you didn't have immediate image review, and you didn't have ANY exif information that you could review after taking the shot. So many beginning film photographers didn't even remember what settings they had used to take particular shots. You didn't know what shutter speed you used, what aperture you used, what exposure comp value you used, unless you remembered to write it all down after every shot! So the whole learning process was really far more difficult back in the film days.
The "many people" successfully taking good photos in the past (on film) is actually far fewer than today (on digital). Just look at the millions of wonderful photos posted to Flickr and various other online photo galleries. The level and abundance of quality photos that people are producing today is definitely far, far in excess of what was being produced back in the film days. Why? Because it's easier to do with digital! It's easier to learn with digital! It's easier to get feedback and critiques with digital! And yes, the camera (digital) and the process (digital) does have a LOT to do with this!
I wouldn't say OMs were "regular people" cameras. I'd say that they were "regular photographer" cameras used by people who knew photography. Plus, if you really want to go back to that era of photography, I don't think the IQ was all that great back then, "creamy bokeh" or not. Today's smartphones are producing really good image quality with ridiculous ease. And you don't need much of any photographic knowledge at all to do so. Just look at the Flickr page for the iPhone 6. The stats say that there were:
- 886,873 uploads from 20,755 users yesterday
And browsing through them, you find that most of them are pretty good:
https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=landscape&cm=apple/iphone_6
https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=travel&cm=apple/iphone_6
https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=japan&cm=apple/iphone_6
I think the sheer volume of good photos being upload on a daily basis from smartphones such as the iPhone are a testament to how easy it is to produce good photos with smartphones. And you clearly don't need "creamy bokeh" to produce good looking images:
https://fstoppers.com/contests/17-outstanding-photos-apples-shot-iphone-6-world-gallery-61493
Smartphones are today's "regular people" camera. And I do think they produce better photos more easily than the "regular people" film cameras that "regular people" used in decades past.
V Ahrlenz
Leading Member
Maybe photography should be distinguished from "automated [smartphone] image recording" by definition?
Why should be distinguish the automated image recording done by a smartphone from the automated image recording done by any other digital camera? It's all photography.
I remember in the early days of digital, film photographers attempted to "distinguish" digital imaging from "true" photography--- apparently, they believed "true" photography could only be done with film. Everything else was simply a form of "automated image recording", or some BS like that. Sounds like you're attempting to do the same with smartphone photography. Frankly, it's all photography. It's all about capturing a still image with light.
fmian
Veteran Member
Says the guy who advocates chimping.
So why are you telling her to chimp?
Maybe she should be teaching you a thing or two?
Moti
Veteran Member
What is wrong with chimping? It is one of the greates advantages of digital photography, checking the results and getting feedback in real time is a great help even for skilled and experienced pros. one must be really stupid not to take advantage of it.
Moti
fmian
Veteran Member
That's because they think it's difficult to do. Having a more complex camera doesn't help in that regard. When someone is starting out and just wants to look at light and shade and composition or even watch out for a smile on someones face. But instead the autofocus starts hunting and they miss the moment. It's not their fault they've been recommended or chosen a camera that doesn't suit the way they want to shoot.
You're absolutely right. What I've said looks like it's come full circle and become hypocritical and full of hyperbole. I apologise for that.
If I can maybe explain again, the nature of digital technology (as opposed to the tool itself) doesn't put a value on a byte when it comes to content creation. There is no waste and no hard lessons learnt with the medium for most people. Sharing this content also doesn't have a value based ramification to it. It can be said for almost anything analog that's been replaced with digital. Written publications, music, video...
It's a double edged sword, while it's easier and cheaper than ever for people to create digital content and share it with the rest of the world, there is no ongoing financial pressure being placed on the creator to keep improving or be cut from the pack. This desire has to come from within for most people but when so much content is out there the standard just can't be high. So a content creator will look around and see that their content is good enough and (compared to a more unforgiving medium) settle for that. Again, this isn't how everyone treats the medium. It's just the general public in this day and age that have grown to expect things to be easier and quicker.
Compare that to analog where there is a continual outlay to create content. More outlay to make copies of it. And more outlays to share that physical item with others. You can't keep doing something like that without a good return unless you're rich or people are pulling you favors. The small guys who can't keep up with learning the trade get weeded out and the higher end of the market flourishes. Again, there are exceptions and some people have different mindsets, but that's a general market tendency I'm talking about and the main different is the nature of the underlying medium.
It doesn't HAVE to be this way if people change their mindset about things. But that's a tall ask when consumerism tells us by numbers that this years camera is twice as good as last years one. What else are most people supposed to think when a heavy significance is placed on the camera itself.
What's telling is that myself and other photographers I know make more money teaching/consulting startup photographers than we do from the actual photos we take.
So the market has shifted and it's still shifting. Thankfully there are some humble people out there who realise it's not just about buying an expensive camera and the sharpest lens.
fmian
Veteran Member
It uses more battery. It takes more time to shoot. It takes up more space on the card. It takes more time to review your photos. It makes it harder to decide on which photo is best. It moves the photographers mindset further away from the notion of trusting their first instinct. Of course, there are some types of photography where this doesn't matter.
Sure, there are advantages in getting instant feedback to show clients while tethered cause you know you're on the right track to making THEM happy. Or to do testing on equipment and lenses cause once you have a result the images can be deleted and nothing is wasted. Or to use as examples when teaching people about exposure/white balance etc. So in that regard, yeah it can be useful.
One must also be careful not to let it become a habit cause it can easily become a crutch for photographic skill.
With digital, it's easier to share picture. Just a click of a virtual button, your photo is on FB / Whatsapp etc. With film, you have to wait for the film to be developed..after all 36 were exposed. Then you have to scan your photo. Storage was limited too, remember floppy disk? By the time you looked for an upload button, you realized that facebook hasn't been invented yet. Ha ha ha. Kidding. But seriously, digital is just easier.
- instant preview
- instant sharing
- instant print (polaroid disagree on this)
Want a proof? I have like hundred of thousands digital photos.. it's just that easy to take pictures nowadays.
- instant preview
- instant sharing
- instant print (polaroid disagree on this)
Want a proof? I have like hundred of thousands digital photos.. it's just that easy to take pictures nowadays.
ekselsior
New member
yep, it is. I think digital will make easier for regular people.
Ed Rizk
Veteran Member
Billy Ray! You're still around. Is this one on your own time?
Looking good Billy Ray.
B
Billy Ray Valentine
Guest
Have a nice day, this is going nowhere with you.
B
Billy Ray Valentine
Guest
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum