Has Digital Killed Photography Skill?

JosephScha · Dec 30, 2016

I have an external flash and a long cord so I can hold it away from the camera. It can also mount on the camera but tilt of pivot to bounce of a ceiling or wall. I have only used it 2 or 3 times. I much prefer to put either the 25mm f/1.4 or, the 42.5 f/1.7 lens I just got onto the camera and shoot without flash if possible.

Flash is good for adding fill light when necessary. That implies there is more light on the background than on your subject.

On camera flash is not a good primary source of light.

If I really wanted to do it right, I'd need light stands, and either the flash in a soft box and a reflector, or two flashes. I'd need a radio trigger for them. And if I did that, I'd be shooting portraits in a studio setting rather than shooting natural action at some family event.

dkyl · Dec 30, 2016

Paulmorgan said:
I`ve said this an awful lot in this forum "if the light is not already there, add some of your own" the usual reply is, well I don`t want the flash look or I don`t want to lump a flash on the shoe of the camera.

Crap light is crap light, it don`t matter how fast the lens is, you can spend a $1000 on a lens and it will still not improve on the quality of the light, only the quantity of the crap light.

Natural looking flash is easy once you have got to grips with it.

A bit over simplifying I think.

What if the light is good but just not enough of it?

Sports venue with fast action. Lighting is fine but you need the shutter speed. Your shooting distance limits your flash's effective range.

Spontaneous street scene with movement. Great light but you're aperture limited by your lens and you need a certain amount of shutter speed.

OzRay · Dec 30, 2016

dkyl said:
Thats certainly true. But I don't think you can assume people's choice not to use supplementary lighting don't know how to use it.

My point is that many appear to reject it outright and the reasons often espoused don't hold water.

dkyl said:
Well it is all about light and how you control exposure. Part of that control is a conscious decision to use or not use supplementary lighting. All I'm saying is it's not always appropriate to use supplementary lighting nor is cranking up the ISO always appropriate as some FF pundits might suggest.

I'm not saying that either. What I'm saying is that it seems that far too many are rejecting supplementary lighting in its entirety. How many people on this forum own a flash that didn't come with their camera?

dkyl said:
I may be out enjoying the performance as well as wanting to record a few images. If they've let me in with my camera, whatever that camera may be I'd be inclined to use it as discretely as possible to not draw attention away from the performance.

So, which FF camera and lens would you choose to take to that performance to record 'discretely' a 'few' images?

dkyl said:
Re: restaurant. Nobody said you can't use it. I'd just be inclined to avoid it, again in the interest of being discrete and not to distract other patrons sharing the same space.

Well, I have to admit, I don't frequent restaurants of the calibre that have a maître d'hôtel and all the waiters wear what are ostensibly tuxedos.

dkyl said:
Umm, I think there's enough differences between stop, compose, take shot vs stop, set up lighting, come back to original position for the composition and take shot.

Its an extra step that's not always convenient.

It all depends on how efficient you are and the circumstances. I do this all the time and were I not to do so, many a photograph would not be taken, or the results would be crap.

dkyl said:
Perhaps so. But does that mean everyone should do it?

All I suggested that maybe some could step outside the square. If you never try something, you'll never know whether you'll like it or not.

dkyl said:
Popularity of street photography in m43 doesn't negate its popularity in other formats, I never suggested so.

I was suggesting discrete street photography which flash will make difficult to achieve. What you're suggesting with flash street photography is obviously possible and can result in great photos but it doesn't fall under the banner of discrete street photography that some/many might prefer. Furthermore many street photos have little window of opportunity to capture as you know. If you use a longer FL, you can't exactly run and setup your remote lighting, run back and recompose to get a discrete shot of a fleeting moment, can you.

I've done and will continue to do a lot of street photography and I use a flash. However, I'm not discrete about it, I'm one of those street photographers that's somewhat 'in your face', as I either make it known that the subject of interest is being photographed, or I confront the subject directly and coerce them to do what drew my interest in the first place.

When some talk about 'discrete' street photography, all that it reminds me of is dirty old men in trench coats, with their hands in their pockets, ogling at whatever interests them.

But you're confusing one issue with another.

OzRay · Dec 30, 2016

dkyl said:
A bit over simplifying I think.

What if the light is good but just not enough of it?

Sports venue with fast action. Lighting is fine but you need the shutter speed. Your shooting distance limits your flash's effective range.

Spontaneous street scene with movement. Great light but you're aperture limited by your lens and you need a certain amount of shutter speed.

You're talking about something completely different and going off-topic to be honest. I'm talking about situations where you have a 'reasonable' amount of control, not taking over an entire city block or sports field.

That said, many sports photographers doing indoors sports such as basketball, gymnastics etc all use flash and often remotely controlled. These photographers know that high ISO and fast lenses just don't cut it.

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

dkyl · Dec 30, 2016

OzRay said:
dkyl said:

Thats certainly true. But I don't think you can assume people's choice not to use supplementary lighting don't know how to use it.

Click to expand...

My point is that many appear to reject it outright and the reasons often espoused don't hold water.

Agreed.

OzRay said:
OzRay said:

Well it is all about light and how you control exposure. Part of that control is a conscious decision to use or not use supplementary lighting. All I'm saying is it's not always appropriate to use supplementary lighting nor is cranking up the ISO always appropriate as some FF pundits might suggest.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that either. What I'm saying is that it seems that far too many are rejecting supplementary lighting in its entirety.

True

OzRay said:
How many people on this forum own a flash that didn't come with their camera?

Back to sone earlier answers. Maybe not wanting to carry more items. Balance of camera affected. Lack of third party cheap options. Dunno but there could be a variety of reasons.

OzRay said:
OzRay said:

I may be out enjoying the performance as well as wanting to record a few images. If they've let me in with my camera, whatever that camera may be I'd be inclined to use it as discretely as possible to not draw attention away from the performance.

Click to expand...

So, which FF camera and lens would you choose to take to that performance to record 'discretely' a 'few' images?

Any A7 series might do the trick. Perhaps the 55/1.8 or something similar. Not sure what you're getting at here. I could have said E-M1 II with a 25/1.2 too. But point being I'd avoid flash in this scenario.

OzRay said:
OzRay said:

Re: restaurant. Nobody said you can't use it. I'd just be inclined to avoid it, again in the interest of being discrete and not to distract other patrons sharing the same space.

Click to expand...

Well, I have to admit, I don't frequent restaurants of the calibre that have a maître d'hôtel and all the waiters wear what are ostensibly tuxedos.

C'mon now. Plenty of restaurants these days are dimly lit without being on the upper price range.

OzRay said:
OzRay said:

Umm, I think there's enough differences between stop, compose, take shot vs stop, set up lighting, come back to original position for the composition and take shot.

Its an extra step that's not always convenient.

Click to expand...

It all depends on how efficient you are and the circumstances. I do this all the time and were I not to do so, many a photograph would not be taken, or the results would be crap.

To a certain extent. Sometimes you just can't unless you're the Flash (of the superhero variety).

OzRay said:
OzRay said:

Perhaps so. But does that mean everyone should do it?

Click to expand...

All I suggested that maybe some could step outside the square. If you never try something, you'll never know whether you'll like it or not.

Absolutely.

OzRay said:
OzRay said:

Popularity of street photography in m43 doesn't negate its popularity in other formats, I never suggested so.

I was suggesting discrete street photography which flash will make difficult to achieve. What you're suggesting with flash street photography is obviously possible and can result in great photos but it doesn't fall under the banner of discrete street photography that some/many might prefer. Furthermore many street photos have little window of opportunity to capture as you know. If you use a longer FL, you can't exactly run and setup your remote lighting, run back and recompose to get a discrete shot of a fleeting moment, can you.

Click to expand...

I've done and will continue to do a lot of street photography and I use a flash. However, I'm not discrete about it, I'm one of those street photographers that's somewhat 'in your face', as I either make it known that the subject of interest is being photographed, or I confront the subject directly and coerce them to do what drew my interest in the first place.

Your choice and great for you.

OzRay said:
When some talk about 'discrete' street photography, all that it reminds me of is dirty old men in trench coats, with their hands in their pockets, ogling at whatever interests them.

But you're confusing one issue with another.

Not sure where the confusion exists but there's really no need to suggest dirty and unsavory connotations when talking about discrete street photography or discrete any form of photography. Perhaps you're confusing the word discrete.

007peter · Dec 30, 2016

I wouldn't go as far as saying that Digital has 'KILLED' photography per se. But technology has afford the luxury of Fixing Exposure and Creating Post-Processing Digital Art afterwards. This EASE, create 2 more problems:

1. Instead of enjoying the photograph we took, we have to spend hours processing RAW and fixing exposure, WB, CA, distortion, etc....

2. Instead of enjoying simple photography as it is, we become Digital Artist polishing our photo, increasing color, contrast, sharpness....In short, we all have been reduced into a Digital Artis.

I have stopped shooting RAW now because I'm really annoyed by post-processing task that I don't enjoy. Instead of correcting for WB, Exposure error later, I now correct them on the spot shooting 3-5 sample photo to readjust my WB/Expsoure, then I shoot away in JPEG and never worry about post-processing. My life is much easier now.

My enthusiast friends think I'm Lazy, but I feel that camera should serve me and not the other way around. This is yet another reason why so many people now prefer using Smartphone for photograph. I noticed that Samsung & Apple have fantastic Out-Of-Camera JPEG without editing, versus a OOC jpeg from Canon or Nikon DSLR that require post-processing to bring out the color, sharpness, etc...

OzRay · Dec 30, 2016

dkyl said:
Any A7 series might do the trick. Perhaps the 55/1.8 or something similar. Not sure what you're getting at here. I could have said E-M1 II with a 25/1.2 too. But point being I'd avoid flash in this scenario.

If you happen to be in the nose bleed section of the theatre where Cats is being played (been there), a 55mm FF lens will get you the entire theatre, if that's what you want.

dkyl said:
C'mon now. Plenty of restaurants these days are dimly lit without being on the upper price range.

What I'm saying is that there's not a restaurant, in Australia at least, that I've been to that would frown upon anyone using a camera and a flash.

dkyl said:
To a certain extent. Sometimes you just can't unless you're the Flash (of the superhero variety).

Then FF will not save you.

dkyl said:
Not sure where the confusion exists but there's really no need to suggest dirty and unsavory connotations when talking about discrete street photography or discrete any form of photography. Perhaps you're confusing the word discrete.

Discrete, surreptitious, secretive, it all means the same at the end of the day. If you are ostensibly hiding what you are doing, then you are taking photographs of 'individuals' in a secretive manner.

HCB, as an example, never tried to hide what he was doing. My take on street photography is clearly different to that of others: http://australianimage.com.au/index.php/street-photography/ or http://australianimage.com.au/index.php/blessing-of-the-bikes-2015-pt1/ .

WhiteBeard · 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.

OzRay · Dec 30, 2016

My thought is that digital hasn't killed photography, far from it, but it has killed the basic skills. The skills that were essential for every photographer in the film era and are still essential today.

I shoot nothing but RAW and did so in my news/sports photography days. I think shooting RAW is the analogy to shooting film. The subsequent work in the darkroom (Capture One for me) is where I become the creative, without the pork pie hat and attitude.

To honest, I enjoy the 'darkroom' work as much now as I did in the yesteryear (without the dermatitis), seeing what I can flesh out from my RAW files. This is where I control things, not the camera and what the engineers baked into the JPG conversion engine.

Mike Johnston could write an entire blog around this.

TN Args · Dec 30, 2016

OzRay said:
TN Args said:

Maybe it has increased their photography skill at natural-light photography, by increasing the range of situations where they can entertain the possibility and work at it, instead of giving up as virtually impractical and hauling in the fake substitutes.

Click to expand...

Natural-light photography was perfected when photography was invented; it had to be to simply exist. The basics never changed throughout the entire glass plate, celluloid etc film era.

Yeah, yeah, and supplementary-light photography was perfected 5 minutes after the oil lantern. "It had to be." Pull the other one.

OzRay said:
Digital photography (and post-processing software) has, in many ways, reduced the requirement to understand the basics (and limitations) that couldn't be ignored in the film days, but that still exist in the digital era.

No camera yet can emulate what the human brain interprets from what the optic nerves transmit.

OzRay said:

Swings and roundabouts.

Click to expand...

It's all a one way street.

With you, every conversation is a one-way street. Your topics, however, are not.

OzRay said:
OzRay said:

P.S. Given the angle taken in the OP, the thread title is wrong; it should be "Has the Full Frame Sensor Killed Photography Skill?"

Click to expand...

Nope. It has nothing to do with FF. This post could have been written in 2004 when much the same existed, except that FF didn't exist at that time.

Good to see your listening skills are as crap as ever and your argumentativeness is advancing by the day. I suppose that's the OzRay equivalent of learning.

My point was clear enough the first time: it is only the high-ISO-capable-est digital cameras that could be responsible for 'killing photographic skills' in the manner that your OP discusses. Your thread title obscures that. Your OP begins to make it apparent what the title really could have been; I suggested one of several that would have worked.

You missed my point twice now.

OzRay · Dec 30, 2016

TN Args said:
Yeah, yeah, and supplementary-light photography was perfected 5 minutes after the oil lantern. "It had to be." Pull the other one.

Oil lanterns didn't illuminate many, if any, of the first or subsequent photographs that still stand as record.

TN Args said:
With you, every conversation is a one-way street. Your topics, however, are not.

My topics are usually controversial. How controversial depends on the recipient.

TN Args said:
Good to see your listening skills are as crap as ever and your argumentativeness is advancing by the day. I suppose that's the OzRay equivalent of learning.

Given that everything on this forum is delivered in writing, listening skills are hardly called into action.

And I'm not sorry if I disagree with your views, but you are always free to express them, which you do, ad infinitum.

TN Args said:
My point was clear enough the first time: it is only the high-ISO-capable-est digital cameras that could be responsible for 'killing photographic skills' in the manner that your OP discusses. Your thread title obscures that. Your OP begins to make it apparent what the title really could have been; I suggested one of several that would have worked.

You missed my point twice now.

I didn't miss your point whatsoever, I simply disagree with it. Carrying on with a tantrum won't change a thing, I'll just try my best not to patronise you.

But may I also point out that for me, you're a non-entity. You're anonymous, your personal details suggest that you're in the US, but posts suggest that you're in Australia. You're basically a keyboard warrior proffering opinion, criticism, acrimony, without anything suggesting who you are.

My blog reveals more about myself than you do of yourself in the 3466 posts that you've made so far.

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

Hiphopapotamus · Dec 30, 2016

The biggest problem with flash and why gain (ISO) is used now instead is that flash creates uneven lighting by its very nature, which makes lighting subjects ridiculously difficult. The reason why people avoid flash is also mostly because of this.

Paulmorgan · Dec 30, 2016

dkyl said:
Paulmorgan said:

I`ve said this an awful lot in this forum "if the light is not already there, add some of your own" the usual reply is, well I don`t want the flash look or I don`t want to lump a flash on the shoe of the camera.

Crap light is crap light, it don`t matter how fast the lens is, you can spend a $1000 on a lens and it will still not improve on the quality of the light, only the quantity of the crap light.

Natural looking flash is easy once you have got to grips with it.

Click to expand...

A bit over simplifying I think.

No, not at all, we have been talking about situations where flash will be useful and of benefit.

dkyl said:
What if the light is good but just not enough of it?

How can it be good if there is not enough of it for your requirements, subject matter etc.

dkyl said:
Sports venue with fast action. Lighting is fine but you need the shutter speed. Your shooting distance limits your flash's effective range.

Spontaneous street scene with movement. Great light but you're aperture limited by your lens and you need a certain amount of shutter speed.

Paulmorgan · Dec 30, 2016

OzRay said:
Paulmorgan said:

Full frame still has its place but only once you have exhausted all your options and many M4/3 users can`t see these, its a shame really.

Click to expand...

Indeed it does have its place, as much a medium format and even scanning backs. I must be doing something wrong, as I haven't yet exhausted my options.

Tuonov2 · Dec 30, 2016

Roger said:
Greetings

30 minutes to shoot an assignment process the film and print 3 8x10's telling a story or go home.

Roger J

I smell bull, 30 minutes? The older I get the faster I was ;-)

Tuonov2 · Dec 30, 2016

OzRay said:
What I'm saying is that there's not a restaurant, in Australia at least, that I've been to that would frown upon anyone using a camera and a flash.

OzRay · Dec 31, 2016

Tuonov2 said:
OzRay said:

What I'm saying is that there's not a restaurant, in Australia at least, that I've been to that would frown upon anyone using a camera and a flash.

Click to expand...

JMftrnr · Dec 31, 2016

JaKing said:
... the wonderful book "Light Science and Magic" by Hunter, Biver & Fuqua.

Taught me more about light and lighting in a couple of weeks than 40+ years of experience

dkyl · Dec 31, 2016

OzRay said:
dkyl said:

Any A7 series might do the trick. Perhaps the 55/1.8 or something similar. Not sure what you're getting at here. I could have said E-M1 II with a 25/1.2 too. But point being I'd avoid flash in this scenario.

Click to expand...

If you happen to be in the nose bleed section of the theatre where Cats is being played (been there), a 55mm FF lens will get you the entire theatre, if that's what you want.

Actually I didn't have the theatre in mind but maybe a jazz club or similar or restaurant with some live music.

OzRay said:
OzRay said:

C'mon now. Plenty of restaurants these days are dimly lit without being on the upper price range.

Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that there's not a restaurant, in Australia at least, that I've been to that would frown upon anyone using a camera and a flash.

I'm Aussie and there are plenty of restaurants in Oz where flash may prove a distraction or annoyance. Again, not saying no flash is a policy but I chose not to use it in a dimly lit scenario especially if I want to take multiple shots because I feel it may distract other patrons.

OzRay said:
OzRay said:

To a certain extent. Sometimes you just can't unless you're the Flash (of the superhero variety).

Click to expand...

Then FF will not save you.

No, but it may improve the situation.

OzRay said:
OzRay said:

Not sure where the confusion exists but there's really no need to suggest dirty and unsavory connotations when talking about discrete street photography or discrete any form of photography. Perhaps you're confusing the word discrete.

Click to expand...

Discrete, surreptitious, secretive, it all means the same at the end of the day. If you are ostensibly hiding what you are doing, then you are taking photographs of 'individuals' in a secretive manner.

Discrete just means not drawing attention to oneself. I think it's a bit unfair to taint a group of photographers with I'll-intent just because they choose to photograph discretely.

What if you wish to take more than one shot prior to provoking a reaction to the flash or a sequence?

Does photographing discretely negate the ability to approach your subject subsequently to alert them to the images taken and ask for approval?

You can photograph how you wish. There're more than one way to do things.

gary0319 · Dec 31, 2016

007peter said:
I wouldn't go as far as saying that Digital has 'KILLED' photography per se. But technology has afford the luxury of Fixing Exposure and Creating Post-Processing Digital Art afterwards. This EASE, create 2 more problems:

1. Instead of enjoying the photograph we took, we have to spend hours processing RAW and fixing exposure, WB, CA, distortion, etc....

2. Instead of enjoying simple photography as it is, we become Digital Artist polishing our photo, increasing color, contrast, sharpness....In short, we all have been reduced into a Digital Artis.

I have stopped shooting RAW now because I'm really annoyed by post-processing task that I don't enjoy. Instead of correcting for WB, Exposure error later, I now correct them on the spot shooting 3-5 sample photo to readjust my WB/Expsoure, then I shoot away in JPEG and never worry about post-processing. My life is much easier now.

My enthusiast friends think I'm Lazy, but I feel that camera should serve me and not the other way around. This is yet another reason why so many people now prefer using Smartphone for photograph. I noticed that Samsung & Apple have fantastic Out-Of-Camera JPEG without editing, versus a OOC jpeg from Canon or Nikon DSLR that require post-processing to bring out the color, sharpness, etc...

I tend to agree with you and although I shoot RAW + jpg, I rarely use the RAW.

But this brings up another gripe I have which kind of runs contrary to theme of this thread. Namely that I think too many mirrorless, M4/3, small sensor shooters fail to use the technology they have at their fingertips (actually right in their EVF) and seem insistent on continueing to shoot like they are using a DSLR, and then complain about the shortcomings of M4/3.

How many complain that they cannot pull detail out of the shadows, when the histogram is right in front of their eyes BEFORE they shoot, and a simple nudge on the exposure comp wheel would have kept the image out of the ditch in the first place ( and making PP of RAW less of a pain, or even necessary)

Or....finding it hard to get sharp images, when just a tap on the focus ring to bring up focus peaking almost always insures a tack sharp image.

My point being, that today's technology, and specifically mirrorless technology, can actually enhance ones photographic " shooting skills" and make one less reliant on post processing....just like we used to have to do when shooting slide transparencies. Remember those days??

Has Digital Killed Photography Skill?

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts