A question for the old timers.

[Eyelight]

My digital revolution is relatively new as far as using software, but I do have it in mind when considering how much time to take with exposure settings. Generally if I have time to work a shot, I use it to be more selective. If rushed because of a moving subject or changing light, then I will fudge on exposure, knowing that post processing can help after the fact. And concentrate on focus which is the one thing, that PP can't fix easily (Post-shot Prayer).

Digital actually cost a great deal more than film, if you consider time. If I would have spent this much time using film 40 years ago.....

 

[Nikon Photographer]

It's been many years since I've been in a darkroom, I sold all my darkroom equipment many years ago when I got too busy and had to outsource all my D&P work to a pro lab.
But even now I still work to get the shot correct in the camera, all the publications I worked for had to have the photo's taken on transparency film, so there was very little in the way of exposure latitude, so the shot had to be right in the camera, and although I do have LR and PS on my computer, I barely have to rely on them apart from processing raw files, (I always set the camera to take a Jpeg fine and a raw image) which to me is just like working on a negative in the darkroom, infact while I'm out with the camera's I don't really think of what kind of camera I'm using ......

 

[Woodyg3]

I have yet to find any way to post process an incorrectly exposed picture that makes it as good as one that I got right in the camera. So, digital hasn't made me lazy.

Since a big part of what I do is wildlife photography, digital makes it possible for me to fire away and get shots that were much harder to get with film. I don't have to pause and think whether I have enough exposures left on this roll of film, I can just shoot. In this case, I get better shots, and more of them, by being "less careful."

Back in my college days when I worked part time as a sports photographer, I would have been in seventh heaven with digital!

I do kind of miss being in the darkroom, though. It always seemed sort of magical to me.

 

[AC016]

I am in a darkroom every night........ sleeping. Software does not make us lazy. We can only be lazy on our own. Sure, software can give you shortcuts, but it is your choice to take them or not. I suppose to a certain degree, the old darkroom could have made folks lazy as well. After all, you could get the exposure slightly off with film and use push/pull techniques. Or, there is always dodging and burning. Therefore, i imagine you did not have to get it 100% correct with film either. If you take your photography with any degree of seriousness, you are going to want to use your camera and all it's functionality to get it as right as you can. Software is there to perhaps "correct" the small percentage you got wrong. If anyone is using software as a crutch, then they will go nowhere fast. If you're a lazy person by nature; then yes, you will see software as a gift. If Giovanni Antonio Canal were able to come back from the dead, he just may ask why we are all lazy and cheating by using a "light box" to capture a landscape scene. After all, painting it would be the proper way to go. In the end though, content is king and it matters not if the photograph was taken with film, is digital, is post processed, etc. Content is what matters over everything else.

 

[STM]

What if I said, "Photography made us lazy! We should be painting everything we want to capture!"

No, of course not.

How much darkroom work have you done?

 

[Wolfeye]

It's certainly made me less careful, but faster. I shoot real estate and oft, because of the STUPID DAMN places people put mirrors in their home, there's no angle you can shoot at to get it right. So in my case, I choose the least-horrid-to-fix-in-post (LHTFIP) shot and do just that. I also often discover, in other shooting situations, that I am fooled by what the LCD tells me, and have to fix it in post.

An analogous question; are we lazier because we can do so much research now from home, instead of traipsing down to the library?

 

[WayneF]

Although one could ever dispute that programs like Photoshop and Lightroom have given photographers of all skill levels a powerful tool to tweak and manipulate photographs, providing options that are either very difficult or even impossible to do in the dark room.

If it had been possible in the dark room, we can be certain we would have done it.

But here is my question, have programs like PS and LR made us lazy? What I mean by lazy is are we willing to live with things in the image that we can later fix in PS that we would not have been able to do 20 years ago? Back then you had to change viewpoints, deal more with color temperature (resorting to using the right kind of film and/or CC filters) and chose shutter speed and aperture for proper exposure. This was especially important in slide film where the exposure latitudes were not nearly as wide as with color negative film. Color negative film could tolerate a fair amount of overexposure, but color slide film would just go clear with no detail whatsoever left.

Those things, white balance and shutter speed, were important for film too. Of course, the users having the photo lab do their printing never even knew white balance existed. We used the one roll of Kodak Gold for anything, indoors, outdoors, didn't matter. The photo lab took care of negatives automatically. Most users (by total number) are and were point&shoot, and don't know, don't care if they have the best result. Frankly, many don't even understand the question or the possibilities.

Those that do care tend to use every trick available. In film days, we used filters, polarizers to exaggerate the blue sky, split ND filters to hold back the bright areas, maybe yellow or green filters for B&W to change tones. In the dark room, we used enlarger dodging and burning in to change the tonal balance. How is that concept different?

It's not different of course, it was merely about the available tools. It is just easier now. Point&shoot is still point&shoot of course, but otherwise, digital (and photoshop techniques) have made photography good, easily possible for the masses.

 

[aroy]

My friend's father was the official photographer to the President. He gave me insight to group photographs. For any group they would be using 8x10 or larger sizes, at times 16x20. The reason was that after the shoot, he would sit with the negative (or plate) on the light table with a loupe and start brushing it up. That way he would be correcting (or repainting) blinks, off centre tie or erasing any objectionable object. Same as what we do in Photoshop today. What is better today, is that apart from framing and direction of lights which must be done right in camera, modern sensors give you a much better DR to play with. I have noticed that in my D3300 and overexposure of 1EV and under exposure of upto 3EV is easily corrected. +2EV or -5EV can still give usable images.

 

[Marcel]

And as far as retouching goes, I remember some people that earned their whole life doing retouching for advertising agencies. Our lab would produce what we then called "repro-prints" and it was sent to the retoucher who would hair brush, close-cut or do whatever the advertising guys do to make us believe the product is perfect.

So today, we've become retouchers as much as photographers. I wouldn't say that we're getting lazy...

 

[skater]

How much darkroom work have you done?

None. But I stand by my point.

 

[STM]

None. But I stand by my point.

Then your point has no credibility. That would be like me talking all about neurosurgery without ever picking up a scalpel.

 

[skater]

Then your point has no credibility. That would be like me talking all about neurosurgery without ever picking up a scalpel.

Actually one doesn't need to be an expert to point out that every new medium has its detractors, like you and digital photography.

 

[Sandpatch]

... and that voice tells me to stop and revert back to the film days and try to get things as right in the camera rather than relying on fixing them afterwards. ...

Me too. After 40 years of shooting mostly Kodachrome, my DSLR mindset will always be to shoot as if I cannot later edit the image. My editing software and software knowledge are pretty basic anyway, so it all works out.

I also shot Plus X and Tri X when funds were tight. I do miss the darkroom, but those days were long ago and I recall that it often took me quite a few tries at dodging and burning to achieve a good result.

 

[Sandpatch]

... I am certainly not of the spray and pray group of people ...

Funny! I like that. What you say is true though, as I now enjoy creative photography with my DSLR and rarely ever tried it in film.

I recall carrying rolls of Kodachrome 64 and Kodachrome 200 on vacations, carefully winding one back into its canister (but not too far!) and counting the frames exposed so that I could load the other depending on the weather. I don't miss those days at all. (tho K-200 was extraordinary stuff and saved my memories with excellence in some awful weather)

 

[480sparky]

Funny! I like that. What you say is true though, as I now enjoy creative photography with my DSLR and rarely ever tried it in film.

I recall carrying rolls of Kodachrome 64 and Kodachrome 200 on vacations, carefully winding one back into its canister (but not too far!) and counting the frames exposed so that I could load the other depending on the weather. I don't miss those days at all. (tho K-200 was extraordinary stuff and saved my memories with excellence in some awful weather)

I did the same, even though I had two film bodies. I carried a leader retriever as well.

 

[STM]

Actually one doesn't need to be an expert to point out that every new medium has its detractors, like you and digital photography.

First off, I don't have anything against digital photography. I use my D700 quite a but. But to put things in perspective for you, I have been doing film photography since 1972 and digital since 2001. For me, the jury is still out on digital, especially when you compare it to the images I can produce with my Hasselblad. Medium format fine grain film still blows digital off the map with the exception of the medium format digitals. And digital has always had a "plastic" look to it compared to film. Film has an intangible quality and charm that digital is still a long way away from replicating.

And if you have never been in a dark room, not only are you not an expert, you are not even a novice. So again, when it comes to someone like me who still works in the darkroom, you have no credibility whatsoever with me to talk about it and compare it to digital. And on an unrelated matter, you have been on this site for almost 10 months and have yet to upload an image of yours. Why is that?

 

[skater]

First off, I don't have anything against digital photography. I use my D700 quite a but. But to put things in perspective for you, I have been doing film photography since 1972 and digital since 2001. For me, the jury is still out on digital, especially when you compare it to the images I can produce with my Hasselblad. Medium format fine grain film still blows digital off the map with the exception of the medium format digitals. And digital has always had a "plastic" look to it compared to film. Film has an intangible quality and charm that digital is still a long way away from replicating.

And if you have never been in a dark room, not only are you not an expert, you are not even a novice. So again, when it comes to someone like me who still works in the darkroom, you have no credibility whatsoever with me to talk about it and compare it to digital. And on an unrelated matter, you have been on this site for almost 10 months and have yet to upload an image of yours. Why is that?

True, I have no experience in a darkroom, but you are apparently ignoring the point I tried to make. Sorry if facts only count in your world when they come from people who worked in darkrooms.

I haven't uploaded any pictures to this site because I haven't felt the need. My pictures make me happy, and that's all I care about. What do I care what a bunch of Internet people think? I did post some when I was having a focus issue but I hosted them on my personal website and just linked to them. I like to maintain control of my pictures, so I don't use Flickr or any of those sites either.

 

[skater]

What do I care what a bunch of Internet people think?

Okay, that line was harsh and I apologize to the Internet people.

Also, I remembered I have actually posted several pictures in threads other than the focus issue thread I was having - I think there was one in the pets thread (albeit taken with a Canon P&S) and I posted a couple in a newbie thread. However all were linked to pictures on my own website, which I pay for the hosting. I'm sure Nikonites wouldn't do this, but who knows what's going to happen to your pictures on other sites?

I should share my pictures here more, though. I do share them with family and friends who would be interested (for example, my pictures from Airstream rallies go to the club members), but I pretty much never post them on here. I'd probably learn more if I posted them here for feedback...