Are you a lazy photographer?
- Thread starter sk.images
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I think we are talking implicitly about digital photography, and comparing it with ancient film photography.
And then there are things right and wrong; and I think it is also implied here that "lazy" is wrong.
But whats wrong with "lazy"?
If you look at photo making as both capture and process, then a "lazy" capture, does not mean "lazy" processing. Then on the other hand there are some who insist on out-of-camera perfection, but are actually just "lazy" at processing.
But back to right and wrong.
Whats right for film photography is not necessary so for digital photography, and vice versa.
Take for example the preview screen.
Where in film you know whether a particularly combination of exposure, aperture, shutter, etc worked only from experience, and learning is not immediate - having to recall what you did after you seen the prints - in digital photography, learning is not only immediately possible, but you can even experiment in real time.
So then it can be seen as wrong - or "lazy" - NOT to learn and experiment - real time - in digital photography.
But is there still a place to shoot "blind" and solely rely on experience? Perhaps in journalistic photography, but then again you can check on your preview screen the settings with a few test shots before the anticipated event. (The anticipation however is key, and has nothing to do with being a good cameraman, and remains unchanged.)
And experiences today are rapidly and cheaply acquired, where it once took film photographers many years of expensive trial and error. (And I think such ongoing "lazy" argument is in part fueled by resentment.)
But for certain there are constant things in both, eg seeing a picture, light and shadows, composition, etc, with perhaps the difference that far more imaginations are now possible, and this is ultimately the limiting factor, and no longer the equipment.
The bottom line is that digital photography is not exactly the same as film photography, and what's good and bad, right and wrong, has to be measured by the nature of the thing itself, ie you cannot compare an apple to a pear.
And so I think it is lazy, wrong, unjust, inappropriate, foolish, etc to impose an irrelevant measure onto something, rather than spending time and effort to fully explore, develop and understand the nature and essence of a thing, and let the thing speak for itself.
And then there are things right and wrong; and I think it is also implied here that "lazy" is wrong.
But whats wrong with "lazy"?
If you look at photo making as both capture and process, then a "lazy" capture, does not mean "lazy" processing. Then on the other hand there are some who insist on out-of-camera perfection, but are actually just "lazy" at processing.
But back to right and wrong.
Whats right for film photography is not necessary so for digital photography, and vice versa.
Take for example the preview screen.
Where in film you know whether a particularly combination of exposure, aperture, shutter, etc worked only from experience, and learning is not immediate - having to recall what you did after you seen the prints - in digital photography, learning is not only immediately possible, but you can even experiment in real time.
So then it can be seen as wrong - or "lazy" - NOT to learn and experiment - real time - in digital photography.
But is there still a place to shoot "blind" and solely rely on experience? Perhaps in journalistic photography, but then again you can check on your preview screen the settings with a few test shots before the anticipated event. (The anticipation however is key, and has nothing to do with being a good cameraman, and remains unchanged.)
And experiences today are rapidly and cheaply acquired, where it once took film photographers many years of expensive trial and error. (And I think such ongoing "lazy" argument is in part fueled by resentment.)
But for certain there are constant things in both, eg seeing a picture, light and shadows, composition, etc, with perhaps the difference that far more imaginations are now possible, and this is ultimately the limiting factor, and no longer the equipment.
The bottom line is that digital photography is not exactly the same as film photography, and what's good and bad, right and wrong, has to be measured by the nature of the thing itself, ie you cannot compare an apple to a pear.
And so I think it is lazy, wrong, unjust, inappropriate, foolish, etc to impose an irrelevant measure onto something, rather than spending time and effort to fully explore, develop and understand the nature and essence of a thing, and let the thing speak for itself.
Lazy is lazy regardless of film or digital.
Lazy just means not willing to put in appropriate effort, wanting others (whether humans or computers) to bail out one's laziness.
It's hard to make a case of laziness as a virtue. After all, it's one of the seven sins.
Wai Leong
===
Lazy just means not willing to put in appropriate effort, wanting others (whether humans or computers) to bail out one's laziness.
It's hard to make a case of laziness as a virtue. After all, it's one of the seven sins.
Wai Leong
===
I think we are talking implicitly about digital photography, and comparing it with ancient film photography.
And then there are things right and wrong; and I think it is also implied here that "lazy" is wrong.
But whats wrong with "lazy"?
If you look at photo making as both capture and process, then a "lazy" capture, does not mean "lazy" processing. Then on the other hand there are some who insist on out-of-camera perfection, but are actually just "lazy" at processing.
But back to right and wrong.
Whats right for film photography is not necessary so for digital photography, and vice versa.
Take for example the preview screen.
Where in film you know whether a particularly combination of exposure, aperture, shutter, etc worked only from experience, and learning is not immediate - having to recall what you did after you seen the prints - in digital photography, learning is not only immediately possible, but you can even experiment in real time.
So then it can be seen as wrong - or "lazy" - NOT to learn and experiment - real time - in digital photography.
But is there still a place to shoot "blind" and solely rely on experience? Perhaps in journalistic photography, but then again you can check on your preview screen the settings with a few test shots before the anticipated event. (The anticipation however is key, and has nothing to do with being a good cameraman, and remains unchanged.)
And experiences today are rapidly and cheaply acquired, where it once took film photographers many years of expensive trial and error. (And I think such ongoing "lazy" argument is in part fueled by resentment.)
But for certain there are constant things in both, eg seeing a picture, light and shadows, composition, etc, with perhaps the difference that far more imaginations are now possible, and this is ultimately the limiting factor, and no longer the equipment.
The bottom line is that digital photography is not exactly the same as film photography, and what's good and bad, right and wrong, has to be measured by the nature of the thing itself, ie you cannot compare an apple to a pear.
And so I think it is lazy, wrong, unjust, inappropriate, foolish, etc to impose an irrelevant measure onto something, rather than spending time and effort to fully explore, develop and understand the nature and essence of a thing, and let the thing speak for itself.
Perhaps laziness is the wrong word
The oxford dictionary definition of laziness is:
1. unwilling to work or use energy.
2. showing or characterized by a lack of effort or care.
A bit wordy but how about "Are you a photographer who assumes the technology would help reduce the time taken to capture a moment".
There is always energy to take the photograph, just a lack of understanding/creativity about how to make it better at the time. Hence assume the technology will sort out everything for me.
- After all many use washing machines because it saves us time.
- Email to communicate with my friends and family rather than writing a letter.
- Programs at work that help to automate tasks
etc etc etc
The work that many of you add to this site shows a flair for creativity - that people like me appreciate and admire
The oxford dictionary definition of laziness is:
1. unwilling to work or use energy.
2. showing or characterized by a lack of effort or care.
A bit wordy but how about "Are you a photographer who assumes the technology would help reduce the time taken to capture a moment".
There is always energy to take the photograph, just a lack of understanding/creativity about how to make it better at the time. Hence assume the technology will sort out everything for me.
- After all many use washing machines because it saves us time.
- Email to communicate with my friends and family rather than writing a letter.
- Programs at work that help to automate tasks
etc etc etc
The work that many of you add to this site shows a flair for creativity - that people like me appreciate and admire
Lazy is lazy regardless of film or digital.
And lazy is just a reflection of muddle thinking, film or digital.
It is lazy to use the remote control to switch TV channels; but is there anyone who shuns the remote these days and instead walk, or crawl, to the TV front panel to switch channels? (And I think many dont even know how you can do it from the front panel.)
If I can do something with less effort and energy, it is called efficiency or productivity, not lazy.
And that is precisely the reason and relevance of technology.
And as another example, it once took months to make a car, but these days with robots - and just a few humans - it takes 20 hours to make a Toyota from sheet metal.
So are humans lesser car makers today? Maybe, but certainly better robot makers, and maybe also have more time to do photography and have a life than mere car making.
But perhaps the more important and only relevant question: Is the 20 hr Toyota a better car than any other alternative method of production?
