Nostr Web Client

I feel like I've lived through this before, when digital cameras got good enough to replace analog. You'll learn a lot when you shoot on film and develop the pictures yourself, but given enough progress the point becomes moot.

Egge 7mo ago

I actually think that is a great example to support my point. Personally I prefer to shoot digital too. However it really helps to still understand how aperture and shutter speed work and how focal length and sensor (or film) size will affect your depth of field. While white balance is way easier to adjust on digital cameras, it is still good to know the concepts and understand how it works. And most photographers will agree that in the end shooting on "Auto" sucks.

Learning the basics and fundamentals first will make you a better photographer, no matter whether you choose to shoot digital or analoge in the end.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Gigi 7mo ago

Yes, you'll have to learn these things eventually (and you will, if you want to get good). But it will lower the entry point massively, allowing humanity to create photos/software more easily, which I think is a good thing.

Not every photo has to be a masterpiece. Think dash cams / insurance / remembering where you patked.

Crusty 👨‍💻 7mo ago

I think that is the key!

- Lowers the barrier.

- You benefit of understanding the underlying thing

- Quality matters, but its wasted time to do it everywhere.

Ross 7mo ago

It’s moving from expertise to accessibility. 100 years ago taking a photo required so much specialized knowledge it was a profession. Now anyone can take virtually unlimited photos and “better” is based on post processing algorithms which few see or understand. Up the stack we go.

I suspect people’s assignment of value to a craft is more a reflection of the time they personally have invested in learning it. Photographers, developers, writers, lawyers, etc etc