Do you photograph differently in digital #4

[jerrymeola]

A new topic I have added to my seminars is the concept of digital photography changing the way you photograph.

I would like opinons on whether you see and photograph differently in digital.

Topic four I give credit to the participants in my first digital seminar. When I displayed a 6x7 pentax I own which weighs about 6 pounds, I stated I liked heavy cameras for stability.

The general opinion was most people liked the lighter digital cameras becasue they could carry them everywhere. You can not take a picture when the camera is at home.

Since then I have kept this aspect in mind and now agree. I wil learn how to hold a light camera steady. The ability to have it more often is a great bonus.

[ratcheer]

I agree with this one, 100%.

In the late 70's and through the 80's, I had a couple of very nice 35mm SLR's. The second (and current) one is a Nikon FA with 28 mm and 50 mm Nikkor AI-s lenses and a 70-210 mm Nikon E-series zoom, motor drive, Speedlight, filters, etc. A very nice system.

But, in the early 90's, I got fed up with the bulk, the weight, and the fact that when a great shot opportunity occurred, I never seemed to have the lens I wanted for it on the camera. And I just quit.

I have now had a Nikon CP-4500 for 13 months. I only have to carry the camera. If I want to carry the bag and accessories, it is small and light. And I am loving photography, again.

Tim

[jerrymeola]

I too own the CP4500. I found an $8 samsonite bag in the photo department at WalMart that is pefect for the camera and assessories.

It is about 5x6 inches and looks tiny for a camera bag, but I use the clip on strap as a belt rather than over my shoulder. The bag rides on my hip and zips on the top so I can use it like a gun holster to put my camera in and remove without closing up the bag.

I have a bag that holds the camera, a teleconvertor, two spare batteries, lense cleaning supplies and even the manual and recharger if I want them with me. With my 2.5 tele convertor I have a 35 - 387 mm focal range in a package that has a total weight is too little to care about.

It is a long way from the 35 pounds of cameras I took on my African safari in 1989 or the 60 pounds of cameras (including video) that I took in 1980.

[me_wrestler]

I have to admit I have mixed feelings here. I have a d100 with a fairly heavy lens 28-80 2.8. I really like the feel of a beefy camera in my hands (not to mention that it looks impressive). I still attempt to travel light at times by packing everything I need into a fanny pack but for business shoots I still use a very large Tamrac bag. With all this said, I do admit to being without a camera at times when I wish I had one.
Colin

[JCW3]

Digital photography has changed my photography style dramatically. Orgianlly I was anti-shutter, more or less I only took a photo if I know I had it, no maybes (guess that states I was a tight wade ). Now that I shot digital, I am the opposite, I often shot away and worry later...

I also find myself experimenting more and playing with ideas that allows me to be creative. Before I was to anti-shutter for this.

As for size/weight I am a fan of bigger slr feeling cameras. I have a few compact digitals but find my fingers to fat or hands to cramped for this type. But thats more a personal thing. For me its not bother to drag around a camera, actually I kind of like it...

Digital photography has also allowed me to take 100% control over my work. Before even if I did the prints in a wet lab, i would get the film developed. Now with digital photography, everything from editing, printing, and sharing can be done instantly at the comfort of my own home or even while traveling...

[jerrymeola]

good comments from me_wrestler and JCW3.

Wrestler I still wonder if I can ever get away from the heavier cameras. I still own 8 film cameras as well as the lighter digital. Only tmie will tell. My tamarac backpack helps for the heavier loads.

JCW3 - I like your "anti-shutter" phrase, I have never heard it used before. Ansel Adams was known to take his pack mule a hundred pounds of camers and only 3 sheets of film into the Sierras for a days photo shoot. There is much to say about analysing your shot before taking it.

I tried to make this a subject in #3 of these four topics but it does not seem to be getting much discussion.

Your two comments of "shoot away" and being "more creative" because fo the lack of cost emphasises the extremes. If shoot away is taken too far and the photographer uses it as an excuse not to think, then I say it is bad. But if it is used as a means to experiment and try "more creative" things that I am all for the idea.

Every picture does not need to be perfect and an artisic masterpiece, but every picture deserves the photographers attention and creative thought.

[ratcheer]

I saw a discussion on another website where the poster said he had encountered a National Geographic photography crew who talked with him, some.

They had hundreds of pieces of equipment and a seemingly unlimited supply of film. They shot and shot and shot.

He asked them how many of those photos they thought would eventually be published. "Maybe two or three", was the answer.

Tim

PS- I cannot vouch for the truth of this. As I said, I read it on another forum.

[JCW3]

Your point on the NG crew was probably true. I am fairly good friends with a local professional photographer that often takes trips to islands, countrys, and other odd places to capture a need subject for a client.

They went to Arizona to get a photo of some specific Humming Bird and was out there for a week. In the weeks time I forget how many roles he shot, but it was in the are of 280 or so. And all that is SLIDE film, that they keep in a fridge while traveling. Thats note even counting developing, the film, and all the time...

When it was all over they had some very nice shots, but only 2 was used for that artical. I have to admit many others have now been used for other companys, but it was amazing...

But for the most part he has now switched over to digital. He still does alot of slide work, but digital has truly changed the stock industry as well as man professional photographers.

I started with a small light camera, then a little heavier, an ounce or two more but now I have a Canon 1D and find that even with heavy lenses and body I get better shots, more stability and much better controls. I shoot a lot of motorsports and spend as much as 12 to 14 hours straight at a track with the camera around my neck. The next day even if it is not around my neck it feels like it is.
I take the camera with me everywhere, big bulky lens and all because around Indy you never know what will happen or who you'll see. It also helps that I do shoot for newspapers as a stringer though.

[jerrymeola]

ratcheer and JCW3

both of the pros you mentioned were shooting for an assignment and they never completely know what the editor will want.

The photos are being shot to fill a need and the need was to be decided by someone else; and the need might change by the time it was to be used.

But the point I want to emphasize is not to confuse quantity of work with lack of attention by the photographers to each shot.

Both pros were attempting to take the best shot possible everytime they pressed the shutter. They may have shot severalhundred shots, but I am sure they did not take thousands of shots they did not like during that time. I would say from experience probably 85% of the shots were in excess of the quality we see posted on the internet.

Every photo deserves our attention to try to be the best it can. We will often not succeed, but we should not get to where we press the shutter without thinking hoping for one of a hundred to be good.

[ratcheer]

Oh, yes, Jerry. I agree totally. I would bet that every single shot they made was better than any shot I have ever made. They are pros practicing a finely honed craft. I did NOT mean to imply that they were just shooting a lot of mess in the hope that some diamonds would fall out, by accident.

I shoot a lot of stuff for newspapers, sports specifically. I can take 500 shots and they will use one, maybe two. And they don't always use the best shots. I found it depends on who is chosing the shots, if it's the papers full time photog he will pick the worst shot, guess it makes him feel like God or something, maybe he dosn't want to be shown up by me. It's gotten so bad the editor finally told me to just email 4 or 5 of the best shots so we don't have that problem. On the flip side, I sent one paper 13 shots of a football game and a couple after game shots, they ran 10 of the game shots and then one after game shot on the front page. Twice I shot for that paper, both times I had shots on the front page, yet in two years of shooting for this other paper not one front page shot. Editors are finicky people, photographers are worse...lol

[jerrymeola]

I think the one thing I hated the most when I shot commercially was the infallible result of the client picking a photo I missed sending to the trash.

Especially in weding photography where they wanted the out of focus shot of special aunt Mary in the background blown up because it was the only shot of her in spite of repeated requests during the wedding to point out any special relatives, of whom they wanted shots.

A famous photographer in the 1960s, Turner (I think first name Pete) was sent to Africa on a months assignemt for a major national magazine. When he returned Popular Photography mag wrote up the trip on how on return he reviewed the thousands of shots, selected 70 for the client, and destroyed the rest. That is the only way to prevent an editor from selecting your less than best work.

You have to be very good to get away with that one.