I was told recently by an Apple rep that, on average, people shoot five times as many pictures with a digital camera than they do/did with a film camera. I bet some shooters go way above that number. It made me stop and think a bit about this whole digital revolution, which I have begun to join kicking and screaming, by the way.
People sometimes ask how many images I made before I got to a key picture, like the bird that is on the cover of my book. I shot four frames of that bird, total. I spent most of my time watching what was going on around the scene (noticing the baby who suddenly appeared in her father's arms next to me), anticipating what might happen next (the baby pointing to the bird) and thinking hard about how I wanted to frame the moment in my viewfinder. Now I know this sounds kind of archaic in this day and age, but, for me it still seems about right. If I had been quickly firing off shots, paying attention to my camera (making adjustments, looking at the pictures I'd just taken) and not much else, I might have missed that "decisive moment" when the baby's finger lined up so beautifully with the bird's beak. On the other hand, since my Hasselblad actually goes "black" at the moment I squeeze the shutter, did I really have any idea that I had captured that perfect moment? Was I just lucky?
I don't know - maybe luck comes into play with both shooting methods. I do know this, though: being a very patient observer can and usually does lead to a fuller understanding of the world, not to mention a pretty good photograph of the event you are watching. I am afraid that the new generation of digital shooters are going to abandon the need to be patient and methodical and thoughtful when making pictures, because the camera will allow them to frantically capture every slight change in the scene and will basically do that thinking for them. It almost seems to me that these days the key to finding the right image is post production - that it is in the sifting through of hundred of images that the "perfect" one is found.
I like the idea of finding that perfect image just as I am making it. And then hoping I got it! That's the other thing. With digital, shooters look immediately at the screen on the back of the camera to see if they "got it". There is something very poetic and slow and magical about waiting a few days to process your film. It gives you time to think about what you shot, what you hope it might look like photographed, what it might mean to you or to others who view it. There is something to be said for letting the image process in your brain as well as in the developer.
I don't know. If I had shot 20 images of the bird, would I have made a better picture than the one I got? How would the other shots have been different? What if I had been so busy shooting that I missed the one I got? And more important, would I have missed out on the whole "feeling" of the scene - would I have not taken time to look at the father holding the baby, the man who was tending the bird, the baby herself, the other people standing around admiring the bird? What did those connections and discoveries bring to the picture, if anything?
The photograph above was the only one I made of the cow wandering around on the grounds of the orphanage The cow just kind of stuck her head into the frame, it was so neatly symmetrical with the child on the other end of the frame, the moment seemed right, and voila, I made a picture. I didn't "work the scene" by trying lots of other variations. It just felt right at that moment and seemed worthy of my attention. Maybe I could have gotten a better shot if I had made more exposures, but then I might have missed what was happening on the other end of the building, which led to another moment worthy of my attention.
I just hope we digital shooters don't forget that we still have to do the thinking, yes, even though cameras these days claim to do it all themselves. Patience, thoughtfulness, a keen sense of observation, and oh, yes, heart... I don't think even the most mega-pixeled camera on the market today can offer any of these features.
3 comments:
Gloria, I've been shooting more and more digital over the last 3 years. But I still find that I mostly shoot in the "old" mode of slow looking. I seldom look at the image on the back of the camera. Sometimes if I'm wondering about an exposure situation, I'll take a quick look and make an adjustment but I don't do that for every shot. I probably do shoot more often...maybe it is the new toy aspect. But I'll try things that I probably would not have with film knowing I can always delete so from that standpoint it has been good for me.
Living here in Mexico, digital has been easier than trying to get medium format film processed (color, I could still process B&W, but I guess I'm growing lazy in my old age LOL)But then there is the scanning. And I have to admit it, I am a RAW addict. I love what I can do to my digital negative before it ever goes into PS.
Please keep writing a blog. You are a wonderful writer and I'd love to keep reading about your thoughts about making art.
Gloria:
I take your thoughts on going digital to heart....but you know, when hand cameras -- the TLR's and 35mm's -- began to replace sheet film Graphics and view cameras, the same thoughts were put forth. Still, it's the person's mind behind their eye that is making the image, not the camera. The camera is what it is, a mechanical tool. Why should your personal habits during shooting change just because you have changed how the image is recorded? I, myself, sometimes do look at the back of my digital slr immediately after making the an image, but not to see "if I got it." I'm looking at the histogram to see if I need to shoot another frame because maybe I had reacted so quickly to a situation that I hadn't set the camera correctly. No one will arrest you if you DON'T look at the back of the camera after each exposure, ya' know? Besides, I know when I push the release whether or not I'm made an image or just merely taken a picture. That's what 45+ years of putting camera-to-eye has allowed me to achieve. I tell my students everyday that photography is about seeing AND understanding. The camera merely allows me to do something about it. Way too many mid/late career photographers are getting all hung-up on the shift from silver based technology to the electronic media. I think it more a fear of the technology than anything else. I have several friends in their 50's and 60's who are resisting the switch, but you know what? 99% of these people who are resistant to the change never went in the darkroom and made a color print -- they took the pictures, and had all the work done by a lab, and merely accepted the results they were given. Ah, HA! Now they are faced with making those technical decision about their images where before they let someone else worry about it. I, for one, relished being freed from the color darkroom and took a happy flying leap into the digital age. However, I still get my hands wet when shooting good ol' B&W film. Interesting that one has come to rely on the other. (That's probably another journal topic.) The act of photographing hasn't changed, and the basics of the camera haven't either. It's only how light is interacting with the surface of the recording media. One can still take their recorded images to a lab and let someone else do the finishing work. But, and this is a big BUT, it is now within the grasp of just about everyone to make the final finished print. And that's what really bothering some people -- they are threatened by the fact that their "craft" is not as unique as it was before the digital revolution. Get over it. Just go out and make images as you did before. Do you realized how wonderful it is to have "digital film" that can be either color or monotone, shoot an ISO that matches just about any lighting condition, shoot as if you had a roll of film that would give you 250 or more exposures, not have to worry about film being destroyed by X-Rays, not having to keep up with all those rolls of exposed film -- not to mention having to keep the data separate for each roll, etc. Now we have become free to merely the making of photographs. How cool is that? So what if we have to learn a computer program in order to realize the final images. I gladly gave up the typewriter for word processing on the computer. Editing a manuscript is a damned lot easier than having to type it all over again after each revision. I sorta' like the digital era, and merely look upon it as another medium with which I can use to hopefully make more meaningful images.....not merely take pictures.
Pitchertaker
Post a Comment