I almost had a sense of freedom as I uncapped the lens cover. It was also kind of frightening. I took the rolls of film to a one-hour lab and anxiously waited to see the results.

One thing I tried to remember as I took the photos was to expose very critically because these were “real” photos. I found that using a non-digital camera did truly make me slow down and make adjustments in-camera that I might have relied upon photoshop to “fix” had I been shooting digitally.

I get it, Stephen. No one should be offended or insulted by your very
philosophical comments and I am happy to have someone confer with me that perhaps a little more time shooting and composing is in order. Very simply, we are all reading this post because of our love for capturing the world around us.

We still love and need NAPP and remain, admittedly, addicted to Scott’s blog and the hugh body of learning that is provided by NAPP. However, our best work should not need much “fixing”. I love “tweaking” in photoshop but I don’t desire having a crutch to keep me upright.

I have been guilty many times of blasting away with the shutter button and not really thinking about the image I need intend to create till I got back home and went through the ‘data’ (because it was little more) that I had collected.

Thinking about my own photography in the light of your blog, I realise that my biggest successes have been where I set out with a clear image of what I wanted to do before pressing the shutter button. I shall try and focus more upon this pre-visualisation before pressing the shutter in future. This is also true of images where I did a fair amount of post processing - the most successful ones where when I had a clear vision of what I wanted to do at the start - i.e. before I hit the shutter.

There have been a fair number of critical comments posted. I think that is a little unfair. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, and to state it, but it is entirely possible to do without being personal and I feel a few of the comments here have crossed that line. Even though someone doesn’t agree that does not make another’s view point wrong - just different. Discussion is always healthy as it is the crucible of ideas, but should be done with due respect.

For those of you who do give so freely of your time and expertise please keep it up, for each person out there who comes back negatively I am sure there are many more who are inspired - I know I am.

From my talks with both amateur and professional photographers, shooters of film and digital, and in my own shooting experience, I take it to mean just spending time to make sure you’re thinking about composition, depth of field, light to dark relationships, and contrast and capturing that as accurately as a film emulsion or digital sensor can.

It requires significant effort to acquire the knowledge a photographer needs to evaluate the scene, select the composition, lighting and settings that captures the optimal RAW image. Photoshop and other RAW processing software can be a crutch that actually inhibits necessary personal development since it gives photographers an opportunity to leisurely and comfortably adjust images taken hastily and with minimal thought. Sometimes that’s all you’ve got. But if your objective is Fine Art (and that is what Stephen is — a Fine Art photographer) then it starts with making the best RAW capture in the context of the place and the circumstances.

Technical wizardry masterfully applied to create “better than real” images that are evocative or provocative have their place. But Stephen is in search of the best representation of an actual place and moment. And if you are, too, use camera skills not Photoshop skills to capture as much as possible in the camera.

I don’t think that the craft of photography and making a photo has diminished with digital, it is just that it has changed. We as photographers can do things differently now because of the nature of freedom and information that the tools today provide us than we did in the past.

Holly is a graphich designer. Just think of what it would be like if you had to do a design on a computer that had no monitor. And you wouldn’t see the results until it went to press. That is a similar idea to what film photography was. And does that mean that film photographers needed to be more proficent in their craft. Yes and no. They needed to be able to know how everything worked, how lighting would be, how film would react without the feedback. Digital I think frees you to concentrate on other things that are part of creating an image.

While I think that Mr. Johnson’s idea that the focus needs to be on the taking of the image and less on the editing of the image had its merits, I think that it is a mindset that is limited and stuck in the days film. Photography’s paradigm has shifted and I don’t think that Mr. Johnson’s thinking, even though he was a digitial “pioneer,” at least expressed in this post has shifted far enough to embrace the new model which is digital photography.

Surely the truth lies somewhere in the middle? It’s important to make the best image we can - in the moment, as the shutter clicks. But, part of our craft, lies in revisiting the image and working on it in the digital darkroom. Both these processes call for judgement, sensitivity and a unique vision. Together they contribute to the making of a “fine” image.

Thanks Stephen for reminding me that I don’t have to be a Photoshop guru to make a great photograph.

I’ve been developing skills in digital photography over the last 3 or 4 years now and I have to say I almost feel a bit guilty at how simple it is to just snap and edit on the computer. I’ve wondered what has happened to that craft that is photography. Then I turned the settings on my digital camera to manual and actually started experimenting with settings and lighting and have found that I don’t need to do as much editing in Photoshop as I used to. I personally love the challenge of getting it right in the camera. Of course in my line of work it really does all depend on the final outcome of the image you’re looking for. Sometimes I just need an object shot to be used “creatively” in a composition. Other times I need a realistic photograph of a setting, person, or object to be represented as itself.
In any event, with the nature of the beast being what it is, the speed at which I need to accomplish these tasks gets shorter and shorter,thanks to our ever evolving technology, digital photography is the tool for the job.

Thanks for grounding us Stephen. I think those that haven’t had the privilege of a classic education might miss your point…but I get it all the way. But I do still love my Photoshop time too

Thank!