Has the nature of photography changed significantly with digital photography and camera phones?

The nature of it has, in my mind, changed with the dramatic ability to edit post-shot. Also, I think, because of that a lot of the fascination in seeing that “perfect shot” is mitigated but at the same time you can do more than ever before, such as this. As to the meaningfulness, I’d say that’s more attached to the subject and the memories attached. I do take a lot more random shots than I ever did, due completely to convenience, most of which I don’t hold in any great esteem, but there are still many that have fond memories associated.

There’s nothing like having a photo in your hand. Digital photography is great because it provides instant gratification, but nothing is going to replace the tangible. I miss the days when photos weren’t easily manipulated and distorted. It seems like photographers were challenged and now it’s just too easy. If the color is dull, just up the saturation. If the composition is off, just crop it. If the lady is too fat, just make her skinny. It’s just not right! :)

I’ve wondered this myself, @janbb.
And @silverfly…you took the words outta my mouth!

I think it’s pretty much slaughtered the photography profession. Now anyone with a $100 camera and access to Photoshop-like freeware can be a “photographer”

Once upon a time, a good photo was the product of careful lighting, painstaking framing, delicate chemical balances during developing… a lot of real artistry. It’s kind of a shame, really.

@silverfly what you said about a tangible object really nails it..exact same reason why I prefer actual books over a kindle.

“I miss the days when photos weren’t’t easily manipulated and distorted.”

So true. Too many want to be photographers out there.
That have no idea what they are doing. And, cheating to get there. Ahhh, such is life.

When I was a professional photographer. Every picture takes was “perfect.” It had to be.
Every photographer was given a certain amount of film to get the pictures needed. If could not, you would not work for me. SOP

Today, you have “photographers” literally ripping through 100’s of pictures in order to get the right one, and still needing to cleaned up in photoshop. This amounts to “luck”. Nothing is learned by it. And it shows in the lack of professionalism I see today.

For the amateur, So what, as long as at the end of the day you got something.

I scanned my hard copies and discarded many of them.

I agree, but photo manipulation can do some incredible things that otherwise you would not be able to do if there was no such thing as photoshop or its like. It’s a whole new art form, anyone can use Photoshop but it does take some skill to be able to pull it off seamlessly.

“but photo manipulation can do some incredible things that otherwise you would not be able to do”

That is what I mean by not learning anything. But you don’t have to.

For the most part what you can do in photoshop I can do in the lab with an enlarger. It just takes time. But that is a craft, needed to be learned.

@earthduzt

I understand completely. I use it myself, to clone out the idiot trying to get his face in our family photograph at Epcot, for example. However, once upon a time, a good photographer was hard to find, and they could make a very good living just being a photographer. Now, many have gone out of business because, well, why pay $3000 for wedding photos when Aunt Alice took a class at the local junior college and has that great DSLR from Best Buy? I mean, if anything looks “off”, you could just photoshop it.

Well I’m not really talking standard pictures here, Im talking about more artsy photo manipulation I suppose. I do graphic design and PS is a staple for me, theres yeah maybe I could do some manipulation in a lab but sometimes time is a factor and PS just makes it alot easier> Example is I wanted to do an add for a car and make someones body morphing into a car, I can easily do that in PS and to make it seamless takes some skill. That is just a genral example ther are much more difficult projects to do.

@earthduzt
In that case we’re just getting off-topic. The question specifically references family photos and the like.

This is why I try to get a good balance between shooting film and digital. Film really makes you pay attention to what you’re shooting and makes you think about how it will turn out. If you take that way of thinking to digital, you’ve got the best of both worlds.

The idea that something tangible is better than just a computer file is the main reason I bought a film camera. It’s also the same reason I’m so freaking excited The Impossible Project is making a new form of Polaroid film. What sucks is that they aren’t making it for the 100 land cameras (yet).

@Seek_Kolinahr I totally disagree.

“why pay $3000 for wedding photos when Aunt Alice took a class at the local junior college and has that great DSLR from Best Buy?”

For people who feel that Aunt Alice is good enough – they deserve what they paid for.

This goes to @ChazMaz too!

For all amateurs – it depends on what you mean by that. If you mean amateurs that’s never had any training, picked up a camera and started shooting – you are right. 1000’s of pics just to take 100 out and 200 more that needs photoshop.

They don’t know what they are doing. And if Aunt Alice takes photos on the most important day of your life… you’ll be left wanting more. Composition, proper lighting, proper posing, focus, those things are not taught while using Auto Mode on a cheapo $800 dollar rig.

I consider myself an amateur – but experienced. I take wonderful pictures of my friends. Hand them the camera and ask for something similar in return – they give VASTLY different images. I end up taking self portraits with a tripod.

The fact is there are concepts that go into good photography that a real amateur doesn’t know and am not aware of it. I have been apprenticing under a wedding photographer for a year and she has told me I have grown so much – I can barely tell the difference… until I let some of my other ‘photography enthusiast’ handle my rig, or take my photo. Then I see that we’re worlds apart.

Also – there is a flooding of people who took a college class and want to go ‘pro’ because of digital. Digital allows for easier learning – there is no doubt in my mind that I was a beneficiary of this. The quality has gone down because of the flooding of the market with hobbyists. Prices have gone down – it used to be 7k for a good shoot. Now prices are around 2–3k with albums. It’s not as good as it were, so I’m told. But there is still a difference. With photography – you get what you paid for.

@OperativeQ I think that digital makes you pay attention to what you’re shooting as well.

Everyone thinks Oh – photoshop – that’s what all the newbies use. Take the time to learn photoshop – just take a crack at it. It’s not only hard to use, but VERY TIME CONSUMING. My wedding group just color corrects, we don’t have time to go and remove people, or rubber stamp out a pile of dog poo. If you took a photo with dog poo in it – you better have taken another one without…

I am not spending an hour to fix up 5 photos when I have another 5k to go through. However, with digital if there IS a photo you REALLY want to save – you have the option. It requires a lot of work.

@OperativeQ You can print out the photos… there – tangible. Get a professional printer from Epson. I use the R1800, prints up to 13 by 19 – which is a small poster…

“The fact is there are concepts that go into good photography ”

@Idknown – Good answer!

Does not matter what camera or software you own. If you don’t understand the concepts of
composition, lighting and exposure.

@Idknown

I completely agree with you.

The worst part of all of it is that the real professionals are suffering because of the pseudo-pros.

@Seek_Kolinahr – I have the same issues with TV production.

@Seek_Kolinahr The thing is – pros have to come from somewhere. There is no doubt that with the ease of digital learning, and the web for a resource, that more and more pseudo-pros with real skills are popping up.

The real professionals should not be scared of these psuedo-pros, but they should be afraid of what they will become.

Film was hard to learn. Take a photo – a day later – look at results. That’s delayed. Now? Take a photos – see exactly where you messed up. Learning is sped up.

There are a lot more ppl trying to be pro now, and soon they will be as good as the old film professionals. The prices that have gone down are here to stay. There is just too much competition. I have been blessed as my boss gets a lot of high profile client work. I mean – I was published!! There are many people worlds better than I that are not yet published. I owe it all to my boss for that opportunity.

And that’s the thing – I realized that I’d just be a hobbyist if I didn’t apprentice somewhere. And although these good concepts I speak of aren’t rocket science – applying them when you’re on the scene is a skill.

Just take away from me that photoshop is not an easy way out. It can be quite the opposite. We take our photos because we love to. We don’t love to post process. In fact, many photogs now outsource it to tech wizzies that post produce for you. They make a lot of money too…

“they will be as good as the old film professionals.”

I agree to a point. Less will be “as good”.. Because the poor quality infiltrates everything. Over time we become (have become) dumb-ed up. There being more bad examples then good, and no one knowing the difference.
Especially when price is more impotent then quality.

