Having trained with 35mm film, moving to digital photography was a bit of a wrench. But in truth, it is the best thing to happen to photography since Kodak introduced it to the masses. OK, it happened, for me, some years ago now so I’ve had more than enough time to adjust.
Looking back over the last few years, where I’ve had conversations about the virtues of film, I’ve realised that (for me) it was only nostalgia talking.
The digital format is a superb tool for people who take the odd “snap” whilst on holiday to the Pro who’s living depends on hitting the mark every time he/she takes the lens cap off.
We still need to learn photography, through trial and error mostly and even the most sophisticated camera will not frame the shot for you but I can guarantee that there are less bad pics about now than there were 20 years ago. And it’s cheaper because we can delete the dross without going to the expense of having a film developed only to find that the pictures are rubbish.
Most old Pro’s will tell you that the real art took place in the dark room. True in my opinion, but now that we can do the same thing with software such as Photoshop the art still exists. So, for me, there is no argument about moving with the times.
So why are photographers still divided into two groups, Professional and Amateur if everything is so easy?
I didn’t say it was easy to take good photographs but I do believe that the tools are better and we stand more chance of getting it right.
Photography, like art, needs two components. Technical competence (helped by digital technology) and an eye for the subject matter. I can paint a picture, but an artist I am not.
It’s the same with today’s “Darkroom”, Photoshop (or similar). Computers have made life easier but it is all very well being good with computers if you cant see where a photograph is and where it needs to be.
www.nicholasjamesphotography.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment