Is there any gratification in using the digital camera for convenience?

[Brian Ellis]

I'm using a dslr for my current project, more for economic reasons than for convenience ... LF color film and processing costs put it out of reach. The digital workflow is brilliantly convenient, but I don't find the camera to be. I'm basically using it as if it were an LF camera that happens to have a tiny, dim ground glass. I don't think it's speeding me up in the field at all.

Is it gratifying? Hell yeah. Not so much the focussing, but the rest of the process ...

I agree Paul, I don't think I work significantly faster making the first image of a scene either, speed isn't one of the major conveniences for me. But I do make more versions than I usually did with film (you know, that "spray and pray" technique that's required of everyone who uses a digital camera and that we hear so much about here : - )).

You mention a tiny dim ground glass, which I assume is your viewfinder. Does your camera not have Live View? For me that helps immensely with composition, focusing, and checking depth of field. It's like having a very bright ground glass and it can be magnified similar to using a 5x or 10x loupe. At 3"x3" it's no 8x10 but it isn't all that much smaller than 4x5.

[Findingmyway4ever]

Just because you can do things in post-processing, it doesn't mean you have to.

If you get a digital camera, simply go about your business exactly that you always have. Be deliberate and get it right in camera.

But with color work, post-processing gives me a lot of power that has not been readily available pre-digital. Neither film or digital necessarily capture scenes the way I see them artistically. With post-processing, I can now selectively adjust color (hue, saturation, and/or luminosity) to suit my artistic vision. I happen to find that tremendously gratifying.

I agree with the many points discussed so far, but this particular one is where I see the post-processing domain as being just that=a way to make another art...it's no different than being a studio artist that makes abstract, impressionist, etc. type of paintings. One can easily acheive a very very colored look without the use of post-processing, but to take things to the level of say HDR or a look that cannot exist in real life, that's entirely different, again, exactly like a studio artist...just using the computer to do it for you.

According to most everyone's responses, all one has to do to be a world class photographer is have enough resolution for the final print size, and be a master in photoshop, as well as getting the on screen vision onto paper however one wants the end product to look. This means, a 5 year old can take a shot, even by accident, send it to daddy the computer artist, then send it to a well reputed printer and the 5 year old can claim the status of owning the very best photograph in the entire world.

Now that's gratification.

[Marko]

I agree with the many points discussed so far, but this particular one is where I see the post-processing domain as being just that=a way to make another art...it's no different than being a studio artist that makes abstract, impressionist, etc. type of paintings. One can easily acheive a very very colored look without the use of post-processing, but to take things to the level of say HDR or a look that cannot exist in real life, that's entirely different, again, exactly like a studio artist...just using the computer to do it for you.

According to most everyone's responses, all one has to do to be a world class photographer is have enough resolution for the final print size, and be a master in photoshop, as well as getting the on screen vision onto paper however one wants the end product to look. This means, a 5 year old can take a shot, even by accident, send it to daddy the computer artist, then send it to a well reputed printer and the 5 year old can claim the status of owning the very best photograph in the entire world.

Now that's gratification.

No, that's not gratification, that's just BS.

None of that is necessary for creating hyper-saturated, tan-inducing, screaming colors that never existed anywhere in nature. All one needs is a piece of Velvia, a polarizer, a color enhancer and a half a stop of underexposure, output to Cibachrome propped up with some contrast masking, as evidenced by the likes of Peter Lik as well as some members of this very board.

Waving a mouse over the screen is no different than waving a piece of cardboard under the enlarger, except in the skill set of the performer.

[Findingmyway4ever]

Is this a fair interpretation of your reasons why there's no gratification/happiness in digital?

-Major crops (cropping out only a tiny section of the image)

With digital, one doesn't think about composition when the exposure is made since there's have more cropping leeway in post process on a computer.

-Apply all sorts of filters so the image looks however they want it to look

With digital, one doesn't need to worry about film selection, GND, CC filters since their effects can be simulated in post processing on the computer.

-Stitch multiple shots together+alter the look so it looks like it was done with an MF/LF digital back.

I'm not sure why there's less photography skill/knowledge involved in stitching vs single exposure, can you elaborate? Is this an extension of your first point?

-Too much to list with all that a digital camera w/a computer can do.

With digital, one doesn't think about things like critical focus, exposure, color temperature at the time of exposure since they can be easily corrected in post process on a computer.

Is this a fair summary of your position? With digital, one applies photography skills during post process on a computer rather than at the time of exposure. Because it's much easier, digital denies the satisfaction of getting good results from in the field skill and hard work.

This is correct. Sure, one needs some skill, but in the end, one only needs to capture a "good enough" exposure and the rest can be handled with a computer. Now if one can produce images that are beautiful right out of the camera, with little post-processing involved, this is something I appreciate. I personally feel that the majority "use/abuse" post-processing as a means of covering up their inabilities, lack of resolution, and also re-create something that was never intended in the first place. Maybe I'm too much of a realist, in as much as I love some abstract work, but I find the digital process far to basic when one knows how to manipulate a file however one wants to in order to achieve any result they prefer. And to to me, this kind of result is inferior to those that are capable of producing images no different than a film camera, where we have so few keepers when all is said and done. How is it that people have boatloads of digital images, but they have so few film images in spite their 20-30 years of film shooting vs. their 1-12 years of digital shooting???

I'm in no way against digital and unfortunately, our trip in Europe was shot all on a Panasonic TS-7. I say unfortunately because I would have loved to have had even a micro 4/3rds outfit or some lighter film TLR, but without a doubt, an LF camera. Because of the excessive load of garbage we took with us, I was restricted to what I could take with me, and so came the camera that did a fine enough job of 4X6 memories. If I were alone on the trip, I'd have an LF setup without a doubt. But I'd also have some digital with me.

Cheers!

[rdenney]

According to most everyone's responses, all one has to do to be a world class photographer is have enough resolution for the final print size, and be a master in photoshop, as well as getting the on screen vision onto paper however one wants the end product to look. This means, a 5 year old can take a shot, even by accident, send it to daddy the computer artist, then send it to a well reputed printer and the 5 year old can claim the status of owning the very best photograph in the entire world.

Forgive me for being direct, but this is crap. Nobody has said anything like this.

What they said was that there are certain technical standards and tools that can achieve certain technical results adequately.

The difference between technical proficiency and being world-class photography is not a matter of technology, but what it is a matter of is apparently pretty damn elusive, no matter what you use.

Rick "anti-technology nerds are as trapped by the technology as technology geeks" Denney

[paulr]

Does your camera not have Live View? For me that helps immensely with composition, focusing, and checking depth of field.

It does ... I don't think the implementation on my camera is very good. I should experiment with it a bit more.

[Mike Anderson]

This is correct. Sure, one needs some skill, but in the end, one only needs to capture a "good enough" exposure and the rest can be handled with a computer. Now if one can produce images that are beautiful right out of the camera, with little post-processing involved, this is something I appreciate...

Why do you appreciate it? Because it is done without a computer, or because it's more pre-processing than post-processing, or because it looks better?

....Mike

[Brian Ellis]

[QUOTE=Findingmyway4ever;738074]. . . How is it that people have boatloads of digital images, but they have so few film images in spite their 20-30 years of film shooting vs. their 1-12 years of digital shooting??? . . .

Cheers![/QUOTE

Maybe they just liked using their digital camera so much and were so happy with the results that they got out and photographed a lot more with it and so made a lot more images. : -)

Or maybe your statement is just a major over-generalization like much of the rest of your post. Digital cameras aren't the first cameras susceptible of making boatloads of images. Many people made boatloads of images with their 35mm cameras. And not everyone who uses a digital camera makes boatloads of images.

[Jack Dahlgren]

[QUOTE=Brian Ellis;738118]

. . . How is it that people have boatloads of digital images, but they have so few film images in spite their 20-30 years of film shooting vs. their 1-12 years of digital shooting??? . . .

Cheers![/QUOTE

Maybe they just liked using their digital camera so much that they got out and photographed a lot more with it and so made a lot more images. Or maybe these "people" are just something you invented like the rest of the content of your post.

I have 10's of thousands of digital images and will never have that many 4x5 negatives. They are two different approaches. People have many digital images because the marginal cost approaches zero. And with such a low cost and immediate feedback there is strong encouragement to photograph and experiment with photography.

If the original poster is not finding gratification, then he should stop.

[John Kasaian]

Not meaning to sound snarky here, but I think we use the tools we want to use. A talented sketch artist may well prefer not using a camera at all.
But to answer the question:
Sheet film is nearly always far more a hassle than using a digital camera.
If gratification only means getting the shot and having it printed as you wish, then what is wrong with that?
The problem I have with not using sheet film is the poverty of things which are intrinsically tactile being reduced to key strokes, mouse clicks, changing ink cartridges or feeding paper into a printer.
To some people that's fun.
To me it ain't.