| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Has digital made you more original?
Jeff Bennett, Student/Intern
 |
Livermore | CA | USA | Posted: 12:55 AM on 05.26.11 |
->> I'm working on a final for one of my classes and have a question about becoming more original since switching to digital equipment.
The question is since changing to digital equipment have you tried new things you never would have done with film, or do you still find yourself shooting the same way over and over? And if you are trying new things, hows has digital equipment helped you try those ideas out where film wouldn't have?
Thanks in advance everyone for the help. |
|
Brad Mangin, Photographer
 |
Pleasanton | CA | USA | Posted: 1:58 AM on 05.26.11 |
->> Jeff- good question. I will say that since I went digital on opening day of the 2003 baseball season I have tried many new things that have made me a better photographer. Much of this has to do with being able to shoot digital and learn from my mistakes instantly and try to improve in the middle of an assignment.
I have also improved since then simply because I am older and continue to learn to become a better shooter.
For instance, there are some days when I like to shoot a Giants game from the great low inside first base spot to try and get ball off bat frames of right handed hitters as I shoot horizontally with the 70-200 zoom. Before digital I was shooting chrome and would never know how my timing was until I saw the film. With digital I can instantly see how my timing is (I am usually late with the one frame I try and nail it with) so then I can fine tune my timing and dial it in.
I could go on and on- but this might get things going. |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
|
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 2:23 AM on 05.26.11 |
->> What Brad said.
Also, I read the question a different way: Does digital force me to be original? Meaning, does it force me to think outside the box more in order to make interesting photos?
Yes it does.
I think with the advent of digital, everyone suddenly is a photographer and with Photoshop, anyone can make images look pretty decent. So with that, I am forced—in order to stay alive as a photographer—to think of new ways of shooting. Sure clean high-ISOs and better AF make it easier, but it's still just a tool. |
|
David Richard, Photographer
|
Cleveland | OH | USA | Posted: 2:27 AM on 05.26.11 |
->> Hello Jeff.
Absolutely!
I find myself experimenting at a lot of my assignments during down time.
Slow shutters, HDR, panning, multiple exposures, long exposures are all things you can tinker with during your shoot.
I've been playing with the in-camera processing presets in the D3 as well.
I would say I look outside of the box way more than in the film days.
I used to shoot some of this stuff in the film days but when you are on deadline you really didn't have time to process and investigate those negs every night.
I think digital has made my shooting experience more fun to say the least. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 2:38 AM on 05.26.11 |
| ->> jeff, I speak to this all the time. digital is amazing. and this, as we all know is a double edged sword. what makes us take chances with our gear is also what opens the floodgates to folks who want to do our jobs for free. but beyond that statement and staying on point....YES....digital photography has allowed me to try things I would NEVER attempt with film. CRAZY hail mary's? no problem. I do them all the time. Laying the camera on the ground and firing off an insane amount of frames? yup, been there done that. as opposed to mr. mangin, who btw I would not even try and compare myself to, digital for someone such as myself has been the ultimate photographic self gratification. I got into this wonderful craft about 37 years ago. why? I LOVED developing my photos....seeing a print in an hour or so...a print I made in the bathroom of my parents house. it wasn't in color...it was usually a pretty crappy b&w print. but DAMMIT! it was a photo I made that day and a photo anyone else had shot wouldn't be seen for a week. so fast forward to digital...at first it sucked. the quality made you want to cry...seriously...look at a photo from those old NC2000 cameras, they still make me cry. but man oh man..it was instantaneous gratification. and it has evolved. we are now on the cusp of basically seeing something documented from what we SEE. this is mind boggling. in just 10 years we have made this visual quantum leap. you see it...it can be documented. you think it...it can be done....your vision is complete. any single chance you want to take visually is wide open. one thing to remember.....cameras are tools.....somewhat like paint brushes....so in the new digital age....your canvas is open. you can do whatever you want...take chances you would NEVER do with film. what's not to love here? |
|
Tim Clark, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Nashville | TN | USA | Posted: 9:57 AM on 05.26.11 |
| ->> Originality comes from the mind, not the tools you use. |
|
Butch Miller, Photographer
|
Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 10:11 AM on 05.26.11 |
->> I too worked with film for many decades before transitioning to digital when I purchased my first DSLR in late March 0f 2000, the original Nikon D1 ... by today's standards it wasn't much on megapixels ... but it did ok for newsprint ... and I didn't miss (and still don't) using film ... before going digital I averaged at least 3 hours a day processing film by hand ... our paper never invested in a processor ... that's why they hired me they said ... ;-(
I have to agree with chuck ... I always felt proud to have honed the skills to shoot an event, process the film and create prints in the darkroom on deadline ... often handing them off to the Sports Desk before the teams in question left their locker rooms ... it offered a great sense of accomplishment ...
Now in a digital age where I sent three images to the paper from my first base line vantage point using my iPad yesterday during the fourth inning ... is just as rewarding ... though it has considerably more to do with your cash flow or credit limit and less investment in time and effort to become skillful to work quick turnaround these days ... I still enjoy it ...
Plus, what we are able to do in the areas of improving/increasing dynamic range, creativity in color, tone, saturation, creative composites and designs for special projects, logos, posters, section fronts and cover pages for special projects is also extremely rewarding ...
So yes, I whole heartedly agree that in many ways digital has opened many opportunities for us to become "more original" ... |
|
Robert Seale, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 10:32 AM on 05.26.11 |
->> Jeff,
I don't know that it makes you more original, but, as Brad said, the immediate feedback makes experimentation much more efficient.
I still strive to do things the right way, as I would have with film, but there is definitely a tendency for people to be lazier about lighting, exposure, details, etc, because in most cases - things can be touched up in post.
I've also found that my flash meter rarely comes out of the bag anymore. |
|
Erik Markov, Photographer
|
anywhere | IN | | Posted: 11:20 AM on 05.26.11 |
->> Yea it has. Digital got me doing HDR, timelapses, soundslides, lightpainting; those things aren't impossible with film I suppose. But they are much much more difficult. And doing soundslides helped me to understand the transition to video. Video is nothing more than soundslides, except instead of separate still frames, the frames in video move.
Digital has me looking at new techniques I haven't tried yet like focus stacking and 360 panos.
I think each technique comes along at the appropriate time. Film was perfect for Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange, Joe Rosenthal. Not sure digital would have worked as well for them, their styles and the environments they were shooting in. But at the same time, if Lange were around today I think she might be shooting video on an slr.
Film was great for what it was, and there are some things I haven't been able to replicate in digital. But I feel much more creative with digital. |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 1:35 PM on 05.26.11 |
->> Digital has allowed me to experiment free of the bonds of obsessing over film and processing costs. I would never have used half of a 36 exposure roll of Fujipress 400 to spend 40 seconds shooting marathon runners panned from an elevated position, but I have a print hanging on my office wall at home that was the result of roughly 20 digital frames that were "for fun."
The photographs that I sent to my clients that day could have been done with film. The photographs hanging in my home are images that I probably would not have attempted with film. |
|
Gary Mills, Photographer
|
Culver | IN | USA | Posted: 2:18 PM on 05.26.11 |
->> I agree with the other veterans that digital has allowed me to "experiment" during real assignments that I would never had done with film.
Digital is also responsible for so many good, young shooters today.
My early learning curve. epecially in color, was in direct relationship to my pocket book. I could only afford to shoot so much per week then wait for the results. Once today's shooters have the gear they can shoot thousands of frames a day and get instant feedback then shoot more. |
|
Jeff Bennett, Student/Intern
|
Livermore | CA | USA | Posted: 6:26 PM on 05.26.11 |
| ->> Thanks for the help everyone, was a huge help in finishing my final. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 9:02 PM on 05.26.11 |
->> It's not just digital imagery. Microprocessors in cameras have allowed the development of autofocus and super-sophisticated exposure tools. Autofocus alone has increased the quality and usable percentage of a sports take astronomically.
Digital has also contributed to the convergence of still and video media.
Digital has also vastly changed ands expanded our potential audience as images are viewed an infinite number of electronic devices.
--Mark |
|
Neil Turner, Photographer
|
Bournemouth | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 5:13 AM on 05.27.11 |
->> I agree with everyone who has pointed out that the instant feedback and ability to delete rubbish at no cost has made professionals and amateurs alike experiment a lot more.
To add something else to the debate I'd like to wind the clock back to 1998 when huge numbers of newspaper photographers were getting the DCS520 and then DCS620 cameras which were awful above 400 ISO and had poor exposure latitudes.
I had always used portable lighting, having shot a huge amount of reportage and features on transparency film but the arrival of this kit meant that a lot more photographers were forced to use flash in ways that they had managed to avoid up to that point.
Once many of them started to shoot flash, they realised the creative potential of portable kit and their photography became stronger because they now had extra techniques in their repertoire.
Now that we have cameras that can render amazing quality in very low light flash has reverted to being a creative choice rather than a necessity> I would argue that the arrival of the DCS series cameras definitely helped to educate a lot of photographers and open their eyes to different ways of working.
You could say that the guys who used to use flash creatively with transparency film have lost more than most as the general level of creativity has de-mistified what I/we do. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|