But if you say digital photography encourages bad habits, and instead of leading you to make better photographs, it actually trapped you in nett unproductivity and an inescapable downward spiral into mediocrity, then you are saying something worth debating about.
And indeed it may be the conveniences of the digital photography that could be the reason for acquiring such bad habits that leads to poor photographs, just as perhaps the TV remote leads to the modern phenomenon of the couch potato, or make us poorer drivers with auto instead of manual transmission.
But on the other hand it may not be so at all.
For it was never established anywhere that being lazy means bad photographs, or even that it is less productive - all things considered - than the methods of film photography. (There will always be bad photographers, but are there more good photographers today than yesterday?)
And then also there is the possibility that digital photography can means better and certainly different photographs. If so then are we being lazy not to attain these new possibilities?
And finally I think part of the muddle arises from trying to be "politically correct", namely you don't call people bad photographers or tell people they are wrong. Rather you euphemize with a less offensive term, namely the muddled word, lazy.
But that does not help anyone.
Good photographers will always make good pictures - by definition - with any equipment, with more or less effort, working with, or around, whatever they have on their hands; and I think digital leads to increased productivity.
Bad photographers will also always be around.
The interesting question - and the implied one here - then is, does digital photography make people better photographers, and make less bad ones, or vice versa?
Well-argued, but lazy has nothing to do with technology, it has to do with attitude.
Good photographs do not come from having the latest DSLR+lens, it comes from understanding light, composition, moment of capture, etc. And these come from a willingness to learn and work hard.
However, if a photographer thinks that he can substitute technology for hard work, and use PS to make up for his defects, it would be hard to argue that he is being efficient or productive.
Like it or not, technology does have a tendency to make people lazy, to think that technology can take care of all the hard work, that all they need to do is press and shoot.
You believe that consistent top quality photographs comes can come from a photographer who is not willing to work hard, who believes the ads that say all you need to do is press and shoot?
Photographers look at other peoples' photographs and say, "I could have done that." And indeed, if the focal length, shutter speed and exposure were given along with the photo, it's a no brainer to do that. But what they don't see (eg in a beautiful landscape picture) is how many times the photographer had to wake up at 4 am, hike up the mountain with his 10 lbs of gear and come back empty handed (because the light wasn't right, etc) before he got the published picture.
Would a lazy photographer be willing to do that, to put in the effort?
Good photographs do not come from having the latest DSLR+lens, it comes from understanding light, composition, moment of capture, etc. And these come from a willingness to learn and work hard.
However, if a photographer thinks that he can substitute technology for hard work, and use PS to make up for his defects, it would be hard to argue that he is being efficient or productive.
Like it or not, technology does have a tendency to make people lazy, to think that technology can take care of all the hard work, that all they need to do is press and shoot.
You believe that consistent top quality photographs comes can come from a photographer who is not willing to work hard, who believes the ads that say all you need to do is press and shoot?
Photographers look at other peoples' photographs and say, "I could have done that." And indeed, if the focal length, shutter speed and exposure were given along with the photo, it's a no brainer to do that. But what they don't see (eg in a beautiful landscape picture) is how many times the photographer had to wake up at 4 am, hike up the mountain with his 10 lbs of gear and come back empty handed (because the light wasn't right, etc) before he got the published picture.
Would a lazy photographer be willing to do that, to put in the effort?
Would a lazy photographer be willing to do that, to put in the effort?
I think whether a photographer is "lazy" or not, is entirely his or her business, and we ought not even judge the methods used as "lazy" (whatever "lazy" means) - it is merely his or her ways of doing things, even whether or not the photographer knows the pros and cons of this or that method.
But what we have as facts are the photos themselves. They speak for themselves and for the photographers.
For example under exposure is under exposure, and there may or may not be a reason for the photographer under exposing; and if it is desired that it is corrected - according to some "standards" (maybe commercial, maybe aesthetic, or whatever) - then there are more ways than one to correct it.