I see more garbage (staying technical) in photography and in TV production today. There being no foundation for example.

@Idknown I’m more familiar with Light Room, but you get the picture (no pun intended). I know how to use photo editing software.

Also, printing a physical copy of a digital file isn’t the same as a hard copy of a film photo. It’s like printing out a book to read compared to having the actual book.

Q: Have you ever shot with a fully manual film camera? If so, I’d be shocked if you shot the same with it as digital.

@Idknown

Let me see if I can explain my side a little better.

My husband is a hardwood flooring professional. He’s worked 20 years to learn every trick of the trade, from staining to inlays to which finish to use on a third storey condo on a rainy Florida day in August.

Now, Home Depot has a “DIY class” on floor refinishing. All of a sudden, everyone’s an expert on renting a floor sander and slapping polyurethane on their floor with a china bristle paintbrush.

Then, when these people have the inevitable “rings” caused by using Murphy’s oil soap to clean their hardwood and not sanding it all off, or pimples caused by wet footprints, they’ll call for a “professional” to fix it. Not wanting to invest too much, they look for the low bidder – who’s a guy who took that DIY class a few years ago and is now marketing himself and a few of his closest illegal immigrant buddies as a refinishing company. They can do this, since there’s no contractor’s license for refinishing.

Now those guys are coming in. They may or may not do a better job than the homeowner did themselves. Either way, now my Hubby has to bid his jobs considerably lower, because no matter how much experience he has, he doesn’t stand a chance against a pseudo-pro offering a third of the price for the “same work”.

It has changed in several ways. The career photographers have been affected – it is no longer a viable occupation in the sense that it has been for the past century or so, most career photographers are struggling to make a living, even the stock photo agencies have been dropping prices closing that avenue with regard to maintaining a serious income stream. Film processing Labs have closed all over the world – I have seen mini-labs go through auctions at a low enough cost for hobbyists to buy them.

The second way it has changed is that has introduced many millions of people to serious photography. The ease with which they can practice, the online forums that teach and allow sharing of images and techniques all make it simple. Modern digital cameras in Auto mode means that the most inept of happy-snappers has a good chance of getting a decent image. In the past most people had a camera, a low to mid-range SLR or a 120/34mm Point and Shoot or similar, but would tend to reserve using them for special occasions – the processing cost was always an inhibiting factor. Now they can use them all day every day and many do exactly that.

Photography has shifted from a viable, well remunerated industry with a core of hobbyists attached, to a huge hobbyist population with a core of career photographers desperately hanging on. It will never go back, any more than Blacksmithing is ever likely to come back after being made virtually redundant by the automobile.

It has also changed in other ways. Impatient and impetuous people who don’t bother reading manuals or getting training take horrendous images and call them art. The various types of HDR software for instance, intended to subtly improve the dynamic range of an image, is used to created over-saturated cartoonish images that look nothing remotely like real life – but which have become almost a signature image for the Facebook, myspace teens.

@Seek_Kolinahr

In your example, it is better for your husband to build his brand on quality rather than price. I say that with no realization on your financial situation and for that I am ignorant. But if possible, I would suggest that.

Now if those illegal immigrants can do just as good of a job – then maybe your husband needs a new line of work that commands more of a premium. It’s how people settle. My uncle is a renovator, and he refuses to take jobs for less because he doesn’t do the dirty tricks others do, like putting saw dust in your walls. But he is currently not working on anything – so there you have it… the catch 22.

@OperativeQ I use light room too – its good for simple touchups, nothing heavy.

I have never used a film camera before. So I would not be able to relate with you on your question. Your point was that film cameras makes you ‘pay attention to what you’re shooting, and how it’ll turn out.’ I took that as a question of composition, and the fact that film you have limited tries, where as in digital, you can keep snapping away ‘wasting film’ as it were. I just disagree that digital makes you an inattentive photographer. I think being inattentive makes you an inattentive photographer.

So I could just be reading your question/comments wrong.

If you are referring to the way of shooting, as in the settings when you said ” I’d be shocked if you shot the same with it as digital.” and not the composition, I will concede that you might shoot differently. But how would that affect the overall product? You’d change the film to change ISO, I’d dial a button down or up…

Regarding the prints – I was unaware the differences between the two printing styles. Please teach elaborate so that I may learn something. I am used to printing out my photos on fine paper and ink and the quality has always been superb. I don’t see it as printing out a book and reading a book because that would assume I’m using any ol’ printer to print my prints.

Are you saying that lab quality prints from a film negative is better than a lab quality print from a digital negative?

“Are you saying that lab quality prints from a film negative is better than a lab quality print from a digital negative?”

Yes, and especially yes if the “lab quality” print was printed and not an exposure to the paper.

Film and photographic paper have an emulsion. They have texture, an actual surface structure after exposure.

This translates richer then a digital reproduction. In a away, film and paper photography can be looked at as another form of sculpture.

@ChazMaz Interesting. So we are giving up something in this switch. I’ll have to look at some examples at my mentor’s.

Thanks!

@OperativeQ I think I understand more of what you mean now – if the difference is that significant.

@DarkScribe Haha – I like that last part. I was a fan of HDR imaging. But in the end, it was too “Harry Potter” for me.

It’s got its kicks, and I still take 3 exposures in order to be able to wizard it up if I felt like it. A majority of the time, I just keep my normal shots. Some things, are meant for the shadows.

And I totally agree – you can’t make a living anymore. Although, I have seen people do it. People who want the best, will inevitably hire the best. It is those mediocre photographers that have something to fear. And to be honest… most of us are mediocre :(.

It won’t take long for the hobbyists to learn proper composition either :P.

The longevity of your digital files far exceeds the archival rating of your silver prints. The standard RA4 process only has a shelf life of 13–20 years before fading occurs. Longer if they are tucked away in an album away from moisture.

I highly recommend getting your photos scanned and digitized before they fade out.

Film is the same way so your negatives won’t save you. The only archival film made was Kodachrome, but the K14 process has been outlawed for 20 years due to polluting factors. Very toxic stuff, but it lasts 100 years or more without significant quality loss.

The modern giclee inkjet printers use pigment instead of dye. With the right acid free paper, they can be archival for 200 to 400 years. Nothing in the film world comes close… well, maybe Dye Transfer prints, but those cost upwards of $300 each for an 8×10 and you’d be lucky to find anyone who wants to get their fingers wet with that stuff.

________________

All in all, digital has had the effect of cheapening the capture. I see these new pro photographers shooting thousands of photos for an assignment that would only require a few thoughtful hundred or so. Film photography was a spiritual affair, and required thought, technique, and precision. The light from your reflection actually affected a change in chemistry upon the film plane. The universe actually reacted to your presence. That is magical.

Most digital photographers have little regard for shooting technique, thinking they can just fix it in photoshop. The art becomes a craft. Not good.

Digital photography has certainly made selling on ebay a lot easier than the olden daze.

Yes, dramatically. People take more pictures. With a roll of 36 you’d always think twice whether it’s really worth it. And you didn’t know the outcome until many hours or days later.

“And you didn’t know the outcome until many hours or days later.’

I did. 99% of the time. I knew exactly what was/is going to be on that film, and its outcome.

Polaroid instant camera? Or photographic memory?

@mattbrowne Polaroid instant camera?

I remember those days.

“Of course no one else will ever see this photos Sweetheart.”

“Now move your leg a little to the left.”

I never owned one. But I always was a little upset when only 33 of 36 photos turned out okay. On the other hand it might be the only way to learn the skill of photography.

The skill of photography is a skill that nearly every person thinks they have, but it is only through careful cultivation enabling us to reach the next level.

@ChazMaz You didn’t ALWAYS know the outcome. When you started to learn, way back then, it took time and effort. Time and effort made obsolete by digital as today, we do get to see instantly how that shot turned out.

Or what you think it shuold look like.