Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

'Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture, says the digital camera has destroyed the craft of photography.

"Everyone now is a photographer. Everyone now likes to record everything endlessly." There is a huge contrast, he suggests, between that and the distinguished female photographer he's friends with who takes very few photographs but with huge care. '

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16483509

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What are your views? Do you take hundreds of pictures to ensure a few good ones - or do you plan and carefully take a few?

jethro779 Loc: Tucson, AZ

Most of the fun of having a digital camera is being able to take a lot of pictures.

maccardi Loc: Western New York

I am the latter. I am a guy that enjoys photography as a hobby and IMO the digital camera is one of the best learning tools available. I like instantly knowing if my adjustments worked or not.

Back 20 years ago, I had an SLR 35mm camera and it was hard to keep track of how I shot any particular picture and by the time I got my pics back, it was a crap shoot weather they came out good or not. There was also considerable cost involved when paying developing fees for potentially bad pictures.

In this digital era, I know instantly what my camera is doing. For someone like me that has no formal training, I enjoy trying different shooting modes and learning what they do. I can read thousands of articles and forum posts about what the different settings do but until I try them myself, I don't really learn.

The article makes a valid point about someone like myself but I don't take pictures to make a living, I just do it for personal satisfaction. I think nothing of going out all day and taking 400 shots to produce maybe 15 that I really like but like I mentioned earlier it only costs me my time not any $, and it is a labor of love for me...

Just my $.02

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Digital is easy because you can put it on auto and shoot away. Just because there are a million photos out there does not preclude technique and art. It doesn't take much know how to use a DSLR. It does to use it and really make it work for you as a tool. Snapshots for one are not art. Not only must one learn how to use the tool, one must learn the photographic art. Above that is that creative genius that some have and well, some just don't.

Right now I feel like I'm at the stage just beyond shooting auto where I'm selecting either shutter or aperture priority and working on focus. Got a long way to go. I was a pretty good film photographer when I did everything manually, had to think, conserve my resources and get the best shots possible. I also had great subjects back then.....my kids.

RLKurth Loc: I'm from NY, but live in north Florida

:thumbup: :thumbup:

JR1 Loc: Tavistock, Devon, UK

Don't some people talk absolute garbage

I lived through film,35mm, 6x6, I enjoyed photography, since my EOS10D I have LOVED photography.

People who would never have bought a camera now take photos on phones.

Yesterday I shot 1,500 at a motorbike race, I have never attended one before, I had 22 bad shots, blurred etc, not boasting, none of the rest were rubbish, with film I would have used probably 6 rolls of 36, never have I enjoyed photography more.

In the past we perfected mid roll change, I would often have up to 6 rolls on the go at various stages, because one would be 400asa, another 100, another 1000, another mono and so on, now I just shoot.

JR1 Loc: Tavistock, Devon, UK

I don't believe the internet is killing our culture, however two months ago I threw in SKY, now I have just 5 channels, and boy do I get out more, I now have a life

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

“Destroyed” may be a little overstated. “Diluted” might be more accurate.

Typewriters did not destroy the art of writing. They just made things more legible. Many can now produce clearly typed text that is just not good writing that any of us would want to read. But there are still good authors around, they are just harder to find because there are too many books to sift through.

Some people use the digital camera as a memory aid when they take hundreds of pictures of an event. The unfortunate result is that the pictures are more important to them than enjoyment of the event itself.

You can take thousands of photos of wildlife that are almost as good as the best but usually the most you can say about them is that they are yours, not that they are great photographs.

But there will always be a few good authors and good photographers and they will be grateful for the millions of amateurs that support the industry that supplies them with their tools.

JLRplsFL

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Swamp Gator Loc: Coastal South Carolina

I would blame post processing and the myriad array of image adjusting software programs as potentially damaging influences on the craft of photography more then I would blame a digital camera. Even a digital camera is still in many ways just a tool to capture an image.

The whole 'I can always fool with it later in post' mentality has resulted in fewer people being able to actually get it right in the camera first. So many do not understand the basics of how to even get a proper exposure and in many cases don't care because they figure they can 'fix it later' so why worry about it now.

Plus people often do not understand that a heavily manipulated image is no longer a photograph but is in fact a photo illustration. There is a distinction.

I'm not saying I believe there is anything drastically wrong with post processing and heavily processed images (unless you are involved in photo journalism) but I'm not sure that it has helped people become masters of the craft of photography.

Now the digital camera on it's own has helped photographers (in my view) in terms of the instant result you get from digital. For those that are capable of understanding what they are seeing in their camera's review screen it can help them learn in the field as they go, rather then having to wait for the box of slides to arrive from Kodak a week or so later.

JR1 Loc: Tavistock, Devon, UK

I do agree with a lot of what you say.

If you look at my post of motorbikes, apart from cropping a couple and sharpening two all the rest are direct from camera

Also picking up on what you say, photography and processing have always been two distinct and separate areas, with film you took the photograph and later edited and post processed them, today you take the photograph, then in stake 2 you edit and post process them.

Photography and processing are two different things.

Where possible I like to get the photographs I take as near perfect at the time of shooting.

Swamp Gator Loc: Coastal South Carolina

I have a full array of cable channels, plus On Demand, plus DVDs and streaming from Netflix, plus two DVRs, and I still manage to get out in the field every day to observe and photograph wildlife.
It all depends on how you manage your time.
Just yesterday for example, we were home with thoughts of watching some TV show but decided instead to go check out what might be going on in the marsh. If I had stayed home I would have missed this roseate spoonbill.

So in that respect I agree with you but it is still about making choices rather then limiting them. At least in my view.

Swamp Gator Loc: Coastal South Carolina

That's pretty much what I was saying...shoot as if you were shooting film. :-)

Now I do some very minor pp on my wildlife photos, stuff like a little brightness and contrast, but that is mostly just making up for the limitations of the source product right from the camera which can often come out looking more then a bit flat.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

And Rock & Roll is sending everyone to hell.

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

I agree 100%. Digital is a great learning tool and as it costs next to nothing to experiment you can learn through your mistakes. You need never be worried about experimenting and - as the results are instantly visible - correcting until the right formula is found.

:thumbup: