I've read through most of this thread and it's been an interesting discussion. Many points I agree with.
I have many opinions on this subject but I'll just try and keep my views short, sweet and easy to read.
Digital photography is a 2 step process. (Capture and Process)
Film photography is a 1 step process. (Capture. If you did darkroom work, it becomes one and a bit. Darkroom is incomparable to what you can do with digital processing)
With both mediums you look at a scene and determine what the end result will be.
Difference between the two mediums is with film you only have capture as the tool. Digital you have capture and process.
Digital you can evaluate what camera needs to do and what computer needs to do. A good photographer will do this before pressing the shutter.
Film you only have the camera to work with. You are more limited. A scene that may work with digital simply won't work with film. You may need to come up with an alternative shot that can be handled by the camera alone.
With digital we can do anything. You can process the living daylights out of a pic or you can do nothing but a few minor basic adjustments.
What you do depends on your own personal preference or requirement.
You may wish to keep things traditional and keep your photography as a true representation of "the capture of light."
On the other hand, you may wish to use every tool available to a digital photographer to create what you consider the best image that can possibly be created.
Neither is right or wrong, good or bad. It's a preference or a requirement depending on your situation.
Here is the key:
Where the problems arise is usually when people don't pick their side. They "sit on the fence" or don't have the right skills and only half do things.
A hugely processed image can still look great if it's done correctly. If it's a good representation/reflection of the subject and if it's intent is clear, it's a success.
The issue becomes when the processing is half done and/or badly done. These images fail because they are no longer a good reflection/representation of the subject and the intent of the image may not be clear.
I like to shoot both digital and film because I like both sides. Whichever medium I'm using, I make certain for that period my mind fully understands the side I am on.
Film photography is challenging and highly rewarding as it's limitations are great.
Digital gives greater scope for the end result and I use it to it's full benefits. It can be equally rewarding.
As long as you pick a clear side with processing, you can be both a digital photographer or a film photographer with a digital camera.
I use a film camera for my film representation for no other reason than to keep the traditional side as fully traditional as possible.
I began photography this way, it's nice to revisit the past, it's a sentimental thing, I enjoy it this way.
This is actually quite a good post, ignoring the fact that for
certain photographers the darkroom had massive potential.
(Awaiting people saying I'm too young to remember and this is a vast generalisation!)
For the vast majority of enthusiasts film was a single stage process. With the photographer making the capture then getting a lab to develop.
For the vast majority of enthusiasts digital is a dual stage process. With the photographer making the capture, then uploading to a computer to catalog and making tweaks themselves. Albeit sometimes limited ones, but they are involved none the less.
Obviously in the film days we had people dodging, burning and cross processing their own negatives. In the digital age we have people blending complicated astro images made up of 100's of files on their own computers. These guys are the exception perhaps. What I would say for sure, is in the digital age the advanced photographer rarely outsources the processing. In the film age I assume a greater number of advanced photographers still outsourced the developing, even though a lot would do it themselves?
What makes the argument interesting is people who don't know how to process a digital image get on their high horse and argue that 'they want the picture to be as close to reality as possible' so it needs to be SOOC. Or, 'if a picture requires a lot of processing then it should go in the bin'. The other one is 'getting it right in camera'.
Looking at those statements in order, the first one is utter nonsense. An auto white balance JPEG will only come out looking as pleasing as a Canon/Nikon/Fuji/Sony etc engineer wants it to look. Arguably that is sometimes a lot better than the sort of people who wear welding goggles to process their images achieve anyway. I digress, the file straight out of camera is not purer or closer to reality anyway, it does not see the scene the way our eyes do, and will likely have other issues with colour etc. The reality thing then blends into the art thing and that has already been discussed!
The second statement is normally said by people who lack the skills to achieve in processing what others can. I totally agree we should be trying to start off with the highest quality image possible, and know when we are wasting our time trying to make something out of nothing. But really, a lot of processing, done in a controlled way working towards a clearly determined result can immensely improve a RAW negative.
Regarding 'getting it right in camera', these people assume the correct exposure is the one that looks right on the back of their far too bright LCD screens and have never seen a histogram. They are also missing out on the massive potential of post processing to unleash their creative skills and solve problems.
I firmly believe that digital photography is exactly a 50/50 split between everything that happens up until the point of capture and then everything from that point forward. But the whole process is integrated, the greater you understand the controls of the camera and the creative potential of different settings, the better photographs you can make and problems (difficult capture conditions) you can overcome. But by exactly the same token the greater you understand what can be achieved in post processing you will uncover even more ways to use your camera in the field that leads to more creativity and problem solving capabilities.
Absorb yourself in both parts of the hobby and you are likely to enjoy it more. It is not just about the advantage of learning more about using the camera to improve your capture skills and learning more about software to improve your processing skills. It is more than that, when you understand what can be done in processing, you will change the way you shoot. And for me that has allowed me to get usable shots more often. They won't always be the best shots, because the best shots are about light, atmosphere, emotion and an underlying connection with the subject. But having the skills encourages me to use my camera more and that has to be a good thing, as it's a hobby I enjoy. Both parts of it, but for people who are happy just shooting JPEGS and spending more time outside, great keep doing it. For others who love pixel editing on a computer that is also their time to spend as they enjoy. But for guys willing to learn I would encourage anyone to work on the 50% of digital photography they are weaker at.
Not the best picture in the world by any means, but here is a shot of Kilchurn castle that has been focussed stacked, had the verticals corrected and missing sections warped back in again, exposure blended and edited selectively for colour and contrast. It was taken during the blue hour when other photographers had left because it was too dark, and simply exposed to protect the highlights in the sky. I knew there was a chilly, moody image in that scene, and because it was so tranquil and I was enjoying myself I wanted to keep shooting. I also got to lose myself listening to music on my computer this morning not thinking about work or anything else whilst I edited it.
This shot is not great, but the techniques in taking it and editing it are surely good practice for when the scene in front of me (any my eyes are open to it!) is right.
SOOC LR vertical correction, without auto crop
Kilchurn not edited by
Craig Hollis, on Flickr
PS processed image
Kilchurn Vertical Ice Blue Hour by
Craig Hollis, on Flickr
If you got this far, thanks for reading!
