Has Digital Killed Photography Skill?

OzRay · Dec 30, 2016

There are ad infinitum threads about the perceived lack of high ISO capability in m4/3, even though I don't believe it's anywhere near as bad as some keep suggesting. However that's not the thought behind this thread.

What, I guess, perplexes me is that so many people don't want to learn or use ancillary lighting in their photography, preferring to crank up the ISO and then complaining that it doesn't produce photographs that they like.

When I first started photography, everyone, and I mean everyone from the happy snappers to the pros all used ancillary lighting, especially flash. Anyone who has been around long enough will remember flash bulbs and then the subsequent flash cubes associated with cameras of the day.

Absolutely no one cried that they had to use flash when the lighting was low, but they did cry when they ran out of flash bulbs or flash cubes. When electronic flash units became cheaply available, everyone who was interested in photography bought one.

So why is flash photography spurned by so many and why do so many shy from learning even the basics of flash photography? The interesting thing here is that camera phone manufacturers are including flash in their phones and people are happily using the flash when needed; these are the modern day flash bulb/flash cube users.

Photography is all about lighting and it's up to the photographer to enhance what is often poor lighting provided by natural/unnatural sources, not default to cranking up ISO because it's dark.

Wu Jiaqiu · Dec 30, 2016

i usually find pilots who fly low and fast aren't to keen on flash photography.........

Paulmorgan · Dec 30, 2016

OzRay said:
There are ad infinitum threads about the perceived lack of high ISO capability in m4/3, even though I don't believe it's anywhere near as bad as some keep suggesting. However that's not the thought behind this thread.

What, I guess, perplexes me is that so many people don't want to learn or use ancillary lighting in their photography, preferring to crank up the ISO and then complaining that it doesn't produce photographs that they like.

That`s because the fail to listen when people tell them on here they need to spend huge amounts of bucks for hyper fast lenses to catch the action at the kids tea party

OzRay said:
When I first started photography, everyone, and I mean everyone from the happy snappers to the pros all used ancillary lighting, especially flash. Anyone who has been around long enough will remember flash bulbs and then the subsequent flash cubes associated with cameras of the day.

Absolutely no one cried that they had to use flash when the lighting was low, but they did cry when they ran out of flash bulbs or flash cubes. When electronic flash units became cheaply available, everyone who was interested in photography bought one.

So why is flash photography spurned by so many and why do so many shy from learning even the basics of flash photography? The interesting thing here is that camera phone manufacturers are including flash in their phones and people are happily using the flash when needed; these are the modern day flash bulb/flash cube users.

Photography is all about lighting and it's up to the photographer to enhance what is often poor lighting provided by natural/unnatural sources, not default to cranking up ISO because it's dark.

--
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au

Roger · Dec 30, 2016

Greetings

YES, When I started in the business for a newspaper I had a 12 exposure roll of B&W film and 30 minutes to shoot an assignment process the film and print 3 8x10's telling a story or go home. Now with digital bang bang bang and look at me I'm a photographer. You get the idea.

Have fun

Roger J

brentbrent · Dec 30, 2016

I was expecting something different from the thread title. In my opinion, digital has to some extent lessened the need for skill just because anyone can inexpensively shoot hundreds of photos and every now and then get a good one - spray and pray.

One took more time with film, because of the price of every exposure and the hassle of changing rolls. Even this aspect of digital hasn't "killed photography skill" though, because the skilled photographers will always do better.

As for flash, there are many times when it is simply too intrusive - concerts, other events, even gatherings of friends and family. I rejoice at the ability to forego flash now, and correct color as needed in PP, in situations where it would have been impossible with film. So the ability to shoot without flash in situations where it would be intrusive, or where one wants the look of natural light no matter how low it may be, does not cause me to lament.

At the same time, though, I am trying to improve my ability with flash, including playing with remote cord, soft box, multiple flashes. I have a long way to go in that regard, partly because I am just not a fan of flash. So I'll agree with you that it's important, but perhaps disagree with you as to just how important it is.

NoTx · Dec 30, 2016

OzRay said:
There are ad infinitum threads about the perceived lack of high ISO capability in m4/3, even though I don't believe it's anywhere near as bad as some keep suggesting. However that's not the thought behind this thread.

What, I guess, perplexes me is that so many people don't want to learn or use ancillary lighting in their photography, preferring to crank up the ISO and then complaining that it doesn't produce photographs that they like.

When I first started photography, everyone, and I mean everyone from the happy snappers to the pros all used ancillary lighting, especially flash. Anyone who has been around long enough will remember flash bulbs and then the subsequent flash cubes associated with cameras of the day.

Absolutely no one cried that they had to use flash when the lighting was low, but they did cry when they ran out of flash bulbs or flash cubes. When electronic flash units became cheaply available, everyone who was interested in photography bought one.

So why is flash photography spurned by so many and why do so many shy from learning even the basics of flash photography? The interesting thing here is that camera phone manufacturers are including flash in their phones and people are happily using the flash when needed; these are the modern day flash bulb/flash cube users.

Photography is all about lighting and it's up to the photographer to enhance what is often poor lighting provided by natural/unnatural sources, not default to cranking up ISO because it's dark.

Raist3d · Dec 30, 2016

OzRay said:
There are ad infinitum threads about the perceived lack of high ISO capability in m4/3, even though I don't believe it's anywhere near as bad as some keep suggesting. However that's not the thought behind this thread.

What, I guess, perplexes me is that so many people don't want to learn or use ancillary lighting in their photography, preferring to crank up the ISO and then complaining that it doesn't produce photographs that they like.

When I first started photography, everyone, and I mean everyone from the happy snappers to the pros all used ancillary lighting, especially flash. Anyone who has been around long enough will remember flash bulbs and then the subsequent flash cubes associated with cameras of the day.

Absolutely no one cried that they had to use flash when the lighting was low, but they did cry when they ran out of flash bulbs or flash cubes. When electronic flash units became cheaply available, everyone who was interested in photography bought one.

OzRay said:
So why is flash photography spurned by so many and why do so many shy from learning even the basics of flash photography? The interesting thing here is that camera phone manufacturers are including flash in their phones and people are happily using the flash when needed; these are the modern day flash bulb/flash cube users.

Photography is all about lighting and it's up to the photographer to enhance what is often poor lighting provided by natural/unnatural sources, not default to cranking up ISO because it's dark.

Because that was then, and this is now. You can say the same thing about AF, or say the same thing about having to use one film at a time, etc.

Technology marches forward.

This doesn't make some of the older methods or things invalid, but it sure doesn't make any of the new things you can do invalid either.

Photography is about lighting, yes, and if there are Cameras around that can photograph at a higher ISO in the dark, new domains are opened for the photographers that can do work in those domains.

Answering your main question - digital has not killed photography skill. But it sure has a lot of people who think they are doing photography when they are not.

Bobby J · Dec 30, 2016

[No message]

dkyl · Dec 30, 2016

I think this is a conundrum that perhaps affects m43 users moreso than larger formats.

In that, for some one of the goals in using m43 gear is to downsize. With the addition of ancillary lighting equipment, however way you look at it it'll increase the amount of gear you carry.

So the reluctance to carry ancillary lighting equipment coupled with the m43 very low light shooting capabilities results in a lot of whining.

addlightness · Dec 30, 2016

brought about the wrath. I stopped using flashes since 2012.

To compensate, I went with f1.8 primes. And there was where I found my paradise in m43. No other systems have the range of modern (affordable) primes like m43 enjoys today.

OzRay · Dec 30, 2016

dkyl said:
I think this is a conundrum that perhaps affects m43 users moreso than larger formats.

In that, for some one of the goals in using m43 gear is to downsize. With the addition of ancillary lighting equipment, however way you look at it it'll increase the amount of gear you carry.

So the reluctance to carry ancillary lighting equipment coupled with the m43 very low light shooting capabilities results in a lot of whining.

But that's my point. People are forsaking supplementary lighting and relying just on high ISO. Of course there are many situations where supplementary lighting isn't going to suit, but many are abandoning it completely and going to larger formats in the belief that it is the solution.

Do it right and supplementary lighting is going to make things better, not worse.

OzRay · Dec 30, 2016

addlightness said:
brought about the wrath. I stopped using flashes since 2012.

To compensate, I went with f1.8 primes. And there was where I found my paradise in m43. No other systems have the range of modern (affordable) primes like m43 enjoys today.

Fast lenses are simply not going to cut it in every situation.

SterlingBjorndahl · Dec 30, 2016

I don't think it's killed it completely - the rules of composition still remain, after all - but it has diluted it, for sure.

Regarding flash, one of the great things I loved about the old DMC-L1 was its two-stage flash. One push of the button and the flash popped up to a 45 degree angle, suitable for bouncing off a low, white ceiling and avoiding the harsh shadows that direct flash is criticized for. I've learned to use my pinky finger on a couple other cameras having that z-shaped flash action to do the bounce like the L1. I think cameras that have built-in flash should make this an expected standard. But there's no question that if one is doing a documentary shot, e.g. just recording a candid event like a party, direct flash (whether built-in or attached) is completely appropriate - and is used by cell phones anyway, so what's the fuss?

