From a photography mailing list: I had a real problem today, editing over 100 photos. It as a real delight to work today, hurray for digital
Personally I think this is a fallacy.
First, the time it takes me to select which negs to scan may be pretty close to the time you need to throw out the digi stuff you don’t want. Same process, probably same time needed. Probably some extra time for the scanning and de-spotting on the film side, but since digital shooters tend to shoot more due to the perceived lack of cost or whatever, maybe we will end up with the same time periods.
Secondly, talking of time and the undisputed conveniences of the digital workflow. Are we after efficiency? Get those pics out there as soon as possible, minimum efforts, maximum results. From an artistic, non-commercial point of view there is no reason to work efficiently. This is not a Toyota factory. On the contrary, the creative process is almost by definition inefficient, probably has to be. And anyway, why the hurry? This is supposed to be enjoyable. [Irony hint: I am German and arguing against efficiency (wink).]
My point being that the efficiency advantages of the digital workflow are largely unrelated to the creative process and, per se, are hardly an advantage in non-commercial work.
Just marginally related: there are a lot of people trying to condition consumers (if they haven’t already done so) that anything digital is better than its non-digital counterpart. The term digital itself is almost used as a attribute of higher quality, even though that doesn’t always make sense or as an absolute designation doesn’t mean much, except that ones and zeroes are at work. For example, at the camera shop the other day, I saw “Lens Cleaning Paper for Digital”. We have to use our brains a little more not to fall into these traps.
I think those traps are made by marketing people who have taken seminars are about photography.
I think digital shooters realize the cost is going to be less that is why they become interested. But I do not think that is a factor in how much or what they shoot.
The same for film. Most photographers are out to get the best exposure possible. Once you have comitted to photography I think cost may factor in how often you shoot but nothing else. Unless you live on a deserted island that is having a film shortage.
NO one serious, digital or film thinks “oh well it is only digital anyway” It is the personal challenge of being able to take a photograph that came out the way you imagined it came out the split second you hit the shutter.
I often hear analog and digital related to business processes. Paper = analogue, some sort of computer involvement = digital. Horrible misuse of the words if you ask me.
You would have to be really geeky and never have had a girlfriend in your life to use words like that.
Some very good points there, Paul, but I think I still believe that digital shooters will hit the button more often. I have heard several statements praising the “freedom” it offers in this respect. A motor drive is similar. It is just that certain tools invite certain usage practices, it’s just something you have to take into account.
Gary, is this in Japan or elsewhere where these expressions are used? “Electronically” would probably be the correct term. But the purpose is probably the same, to make something maybe one’s company sound better.
I have written the above digitally, by the way.
I think the “push” the shutter more often comes just from inexperience. It is like giving a child a 24ex camera on a trip to the zoo. They will use up all 24 before they have any contact with animals.
I will be at the DNC in Boston next week, I hope to get some good shots. I read and FBI report that some domestic anarchist groups plan to target press. I do not know why they would protest the Democrats or the press to begin with. It just proves extremeists regardless of “belief” do not really have an agenda.
I managed to find a direct account of a digital shoot-aholic (quoted with permission), who had a very valuable insight in he process:
“Re; going digital. I know exactly what you are saying. Using film is more time consuming, and it does cause you to hesitate sometimes (the restraint you mentioned) because of the cost and the time involved afterwards. Digital is alot easier for just getting out there and shooting whatever you want, and shooting tons of pics. That was a big draw for me early on, I think I learned alot more in less time. But I’m starting to think differently now. I like the idea that I stop and think
a little more. Sure, I probably miss some shots but I’m not wasting alot shots on nothing, which is what was happening with my digi only method.
You might think “no big deal, so you wasted some digital snaps”. But it was getting out of hand for me. I was starting to burn out looking at all that stuff when I got home. I would start to edit and then get tired of it quickly and just leave the whole mess for another time. Not a good workflow, imo.
I take more time with the film camera, I try to visualize what the end result will be before I snap. I look at things a little differently now regardless of which camera I have in my hand. That’s a good thing for me at this point.”
I think when it comes to commercial photography digital IS an advantage. For clients as well as the user. Tight deadlines almost always are involved and not having to wait for a lab to process film is a joy.
When doing personal work I feel film is the way to go. It is about the creative process and
screwing up a roll of film now and then is part of that. Also, with digital shootiers, I agree that they tend to shoot too much and I see a lot of snapshot looking images. Slow it down just a little and think about it.
Dirk and others,
Yesterday I had my first experience with DSLR, it was Nikon D70. You can read more about it at journal pages on my web. But I like to write few notes (based on Dirk e-mail to me) about shooting too much digitally.
Amount of pictures I take in one shooting session depends on many things, but the most important two are: How interesting subject is and How h comfortable I am with camera I am using. For a almost a year I am using old Olympus OM2n with 50mm lens (sometimes 28 or 85). This camera creates in my mind joy when taking pictures the huge size of picture in viewfinder and its brightness and simplicity of handling the camera give me full freedom for creativity. Yesterday I was making pictures with Nikon D70 and after configuring camera certain way I had a same feeling. I forgot about the camera and it was only my mind and subject. And that is great, than you really thinking about results about feelings and you are not bothered with technical details. I used before that Bessa-R(2) rangefinders. There I had the same feelings but it has some drawbacks for me as well.
When I see that I made yesterday about 110 shots with D70 in about 3 hours. I do not feel it too much. I was enjoying it and I do sometimes even more with my OM2n. I wrote to Dirk in e-mail that editing for me is not a problem. First even in analog and so in digital I do not and will not remove any pictures which I shoot. You never know when you will like the picture you going to trash today. I always preview scan whole roll of analog film and put it in my IMatch (www.photools.com) which helps me with organizing my photographs a lot!. I have no problem with selection. Yesterday after D70 journey I went through those 110 shots in about one hour and made pre-selection of 15 shots. I always come back to that pre-selection set after week or so and run again view on complete set and than finally I do narrowing selection which lead usually to 3-10 shots from 100. I know what I like to achieve and I am very critical to myself so for me it is not difficult to make those selections and it really doesn’t matter if shots are done in silver or 1&0.
This was a long entry I hope you not bored, but I like to tell you it doesn’t matter (my view of course) which medium you use for creating your vision if you have a goal and you know what do you want to achieve.