Thread: Photography

Originally posted by adidas
i do have a digital. i have a nikon coolpix 850 that i use for vacations and family and all that jazz. it works great for point and click but it doesn't work (in my opinion) for artistic compositions.

digital is easy. and, because of that, i think it cheapens the agenda of the photograph. the forethought is gone with (the majority of) digital. i know people who take 300 exposures in an hour with digital... and i know of artists who have had only one exposure left to capture perfection (and have succeeded). i will use digital to shoot weddings and vacations. but i will not use it when i want to put some blood, sweat and tears into my art work.

I know what you mean about the point and shoot being so simple that a monkey could do it - but you have the auto modes with all cameras, whether it's film or digital. I'm still trying to figure out all the manual settings on my digital camera. There are so many things that you can change and tweak that it ends up being more artistic just because of all the work that goes into it.

For example, the photographer that I hired to do my wedding shot in all digital. But his style is photojournalistic and very artistic - I know he had to manually set the settings on the camera to get these photos to turn out so well. Also, there's probably some post-production work on the computer that went into it as well.



So like with this photo (which was shot digitally), he had to have done something weird with the shutter settings or something to have me come out clear in the middle, but everything else, in different color and a more smeared look.

So really, with film, you have to go through actually developing it, but with digital, you can change things digitally on the computer - so, all in all, it comes down to the same amount of work, blood, and sweat either way.

Meh, I'm just rambling now. I guess I'm just really excited to learn all the quirks about my new camera - I'm still stuck in auto mode. I'll figure it out sooner or later!