While taking photos with my new digital SLR, I’ve noticed a big change in the manner of which I take digital pictures now. I guess after shooting almost solely film in the last 2-3 years, my method of photographing had become more attentive, perhaps even more calculated. And I don’t mean that now I pay attention to any of the scientific calculations in photography, but actually, calculated as in conscious; taking pictures that matter which pretty much translates into taking less pictures.
In the past, when using a digital camera I would sometimes shoot 4-5 pictures of exactly the same thing, which to be honest, often translated into 4-5 useless pictures of the same thing. On the other hand, most of my more successful pictures (i.e. the ones I was happy with), like the one presented here, were unique images I took “on the move”.
This is, in my very humble opinion, a disservice done to us by digital photography – it made us lazy photographers. I know of some *photographers who shoot tens of mindless images of the same scene hoping that at least one of them is going to turn out a good one.
I’m not sure if this practice actually works, and if it does work for them, this is great, but for me, maybe I’m weird or something, but if I had tens of pictures of the same thing on my hard drive, I would rather have “no respect” to these pictures. And since for me, photography is not about turning out “good pictures” this method would never work out for me.
And more amazing to me is that many websites and books about digital photography encourage the photographer to do just that; take as many pictures of the same thing as your memory card will allow you, after all, digital is free and its always easy to delete the bad ones.
What do you think?
* Excluding photographers who do HDR photography.
Loading ...
I have to admit that when I`m shooting portraits, I tend to shoot a lot more frames with digital than I did when I used film only. When I shoot in the streets, I go for “one frame only”. Things happen too fast, and I like to believe that I wait for “the” moment.
Hi Nitsa,
This is my first comment here. I’ve enjoyed some of your books and of course your new website.
The answer to your question probably depends on both the personality and current mindset of the photographer. For those that have perfectionist tendencies and those who tend to censor or judge their own work harshly, digital is probably helpful since it may free them up to take several exposures without worrying about the cost of film.
However, for those that have trouble making a decision or focusing digital is probably more of a hindrance than a help. The discipline of film, in those cases, would likely help those photographers to consider their exposures more carefully – and perhaps lead to more keepers, as you suggested.
Although it should be pointed out that even film photographers can be guilty of the “take 20 exposures of every single thing” strategy. Just consider Gary Winogrand, who died with something like 10,000 undeveloped rolls of film left behind. Towards the end of his life he apparently became obsessive about photographing everything in sight, often without any discrimination at all.
I like digital myself not because it allows me to get trigger happy (I’m not; if anything I should be a bit looser with the shutter), but because I’m too impatient and lazy to deal with developing film. I learned photography on a DSLR, and although I’ve experimented with film (Holga, old Canon A-1, etc.) I just can’t get into developing it myself or sending it to the lab and waiting.
I’d be happy with that photograph, too… very nice one!
Greetings from sunny-ish San Diego!
As someone who started with digital photography before expanding to film, I have a different take. Kind of. I am definitely guilty of taking a ridiculous number of photos, but USUALLY when I sit down and go through them, there aren’t too many that are actually of the same exact thing, at least not from the same point of view or perspective. I don’t have the patience to sit and wait for the perfect shot to occur (unless I’m there at the right moment and can see it develop — in which case I’ll wait a few seconds, but even then, I don’t fire off 10 shots hoping one of them is good (usually)). Instead they’re all taken on the move, and I must look like a crazy man when I walk around constantly pointing and clicking away while I walk. But I like it. Even just reviewing the photos to see which ones are good serves as a reminder of the walk itself, and isn’t that one of the points?
Of course sometimes I’ll go with the intent of taking a picture of a very specific thing (not street photography, mind you) and then I fire like mad, but it’s all a lot more planned so that doesn’t count.
Then with film, I go out knowing that whatever I take on that roll is all I’ll get back. So, I do try to make it count, although I don’t find that I am any better when I try to be more careful. It forces a different way of thinking. Digitally I kind of think wild and creatively, film I think more fatalistically. Hmmm, philosophy and photography…I might need to write a book now!
HDR-panoramics are the way to go if you want to fill up a flash card. I have one picture that required 30 separate shots! (5 wide x 2 deep x 3 exposures) Unfortunately after all that work, it wasn’t that good so I’ll have to go back and do it again!
Love this site! I have to commend you on your photography & writing and have recently added your link to my new project, ILovePhotoBlogs.com. Keep up the great work!
I agree with you; but I think it is all about our manner in taking photo which can be changed; but I would like to add something else. One of the main benefits of digital photography is controllable WB that allows you to capture better color or manipulate them in a way that you like. I don’t know why few people emphasis on.
When I do choose a series of shots of the same thing, the first one is usually the best. Especially the composition. The rest are for “safety”.
I have to agree with you. I find the “spray and pray” style of photography common with digital shooters.
It isn’t new though – Back in the early 1980s I was taught to “work a subject”. Don’t just take one or two images, but explore as many angles as possible. Working with a Nikon FM2 and MD12 motordrive meant I shot a lot of useless film. Eventually I realized that my best images were consistently in the first couple of frames. I put away the Nikon and started using a Rolleiflex – forcing me to slow down and consider what I was shooting. Those 10 years with my Rollieflex changed the way I approach a subject, which I still try to think about today. Now that I shoot digital, I do shoot a few more frames than with the Rolleiflex, but not as bad as back when I was blasting through plus-x with my Nikon.
I think you made a good observation!
Cheers,
Ken
I think it is as well a question of money, doing photography as a hobby it matters how much you have to invest. Doing concert photos most of them turn out to be bad (I do it with a little simple camera). The changing lights the movement on stage, the movement in front of the stage where I stand…
Buying a film, shooting it, getting it developed having 2 OK pictures is more expensive than doing it with the digital camera. Sometimes you can get in the good position but the light is bad, then you have to wait but you do not know if the crowd let’s you stand there. With the digital, of course you take more pictures but you just kick the bad ones.
Lovely photo. Just this year I made the switch to a dslr. I have a Nikon D80. I tend to still only take one photo of a subject. I think the way I shoot film is still imbeded in my brain. I think it makes for more adventurous photography
i love the atmosphere from the shadows of those two silhouettes.
i feel understanding, harmony,
nice job!
I join the masses in agreeing with you. I used to do the same before and all it ends up doing is clogging your PC with loads of useless pictures that you dont delete thinking that ‘someday’ they will be useful. Now I am more careful cos I know that nothing is free in life. You will pay in one way or another when you don’t think.
To me its not about film or digital but human behavior. Its like going to a buffet vs. ordering Ala carte. You don’t want unwanted stuff in your plate just because its there.
I’ve been struggling with the question of film vs. digital for a couple of years and shooting a bit of both throughout the process. This is what I have to believe to be true for me and the kind of photography I do.
Both film and digital require a separate set of skills that while there is a great deal of overlapping what it takes to do get a similar kind of image is different with film or digital photography. For shooting on the street I find that the kind of camera I am using is what makes the difference. I love to shoot with a rangefinder on the street. The quiet shutter and unobtrusiveness of the camera body are important to get some of the shots I’m after but if I had the same qualities in a dslr I could do the same things content wise but the quality of the images would be different because the media are different. This is the rub. I like the way that film looks, even when processed on a computer. The range from black to white is greater so the images tend to be more subtle and yet rich at the same time.
A friend of mine has a couple of leica M8′s which offers the best of both worlds. You can get the great feel of working with a rangefinder camera, coupled with good glass and superior images when it comes to digital but the price point for the camera is pretty steep. So in reality I care so much about the film vs digital issue. I think if you use a manual camera you will tend to be more thoughtful but if the camera starts to make to many decisions for you then you are likely to take more pictures because you’ve given up so much control. Maybe for certain types of photography it doesn’t matter but for me creative control is important.
Just my two cents
Former film shooter here, now mostly digital.
The increased quantity of images when using digital is an issue. One good approach is to do more rating/comparing and editing after a shoot. This is where programs like Apple’s Aperture or Adobe’s Lightroom provide the right tools at processing big quantities of photos quickly.
I agree that having a rather small number of frames to use in a given shoot can be inspiring. But in reality I do shoot a large quantity and I can’t say that the results are worse or better. If I have several gigs of memory with me, I’m going to use them. And I find some pretty good images in those fleeting, grabbed-on-the-fly, unplanned moments.
I think my point is that the post-shoot editing process is now more important (than with film) and is a valid territory of creativity. You’re not making as many decisions with digital when you shoot, you’re delaying some decisions to the editorial phase. And one could argue that it’s helpful creatively to not have to wear the editor’s hat when in the middle of creative production.
[...] | Still alive Fotografía | [...]
If a scenario arises where I choose to bracket my exposures as well as bracket white balance, etc., I have no problem in doing so. Shooting 5+ images to increase the chances of a ‘keeper’ are a no-brainer. Simply just shooting one image of anything is a bit of a gamble, but understandable if there’s only one exposure left on a roll or CF card. I’ve seen some of Henri Cartier-Bresson’s contact sheets and he’d run through a number of rolls just shooting one person or one scene. Some photographers know that in many situations, odds come into play.
I don’t have much time to write at the moment;heck, it took me seven months just to come back to your website. Anyway, I’m the one that commented on your Yashica 35 GSN photo back in December. Since then, I have “gone digital” and eliminated my film burners except my last Diana and an Argus C- something. Yes, I shoot, I mean, “capture” more of the same image now, but I usually delete all but one or two of them as soon as I get a chance before they ever get into my computer. I don’t think it has made me lazy, I just get a kick out of looking at photos and digital allows me the same thrill I used to get from my Polaroids-instant gratification. Like Winogrand, I like to see how things look in a photograph. Talk to you later-
Another quick note in response to Nick #16- there was a book that came out in the last ten years or so about Cartier-Bresson; you probably are refering to that, and I was shocked to see, after 20-some years of thinking I knew what the Decisive Moment was all about, that many of his signature images had numerous “cousins”. The book reproduced several contact sheets that clearly showed that he did not just shoot, I mean “capture”, one image of a scene and nailed it but unstead he moved around and took many shots. I had to rethink a little about what I thought about the nature of photography. But the editing process has always been a part of the game and with digital it is no different.
Hello. I think you are eactly thinking like Sukrat. I really loved the post.