And using technology to "bail" you out is a perfectly acceptable way - there is nothing good or bad, right or wrong, using technology anyway you like. For example who would say I'm wrong if I use my TV remote as a hammer instead of using my fist, or my D3 as a paperweight?
And also if someone insist on low productivity, again who are we to judge, for maybe something new may turn up from those paths less traveled, for many discoveries were made from so-called mistakes and accidents. As again it must be remembered that it was sheer, unadulterated, pure laziness that led to the TV remote control, something totally indispensable today.
Let the lazy be lazy, the hardworking be hardworking, they each have their reason and place for being.
We can tell a thing is right or wrong, good or bad, but we cannot tell a thing to be or not to be.
PS: PS is hard work and if you are lazy you probably wont learn PS in the first place.
Really? As I said, you want to defend lazy, up to you, but I think it's a hard sell.
PS. You should check up what Tiger Woods does to be #1.
PS. You should check up what Tiger Woods does to be #1.
PS. You should check up what Tiger Woods does to be #1.
There can only be one #1, by definition.
If everyone is good as Tiger Woods, there will still be only one #1.
But then even when there is only one first prize winner in any lottery, you have millions of people chasing it, again and again, even until they die, without coming any nearer to winning, if at all.
That, by definition, is the meaning of futility.
So is #1 the only thing to pursue? Or ought there be something less futile?
Maybe there is: yourself.
All the time, money, effort and hard work you spent pursuing something that is and will never be, is better spent discovering and becoming the only truly unique one, namely your good self, that will always be #1, again by definition, in the whole wide world, for all times, past, present and future.
Even as no one can be Tiger Woods or Michaelangelo or Henri Cartier Bresson or Lee Kuan Yew, so no one can also be you.
PS: Chasing #1 is so Singaporean. There is more to life than just being a Singaporean. And also there is more to life than just being a good photographer, or writing meaningless futile words here in this forum.
1. Working hard is getting off your bum and willing to put in effort. And knowing that, no matter what technical advances do, they are no substitute for determination and perseverance.
Working hard doesn't guarantee you'll be No 1. But being lazy is an almost sure path to mediocrity. I say almost because some come up with good photographs through blind luck.
2. My words are futile to you only because you don't care about them.
3. You want to be lazy, go ahead. I am not interested in changing you as a person. I don't know you, I don't care about you.
But if you want to promote laziness as a virtue, I will challenge you.
Even if someone wants to drop out of the rat race, go retire to a farm in New Zealand, lead a carefree life-- do you think a beautiful garden springs up by itself? Or do you have to water it, weed it, trim it, etc.? Do crops grow by themselves ? Do farm animals become productive by themselves? I've met such farmers during homestay vacations-- they wake early and work in the fields, shear the sheep, etc. They work hard although they're not striving to be #1 in anything.
They are not lazy.
===
PS
#1 = Singaporean? Ha!
Have you ever been to Hong Kong? Japan? Korea?
Heard of Harvard? Stanford?
Worked in Morgan Stanley? Lehman? Etc.
The world is a lot bigger than Singapore.
Working hard doesn't guarantee you'll be No 1. But being lazy is an almost sure path to mediocrity. I say almost because some come up with good photographs through blind luck.
2. My words are futile to you only because you don't care about them.
3. You want to be lazy, go ahead. I am not interested in changing you as a person. I don't know you, I don't care about you.
But if you want to promote laziness as a virtue, I will challenge you.
Even if someone wants to drop out of the rat race, go retire to a farm in New Zealand, lead a carefree life-- do you think a beautiful garden springs up by itself? Or do you have to water it, weed it, trim it, etc.? Do crops grow by themselves ? Do farm animals become productive by themselves? I've met such farmers during homestay vacations-- they wake early and work in the fields, shear the sheep, etc. They work hard although they're not striving to be #1 in anything.
They are not lazy.
===
PS
#1 = Singaporean? Ha!
Have you ever been to Hong Kong? Japan? Korea?
Heard of Harvard? Stanford?
Worked in Morgan Stanley? Lehman? Etc.
The world is a lot bigger than Singapore.
There can only be one #1, by definition.
If everyone is good as Tiger Woods, there will still be only one #1.
But then even when there is only one first prize winner in any lottery, you have millions of people chasing it, again and again, even until they die, without coming any nearer to winning, if at all.
That, by definition, is the meaning of futility.
So is #1 the only thing to pursue? Or ought there be something less futile?
Maybe there is: yourself.
All the time, money, effort and hard work you spent pursuing something that is and will never be, is better spent discovering and becoming the only truly unique one, namely your good self, that will always be #1, again by definition, in the whole wide world, for all times, past, present and future.
Even as no one can be Tiger Woods or Michaelangelo or Henri Cartier Bresson or Lee Kuan Yew, so no one can also be you.
PS: Chasing #1 is so Singaporean. There is more to life than just being a Singaporean. And also there is more to life than just being a good photographer, or writing meaningless futile words here in this forum.
I will take RAW for important shots (like group photos of occassions), and do quite a bit of editing later to get the exposure etc correct. Not that I do not bother to get it right in the first place, but sometimes due to my inexperience, my best take is still not good enough. And some shots are just important (to me anyways), that I want to get the final outcome correct no matter what. Ppl are not too patient to stand there for you to review your shots and retake again too many times. In this sense I find technology can give us this added advantage, not to make us lazy, but to help us if we use it properly. I will still strive to improve on my exposure settings and composure (which RAW cannot help), but till I reach that master level stage of one-shot-one-kill, guess RAW and editing will be the way for me.
This is not about raw vs jpg. Pros shoot raw all the time. In fact, some believe it's the only way to shoot, that raw is the equivalent of a negative. Others, though, feel that Jpg is ok when colour accuracy is not critical, and that Raw takes up too much space for normal use.
Both arguments have merits. But lazy or not lazy is definitely not about raw or jpg.
Both arguments have merits. But lazy or not lazy is definitely not about raw or jpg.
I will take RAW for important shots (like group photos of occassions), and do quite a bit of editing later to get the exposure etc correct. Not that I do not bother to get it right in the first place, but sometimes due to my inexperience, my best take is still not good enough. And some shots are just important (to me anyways), that I want to get the final outcome correct no matter what. Ppl are not too patient to stand there for you to review your shots and retake again too many times. In this sense I find technology can give us this added advantage, not to make us lazy, but to help us if we use it properly. I will still strive to improve on my exposure settings and composure (which RAW cannot help), but till I reach that master level stage of one-shot-one-kill, guess RAW and editing will be the way for me.
From my post in another thread. I am curious, how many here are already or are becoming lazy photographers? What I mean, given the flexibility and simplicity with which images recorded on a digital camera can be manipulated after being recorded (using RAW converters, PS, whatever.....), how many of you take the snap with the view that you will correct the problems later, ignoring for the most part the essentials of image taking. Things like, 'proper exposure', 'noise control', working with or controlling the light (the essence of all photography) - do these even cross your mind when pressing the shutter button?
Of course there are always exceptions, and always have been, e.g. journalism where some shot is pften better then no shot, low-light event photography, etc... I'm not really talking about these. More about general shooting, portraiture, landscapes, etc. I'm getting the feeling that many people (an increasing number) simply compose and press the shutter button, comfortable in the knowledge that they have a wid latitude to correct things that should have been correct to begin with.
Nothing better to ask?
It is the final print on that table that counts. Do we really care if you had used a 1930 wooden box or a 2008 panasonic LX5 to get the picture or how you "fix" it later?
Nothing better to ask than these trolling questions.
I'm not talking about the final print (although this is dependent on how good the the original exposure was), I'm asking about getting the exposure right, in-camera, first time.
Trolling question? I guess you're one of the people that responded that you have no idea about what you're doing... This question is as valid as any other (probably more so as it has to do with exposure (not equipment).
Now if you don't have anything intelligent to add (which I doubt you do) then go away and be a pest somewhere else...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 140
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 251
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 406
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 503