More broadly, I do make a point of shooting a roll of film a few times a year, just to keep my skills up. I recommend it to everyone. For me, medium format (120 roll film) - knowing that each time I trip the shutter it costs me two bucks, that slows me down and makes me more thoughtful. Keeps me grounded. I liken it to the "slow food movement".

Sterling
--
Lens Grit

bryanbrun · Dec 30, 2016

OzRay said:
There are ad infinitum threads about the perceived lack of high ISO capability in m4/3, even though I don't believe it's anywhere near as bad as some keep suggesting. However that's not the thought behind this thread.

It's the last thing to complain about. m4/3 now has better or identical quality video and lenses and focusing and size/weight and whatever.

So now people complain that when they shoot at ISO 6400, they don't get identical results.

I just throw on a native prime (or my Canon 1.4) in bad light and shoot at F1.8, and the ISO never needs to go above 3200-4000. And we know from the DPreview comparison tool that my EM5 2 produces identical results at that ISO to the best of the ASPC cameras.

I don't have anything to complain about.

dv312 · Dec 30, 2016

Not sure about my photographic skills but my results are way better

Especially using my skill in the digital lab (certainly increase many fold)

I'm a lazier photographer now for I can rely on the Histogram and review and not once had to rely upon any other metering other than ESP (or Matrix)

I also can rely upon the AF and burst speed for moving subjects (and of course the delete button)

By shooting more and not have to worry about cost, I think my composition skill 's improved

So maybe digital has helped me more than hurt

Cheers,

SpinOne · Dec 30, 2016

OzRay said:
So why is flash photography spurned by so many and why do so many shy from learning even the basics of flash photography?

I don't think that's really the case, there is a lot of interest in the "Strobist" stuff.

I think the emphasis on low ISO performance is either people who genuinely can't use flash (e.g. concert photographers)... and for gearheads.
As to the question of whether the gear has replaced skill? Nope. Not by a long shot. To be good, you still have to be able to compose, to distinguish good light from bad, good expressions from bad, good moments from bad...

People have been fretting about that since at least the popularization of AF. Until they invent a robot that can compose as well as a human, it's not a real issue.

OzRay · Dec 30, 2016

Even with digital, I still shoot like I was using film, I just can't get it out of my system. I guess the other driver is that I tend to be methodical about what and how I photograph things, so I probably put more thought into the preparation than the actual taking, which is just hitting the 'record' button.

OzRay · Dec 30, 2016

dv312 said:
Not sure about my photographic skills but my results are way better

Especially using my skill in the digital lab (certainly increase many fold)

I'm a lazier photographer now for I can rely on the Histogram and review and not once had to rely upon any other metering other than ESP (or Matrix)

I also can rely upon the AF and burst speed for moving subjects (and of course the delete button)

By shooting more and not have to worry about cost, I think my composition skill 's improved

So maybe digital has helped me more than hurt

Cheers,

The issue is not with getting correct exposure, but best lighting balance. You can always get correct exposure for one element of the scene, but often at the compromise of another.

Supplementary lighting, in those circumstances, will allow balanced lighting and exposure for all elements in the scene.

Not only that, supplementary lighting can enhance the natural lighting that's available, but modifying it in many ways.

OzRay · Dec 30, 2016

SpinOne said:
I don't think that's really the case, there is a lot of interest in the "Strobist" stuff.

I think the emphasis on low ISO performance is either people who genuinely can't use flash (e.g. concert photographers)... and for gearheads.

As to the question of whether the gear has replaced skill? Nope. Not by a long shot. To be good, you still have to be able to compose, to distinguish good light from bad, good expressions from bad, good moments from bad...

People have been fretting about that since at least the popularization of AF. Until they invent a robot that can compose as well as a human, it's not a real issue.

It's not just flash, but any supplementary lighting, including reflectors. Yes, there are those who have an interest in this aspect of photography, but many seem to default to fast lenses and larger formats so that they can avoid supplementary lighting.

When I first started learning photography, lighting was the first and foremost series of lessons that were taught, along with the theory of exposure etc. Composition and the rest all came later. Mind you, in those days we also had to learn various film development techniques and printing and print development techniques.

dv312 · Dec 30, 2016

I hear you and that's a wonderful trait

That'd be ideal

Like this Example here

But in practice, since we (I) 're not pros, we're not likely to carry around that much gear

or don't have the luxury of an assistant

or satisfied with available light only

or can do with a single reflector or off shoe flash

If you plan on selling your photos or create them for income then I can see the need to be more judicious about your shootings

Most of us here have come to MFT so we can lighten up our load and now you're suggesting we should carry even more?

Cheers, ;-)

Has Digital Killed Photography Skill?

Forum Pro

Wu Jiaqiu

Guest

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Raist3d

Guest

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts