Has Digital Killed Photography Skill?

MrBrightSide · Dec 31, 2016

Sorry Sam Bennett, this is not a direct answer to you, but that's the way the system is apparently set up. This is to the original poster.

A real photographer—as opposed to a snap shooter—controls every aspect of the image, especially the lighting. Sometimes you control the light by waiting for the subject to turn to a spot where the lighting is better. Sometimes it means setting up a forest of Profoto strobes and reflectors. Expecting a chunk of plastic and metal to compensate for your ignorance of lighting technique is just embarrassing.

The problem nowadays is that very few websites talk about using the interplay of light and shadow to give shape to your subject. Instead they concentrate—as you say—on capturing some overall good-enough exposure with an acceptable level of noise. It's fine if you want to produce shots that record what you saw, but it's not creative.

Luckily the use of speedlights is coming back into vogue among news photographers who use them for their intended purpose—to give shape to their subjects and direct the viewer's eye—so I think that we're going to see more interest on that front.

There are two great resources on how to use speedlights artistically, Strobist and http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques

The only solution is to buy yourself a sheet of black FunFoam, use it to make a snoot for your speedlight and learn to become the master of light, not its slave.

MrBrightSide · Dec 31, 2016

Of course you can. The streets are full of convenient poles and posts... set up a likely looking spot with your strobe fitted with a PocketWizard and mount it with a Superclamp and a Manfrotto Magic Arm—you're good for at least a quarter mile. Just be sure to safety wire the strobe and arm so that it doesn't fall and hit someone.

dkyl said:
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.

Aaron801 · Dec 31, 2016

Sure with digital there's more room for error (mostly, though it's easier to ruin with blowin out highlits than with film) but there's also more options too... so if you're processing theres more resposibility with digital to dial in something that's not just techncally correct but really enhances the iamge that you're shooting.

If by "skill" you mean the technical stuff one might argue that digital is easier to master, but if you mean just getting a compelling photo I think that it's about the same... The business of understanding the effects of light, composition, exposure, color, contrasts, form and having some kind of interesting personal vision behind what you do are pretty much the same with either medium...

CharlesB58 · Dec 31, 2016

I think marketing/advertising has more to do with lack of skills than the technology. For example: 40 years ago Canon had an ad for the AE-1 in which a pro photographer used the camera to capture tennis pro Rod Laver in action. Such good, pro quality photos. Then he hands the camera to Rod who instantly can use it to take photos. The implication was the auto-exposure and simple controls of the AE-1 would allow anyone to get "results like a pro".

Never mind that was probably the only time that pro used and AE-1 when money was involved, and continued to use his Canon F-1s for his work. The point was to get people to buy the camera, and it worked.

This approach continues, as we see photos taken by pros using entry or mid-level cameras featured to lead people to believe their pics will look the same.

Stir in the lack of printed manuals and many people think they can just buy a dslr or milc and get the same quality results they see in the ads just by reviewing the "Quick Start Guide" and fiddling with a few controls.

This thread is a bit ironic on this site, devoted as it is to gear, with very many people thinking that their boss gear, being what "pros demand" makes their photos somehow commensurate with pro photos even if their actual skills aren't.

andyus08 · Dec 31, 2016

I don't think so.

Like you mentioned, photography is all about light. I learned basic photography at community college during the film era. Even now, I still keep learning everyday.

I shoot wedding which is very competitive business. So, I have to learn to improve myself all the times (technique, light, new composition, etc...). I've seen people snap away as many pictures as they may and go home to select the good ones. There's nothing wrong with their method as they choose, but for me, I have to know what I shoot , otherwise, I'll be overwhelmed when I select between thousands of images.

So, I still believe in photography skill

Herrbill · Dec 31, 2016

I prefer flash to high ISO and my normal settings for indoor are Manual mode, F/ 5.6, 1/125 sec, ISO 400 and flash mode at 2 curtain and flash set to TTL with -1 FEV and WB set to daylight. Although the results turn out fine, my problem is that everything is way too dark when viewed from live view. Has anybody any suggestions as to how I might improve my live view without adversely affecting the outcome.

thanks in advance

Son of Thunder · Dec 31, 2016

I use flash and bracket ttl cord diffuser and I am happy with most of my pictures. Digital photography has changed what it mean to a photographer in a couple of ways some easier some harder. Autofocus is easier so you can pick where you focus. You don't confirm focus and find you focused on the wall behind your subject. Now most digital photographers are expected to process there files. Back in the day a lot of pro shot film and sent them to a good lab easier. So it has its ups and downs.

OzRay · Dec 31, 2016

Jorginho said:
And it it is never good or bad, just how you perceive it or what you make of it. Technology is a very good way to rapidly change things and human beings tend not to like rapid changes a whole lot.

I didn't say that it's good or bad, but that not every situation works just existing light. It doesn't matter whether you use high or low ISO, there are many situations where natural light (whether indoors or out), just doesn't work ideally on its own.

I wasn't around in the days when people's were effectively strapped to a frame to keep them still and where flash powder made this unnecessary. I do remember back before digital, the quest for ever higher ASA film, so that you could shoot in poorly lit areas where flash etc wasn't enough. I also remember back in 2004 on DPR, where we were constantly seeing Canon owners showing off their 'high' ISO shots ((800 from memory) and comparing them to the rather ordinary anything above ISO200 of the E-1.

This hasn't been a rapid change, except for those that haven't been around for long.

nzmacro · Dec 31, 2016

The only thing that's changed is the darkroom really. Mind you its a shame a lot of new people to photography don't get to see and feel the buzz of watching your first print come to life right before your eyes !!. Man that's a magic feeling that one.

Other than that, nope still the same really. Still use the manual flash units when needed, Sunpak ringflash and two Sunpak 555's. Only used for macro though and not birds.

All the best and no light = no shot for sure.

Danny.

Tom Caldwell · Dec 31, 2016

Flash did in fact die a happy death. I of course remember needing flash and all those happy flashers at stadiums an theatres trying to light up the whole world from the audience even in broad daylight were a sign that the use of flash was revered or that they simply did not know how to turn their flash unit off. As a result cameras have become banned from events as the aimless flashing distracted both performers and audience.

In those days I had not idea on how to photograph and the use of flash usually was the hardest skill to properly master. Even today red-eyed social media snaps show that correct supplementary lighting is still a black art.

So when truly fast lenses appeared and became (sort of) affordable the flash challlenged saw them as the fast way out of learning good lighting technique - espercially when the speed of your installed "film" god be changed at will per shot.

Therefore photography skill has not changed. Digital did not kill it off as those who truly wish to get skills still get them but since Eastman first fitted film into a Box Camera and sold it to the masses most still wish to press the shutter and lets someone or the machine in their hands work the magic. It is hardly any wonder that mobile phones are so popular.

If the mass of more serious photographers had their way then even expensive cameras would be as simple. Hence the rapt attention given to sensor and lens performance out of the box and the almost zero regard for acquired photographic skills. For some reason the next very best camera and lens will automatically make them into a star - or maybe just make them a little luckier.

Myself - I must practice what I preach and apply myself to understanding that hardest photographic subject - the skilled use of supplementary lighting - even if it is just fill flash.

But for the mass of those looking for easy-photography the lack of prime necessity to use supplementary flash assistance has been just one arm of photography that they can now safely forget about learning.

OzRay · Dec 31, 2016

Just a few example where not using any form of supplementary lighting (again, even a reflector) would have resulted in more or less unappealing or useless photos:

Face in dark shadow.

Under a dark veranda

Fashions on the field

Celebrities in a poorly lit room

The Debutante

Deep shadow under veranda

Food for thought.

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

Paulmorgan · Dec 31, 2016

dkyl said:
Paulmorgan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough. I just alluded to a broader context where it may be difficult to supplement with additional lighting.

dkyl said:

dkyl said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Because good is subjective and doesn't just mean intensity. Candlelight can be good light as can floodlights. It depends on the context. But there will be situations where light levels are low and supplementary lights are difficult to implement where better high ISO performance can yield a higher quality result.

Maybe I should just repeat this bit.

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

dkyl said:
dkyl said:

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Tom Caldwell · Dec 31, 2016

OzRay said:
dv312 said:

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, ;-)

Click to expand...

Pretty much everywhere I go, I'll have either my FL-36 or an FL-50 flash with me. I generally wear cargo pants, so even the FL-50 will fit comfortably in a side pocket.

On my High Country trips, without a flash I'd miss out on numerous shots. And when I do the various community events, a flash is mandatory, even outdoors.

And when doing portraits etc, you might as well forget it without supplementary lighting, which might just mean a reflector of some sort.

High ISO and fast lenses will not save the day in so many situations.

The thing is, once you start to think about lighting, you begin to understand what is missing before you even lift the camera to your eye.

bobn2 · Dec 31, 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.

It's a point of view, not one that I share, but a point of view.

Constraints can spur creativity, but apart from that, I can't see much point in revelling in constraints. If you want to do that, why not take up cave painting with a few colours of mud, charcoal and ground up bone. I mean, everything after that has just killed the skill hasn't it?

As for digital, what surprises me is that so few have bothered or want to learn the new skills needed to get the most out of this new medium. Instead, they want to operate a film emulation which relies on their old skills (which to be brutally honest, are often pretty poorly developed in the first case) but which fails to make the most of this new medium.

What matters in the end is the result that you produce, not how you got there. Stanley Kubrick spent years working out how to film in candlelight, and you come along and say that he should have 'enhanced' what was poor lighting. Well, Kubrick was Kubrick and you are you, so when I see the beauty of what he produced and what you produce, it makes me wonder who really had the skills. So, we are lucky compared to Kubrick that we can indeed produce beautiful images in natural light even though there might not be much of it.

OzRay · Dec 31, 2016

bobn2 said:
It's a point of view, not one that I share, but a point of view.

Constraints can spur creativity, but apart from that, I can't see much point in revelling in constraints. If you want to do that, why not take up cave painting with a few colours of mud, charcoal and ground up bone. I mean, everything after that has just killed the skill hasn't it?

As for digital, what surprises me is that so few have bothered or want to learn the new skills needed to get the most out of this new medium. Instead, they want to operate a film emulation which relies on their old skills (which to be brutally honest, are often pretty poorly developed in the first case) but which fails to make the most of this new medium.

What matters in the end is the result that you produce, not how you got there. Stanley Kubrick spent years working out how to film in candlelight, and you come along and say that he should have 'enhanced' what was poor lighting. Well, Kubrick was Kubrick and you are you, so when I see the beauty of what he produced and what you produce, it makes me wonder who really had the skills. So, we are lucky compared to Kubrick that we can indeed produce beautiful images in natural light even though there might not be much of it.

You've interpreted what I've written from what appears to be a position of established bias.

What are these new photography skills that you speak of that are required with this new 'medium'?

I actually mentioned Barry Lyndon because it was a specific intent of Stanley Kubrick, I did not suggest that his film required additional lighting.

You are looking at things almost in a B&W mode. I'm talking about all shades of grey where there is room and indeed a need to embrace all techniques that enhance photography.

Tom Caldwell · Dec 31, 2016

OzRay said:
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.

Click to expand...

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.

Tom Caldwell · Dec 31, 2016

Please don't try and derail a debate that could be interesting by attacking the person.

Agreement is not absolutely necessary. Attacking the person is usually the resort of those losing the argument.

OzRay · Dec 31, 2016

Tom Caldwell said:
We can never quite get away from the two main threads of photographic reproduction - as a science of precision and as art that moves the soul - I agree that both can be combined very satisfactorilly, but a scientific precise image can be very precise and do nothing for the viewer just as much as a great image poorly caught is just that. However a momentous image that moves the soul has little regard for the equipment that has made it.

When I was studying photography, we visited many places where photography places in industry, police forensic departments, fashion studios, retouching studios etc.

Retouching has been undertaken since photography began. I have a photograph of myself when I was around two years old taken in a studio and it's been hand coloured to give me blond hair and blue eyes (neither of which I have, and less hair than ever), as maybe that was the fashion, or I've morphed.

The forensic department did no such modifications, as what was recorded had to be as faithful as possible. My news days also meant that I could not modify my photographs other than minor tweaks with exposure etc. Both often required supplementary lighting (usually flash) in order to capture the subject matter properly.

I would rather not use supplementary lighting where I don't have to, but I'd be fooling myself if I thought I could do without it entirely.

bobn2 · Dec 31, 2016

OzRay said:
bobn2 said:

It's a point of view, not one that I share, but a point of view.

Constraints can spur creativity, but apart from that, I can't see much point in revelling in constraints. If you want to do that, why not take up cave painting with a few colours of mud, charcoal and ground up bone. I mean, everything after that has just killed the skill hasn't it?

As for digital, what surprises me is that so few have bothered or want to learn the new skills needed to get the most out of this new medium. Instead, they want to operate a film emulation which relies on their old skills (which to be brutally honest, are often pretty poorly developed in the first case) but which fails to make the most of this new medium.

What matters in the end is the result that you produce, not how you got there. Stanley Kubrick spent years working out how to film in candlelight, and you come along and say that he should have 'enhanced' what was poor lighting. Well, Kubrick was Kubrick and you are you, so when I see the beauty of what he produced and what you produce, it makes me wonder who really had the skills. So, we are lucky compared to Kubrick that we can indeed produce beautiful images in natural light even though there might not be much of it.

Click to expand...

You've interpreted what I've written from what appears to be a position of established bias.

Interesting. Which 'established bias' is that?

OzRay said:
What are these new photography skills that you speak of that are required with this new 'medium'?

There are a number of things different between the film and digital medium. The major different is that processing is much more flexible and easier and is non-destructive of the latent image. This leads to different methodologies for managing exposure. We have far higher quantum efficiencies than were available with film, which allow different opportunities for managing exposure. Further, test and experimental shots are essentially free, so opens up an avenue for characterisation of your own equipment that wasn't there before. Also, we use different display devices with different properties, which require different processing and presentation. We have frame rates and focus speeds unheard of in film days, which open up new techniques such as various types of stacking and even, yes, taking 100 images for the one that's just what you wanted.

All these skills are 'different' from what was needed with film, but many photographers still cling to the notion that they are using film, more, that they are using film with a minilab, where they had no control over the processing whatsoever.

OzRay said:
I actually mentioned Barry Lyndon because it was a specific intent of Stanley Kubrick, I did not suggest that his film required additional lighting.

You are looking at things almost in a B&W mode. I'm talking about all shades of grey where there is room and indeed a need to embrace all techniques that enhance photography.

Yet it was you that was casting aspersions on other people's choice of technique, as have a few others in the thread. I totally agree with what you said, and in fact I said something similar myself - "what matters in the end is the result that you produce, not how you got there." Frankly, the technique of someone who produces superb images is unarguable, it is that technique and its intersection with what they were trying to achieve that got them there, so why would we criticise? Also, why would we necessarily seek to emulate, because technique is a personal thing. I have a friend who produces simply beautiful images, and his gear and technique has become ever more restrictive, he's decamped from FF DSLR to APS-C mirrorless (and on that camera, from raw to JPEG) and on occasion a Pentax Q because he finds that the restrictions help to produce what he's looking for. He produces images of a quality that I could only dream of, so who am I to argue?

OzRay · Dec 31, 2016

bobn2 said:
Interesting. Which 'established bias' is that?

The bias appears to be that any photography skills and techniques applied prior to the digital era are no longer applicable, and in perhaps should be disregarded.

bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:

What are these new photography skills that you speak of that are required with this new 'medium'?

Click to expand...

There are a number of things different between the film and digital medium. The major different is that processing is much more flexible and easier and is non-destructive of the latent image. This leads to different methodologies for managing exposure. We have far higher quantum efficiencies than were available with film, which allow different opportunities for managing exposure. Further, test and experimental shots are essentially free, so opens up an avenue for characterisation of your own equipment that wasn't there before. Also, we use different display devices with different properties, which require different processing and presentation. We have frame rates and focus speeds unheard of in film days, which open up new techniques such as various types of stacking and even, yes, taking 100 images for the one that's just what you wanted.

All these skills are 'different' from what was needed with film, but many photographers still cling to the notion that they are using film, more, that they are using film with a minilab, where they had no control over the processing whatsoever.

Really? You use a lens to focus on a scene and the resulting light impinges on a light sensitive medium to create an image of the scene. Then the image is processed and modified outside of the camera to provide a final result for viewing. Some even produce paper-based records of those images that can be physically held and viewed.

Of course, none of this ever happened in the film days.

bobn2 said:
Yet it was you that was casting aspersions on other people's choice of technique, as have a few others in the thread. I totally agree with what you said, and in fact I said something similar myself - "what matters in the end is the result that you produce, not how you got there." Frankly, the technique of someone who produces superb images is unarguable, it is that technique and its intersection with what they were trying to achieve that got them there, so why would we criticise? Also, why would we necessarily seek to emulate, because technique is a personal thing. I have a friend who produces simply beautiful images, and his gear and technique has become ever more restrictive, he's decamped from FF DSLR to APS-C mirrorless (and on that camera, from raw to JPEG) and on occasion a Pentax Q because he finds that the restrictions help to produce what he's looking for. He produces images of a quality that I could only dream of, so who am I to argue?

No aspersions were cast. I am attempting to illuminate people's views about lighting so that it may prompt at least some to consider supplementary lighting, which may in fact enhance their photography, rather than inhibit it.

Has Digital Killed Photography Skill?

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Community Leader

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Community Leader

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Community Leader

Community Leader

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts