Has Digital Killed Photography Skill?

OzRay · Dec 31, 2016

453C said:
OzRay said:

I do agree that there are some idiosyncrasies with the system, but once you learn it, it's very reliable, flexible and consistent.

Click to expand...

There's the rub. Make the system easier to learn & use, and people will be more inclined to use it. More people using flashes properly might be less annoying to you. Hey, it's possible.

I suspect like with the cameras themselves, the options available make it difficult to provide everything for everyone. One of the simplest settings is put the camera into Fill Flash mode and the flash into TTL Auto and it will suit most situations, especially back lit ones.

453C said:
Did you choose the thread title to get more attention? It doesn't seem to fit well with the actual topic - "Losers Refuse to Control Lighting".

Considering the titles some people post, I think mine wasn't that far removed. And most people should know by now that my titles are a bit of an attention getter and the meat of the post in contained within.

It also gives people an opportunity to complain about something if all else fails.

453C · Dec 31, 2016

OzRay said:
453C said:

OzRay said:

I do agree that there are some idiosyncrasies with the system, but once you learn it, it's very reliable, flexible and consistent.

Click to expand...

There's the rub. Make the system easier to learn & use, and people will be more inclined to use it. More people using flashes properly might be less annoying to you. Hey, it's possible.

Click to expand...

I suspect like with the cameras themselves, the options available make it difficult to provide everything for everyone. One of the simplest settings is put the camera into Fill Flash mode and the flash into TTL Auto and it will suit most situations, especially back lit ones.

And I'm going to start doing just that, now that I have a decent bag for carrying a few more items when I'm not going Available-Light™. I wonder if the move towards e-shutters will kick off some flash improvements.

OzRay said:
OzRay said:

Did you choose the thread title to get more attention? It doesn't seem to fit well with the actual topic - "Losers Refuse to Control Lighting?".

Click to expand...

Considering the titles some people post, I think mine wasn't that far removed. And most people should know by now that my titles are a bit of an attention getter and the meat of the post in contained within.

True.

Btw, feel free to start a "Losers" series. "Losers Only Shoot Video?" "Splitting MFT Talk: Losers Against?" "Fully Articulated Screens are for Losers?" "Available-Light™ is for Losers?"

Keep the ?, though. Plausible deniability is important.

OzRay said:
It also gives people an opportunity to complain about something if all else fails.

I've yet to see anyone at a loss for that, but I commend you for providing this service to the community.

453C · Dec 31, 2016

CharlesB58 said:
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.

You brought up a great point. Being able to quickly determine the cost of the involved gear would dramatically improve much photography, especially mine. Who do we petition to have the original MSRP of all gear used included in EXIF? Ideally, the amounts would be automatically combined for a more impressive grand total, but I'll leave that to the standards committee.

I've considered adding an MSRP watermark to all of my photos, but it seems like too much trouble. If I spend $2000 on a camera, I shouldn't have to do that myself.

Paulmorgan · Dec 31, 2016

Sam Bennett said:
Paulmorgan said:

Only if you don`t understand flash, mixed lighting, wb etc.

Click to expand...

I understand all of it. My flashes are covered in velcro so that I can color match my flashes to the ambient temperature.

How are you measuring and controlling this, just guessing and then slapping a gel on ? temps vary a great deal, even between bulbs that might look the same.

Sam Bennett said:
I have bags full of stands and light modifiers. But I still think the camera manufacturers are lazy about this. My phone's flash can change it's color temperature but my $400 flash cannot? That's just stupid. I'm forced to shoot in manual because the E-M1 always defaults to ISO 100 in AV? That's just stupid.

Why is the camera always defaulting to ISO 100, do you rely on auto ISO with flash ?

If you are then your just making a rod for your own back.

Sam Bennett said:
I know how to work around what my camera is doing, but there's a better way for the camera manufacturers to do this. It would make it easier on newbies and pros alike.

They can`t make it any easier than it already is are unless they make these things full Ai robots, they would then cost more than your average car.

TTL needs a human element to make them sing, they always have and always will.

Sam Bennett said:
--
Sam Bennett
http://www.flickr.com/sambennett/

OzRay · Dec 31, 2016

Here's an example of how flash can dramatically improve your results. The first image is taken without flash firing and the second with flash firing (both hand held). The FL-50 was attached to the camera and the subject was around 20m away:

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

Max Iso · Dec 31, 2016

I think digital has enhanced every aspect of photography, good and bad. With digital came the ability to put cameras into nearly everything, from tiny little cameras to phones to FF and beyond. It also enables a huge population that would have never known how to deal with dark rooms and who woulnd't want to pay for printing costs, but since they already know how to use a PC, they have easy access to the photographic process (even if that's only viewing on a digital screen).

Digital has opened up photography to the masses and while this means we have far more relatively poorly done shots being produced, it also means we have more people learning and practicing who end up highly skilled. I can take millions of "practice shots" with my GX7 thanks to an electronic shutter and memory card. My D300 is good for another 70,000 shots before the shutter dies (based on shutter life claims).

To get that much experience with exposure and composition in real world use with film would cost me a fortune. Literally. So as i say, i think digital has improved in both directions, it's created more "photographers" with no real skill but it's also given those more serious about photography more experience than they could have ever got with film.

I think digital made photography better for everyone except those who were in love with photography when it was only film.

--
"It's strange, whenever I see a gun
I think about just how petty you are
And it blows my [insert] mind!
Yeah, it blows my [insert] mind!
These days, I never seem to get enough
I’m tired of this [beep], I want to go home
Don't waste my [insert] time!
Don't waste my [insert] time!
Because anything exceptional
Gets crushed by common people
With jealousy and ignorance
And all their common evils
This planet isn't special
Collections made of clay
I'm waiting for the punishment
I know it’s on the way"
-Custer

OzRay · Dec 31, 2016

The Kodak Box Brownie did much then same and from there developed enthusiast photography. Only the medium has changed, the other aspects are still the same.

Halina123 · Jan 1, 2017

Interesting discussion on flash photography.

I now realise that since I went digital I have done very little flash photography.

In the film days I had to use the flash indoors because without it the images were dark and unusable.

My skill level with regards to flashes has not changed. With film I used an old compact with a separate flash gun on the hot shoe. The only skill or knowledge I needed was camera to subject distance, film ISO (ASA), GN on flash and I shot at full power. I set the aperture. And 95% of my images were properly exposed.

With modern digital cameras there are so many options with respect to the flash. I don't know where to start.

On one of my cameras I have: auto, red eye, fillin, Red eye slow, slow, full, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, 1/128, flash exposure compensation.

Another camera has flash options for manual or TTL.

And all this is for flashes on the camera.

I am just confused!

Max Iso · Jan 1, 2017

OzRay said:
The Kodak Box Brownie did much then same and from there developed enthusiast photography. Only the medium has changed, the other aspects are still the same.

OzRay · Jan 1, 2017

I'm not disputing for one moment that digital hasn't provided tremendous benefits over film, that's not what my post is about.

My post is about digital killing many relevant photography skills because it allows 'good' enough results, up to a point.

People begin to rely on high ISO, as an example, and then complain that their results aren't good because their camera doesn't produce good high ISO results.

So instead of buying and learning how to use a $50 flash, they go out and buy a $3000 camera and fast lenses so that they can photograph their family in the lounge room.

Ironically, camera phone users are realising this shortfall and manufacturers are accommodating their needs by producing LED lights and flash units that they can attach to their camera phones.

Meanwhile digital SLR and mirrorless users are going in the opposite direction.

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

KTMfan · Jan 1, 2017

OzRay said:
I'm not disputing for one moment that digital hasn't provided tremendous benefits over film, that's not what my post is about.

My post is about digital killing many relevant photography skills because it allows 'good' enough results, up to a point.

People begin to rely on high ISO, as an example, and then complain that their results aren't good because their camera doesn't produce good high ISO results.

So instead of buying and learning how to use a $50 flash, they go out and buy a $3000 camera and fast lenses so that they can photograph their family in the lounge room.

Ironically, camera phone users are realising this shortfall and manufacturers are accommodating their needs by producing LED lights and flash units that they can attach to their camera phones.

Meanwhile digital SLR and mirrorless users are going in the opposite direction.

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

It's interesting that you mention this. There seems to be an unnatural hate for "artificial" lighting by quite a number of photographers of late. What really opened my eyes to learning the benefits of adding light, was a series of photographs done by Alfred Palmer, for the war office during the second world war. Absolutely stunning quality, even by todays standards. Look here to see what I mean. Be sure to click into the full screen mode. http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/08/world-war-ii-the-american-home-front-in-color/100122/

yahoo2u · Jan 1, 2017

KTMfan said:
OzRay said:

I'm not disputing for one moment that digital hasn't provided tremendous benefits over film, that's not what my post is about.

My post is about digital killing many relevant photography skills because it allows 'good' enough results, up to a point.

People begin to rely on high ISO, as an example, and then complain that their results aren't good because their camera doesn't produce good high ISO results.

So instead of buying and learning how to use a $50 flash, they go out and buy a $3000 camera and fast lenses so that they can photograph their family in the lounge room.

Ironically, camera phone users are realising this shortfall and manufacturers are accommodating their needs by producing LED lights and flash units that they can attach to their camera phones.

Meanwhile digital SLR and mirrorless users are going in the opposite direction.

Click to expand...

KTMfan · Jan 1, 2017

yahoo2u said:
yahoo2u said:

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/08/world-war-ii-the-american-home-front-in-color/100122/

Click to expand...

All done with his Graflex.

And most likely between ISO 100 & 400. At a guess

Tim Reidy Productions · Jan 1, 2017

you can get great results from flash

for certain photograhy it makes the subject shine.

if you do not use a flash or light modifiers you have a better chance of getting the true light from a photo opportunity.

Max Iso · Jan 1, 2017

OzRay said:
I'm not disputing for one moment that digital hasn't provided tremendous benefits over film, that's not what my post is about.

My post is about digital killing many relevant photography skills because it allows 'good' enough results, up to a point.

People begin to rely on high ISO, as an example, and then complain that their results aren't good because their camera doesn't produce good high ISO results.

So instead of buying and learning how to use a $50 flash, they go out and buy a $3000 camera and fast lenses so that they can photograph their family in the lounge room.

Ironically, camera phone users are realising this shortfall and manufacturers are accommodating their needs by producing LED lights and flash units that they can attach to their camera phones.

Meanwhile digital SLR and mirrorless users are going in the opposite direction.

Sam Bennett · Jan 1, 2017

Herrbill said:
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

What camera are you using? Most Live View cameras allow you to change what LV shows from the actual effect of your manual settings on the exposure (as best it can) to something more usable for shooting, regardless of light. For instance, the E-M1 allows you to adjust this according to what mode your using, so manual can work differently than AV.

Terminal Boy · Jan 1, 2017

Not for me. In fact, it's facilitated my going from being just the bipedal transport mechanism for a P&S compact stuck on permanent iAuto to an amateur photographer who makes creative decisions about how I capture images.

enossified · Jan 1, 2017

OzRay said:
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?

I shot with flash bulbs for a decade (1966-1976) before I could afford to get into electronic flash with a Vivitar 283. I got good at bounce flash with bulbs just guesstimating the proper exposure, even some "bare bulb" shots. Not having to carry dozens of bulbs and finding places to eject them where they wouldn't start a fire was a relief.

Considering that almost all cameras come with built in flashes today (although mostly too weak for serious use) I was at first perplexed at posts I read here and at other forums from shooters looking to "get into strobes" as if it was a rite of passage or something ;-) Didn't they ever just pop up their flashes? After a while I realized it was just because I was old...

High ISOs are a mixed blessing. It's nice to be able to use available light in situatioons that would otherwise require flash, but there's no free lunch. It is nice to get images at ISO 800 that outperform ISO 400 film...if I have to use ISO 3200 I will but I know it will be noisy. In that case, I would prefer to use flash and drop ISO but then I give up other things like sequential shooting.

My first three digital cameras were P&S with no option for external flash and were very frustrating. I bought a Fuji X10 with a hot shoe and got back into the saddle again. It took me a while to understand I needed to be in manual mode when I wanted the flash to be the primary light and only use auto modes when I wanted it as fill. Once I got over that hurdle, I was happy going back to flash again.

Ulric · Jan 1, 2017

Max Iso said:
I think digital made photography better for everyone except those who were in love with photography when it was only film.

It has made photography better for those as well, at least those of us who accept the differences.

Sam Bennett · Jan 1, 2017

OzRay said:
I suspect like with the cameras themselves, the options available make it difficult to provide everything for everyone. One of the simplest settings is put the camera into Fill Flash mode and the flash into TTL Auto and it will suit most situations, especially back lit ones.

This is really only true outdoors during the day. While that can be critical for professionals who are dealing with harsh noonday light, it's precisely where amateurs (wrongly) think they'd never need a flash. Where people generally try to use flash indoors - and in that case fill flash looks pretty awful due to the mixture of cool flash temp and (typically) warm ambient light. Again, this is a problem smartphones have addressed, but ironically camera manufacturers are still lagging on.

Has Digital Killed Photography Skill?

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

KTMfan

Guest

Leading Member

KTMfan

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts