>> |
Anonymous
>Digital seems to me to remove a great deal of control from your hands.
With regards to the variety of film, perhaps. Rather than getting to choose from dozens of brands with different qualities, one can set the ISO, sharpness, constrast, and saturation. But otherwise, one has equal or more control.
>I'd submit that paying attention to things like composition and lighting versus the "spray and pray" theory of photography is a good way to go.
Of course. I primarily shoot with a high-end point-and-shoot (An S3IS, to be specific) and I'll spend a good amount of time setting up a shot, and then I spray. Why? First, conditions aren't constant: some little factor might change from one exposure to another that will determine whether the photograph is merely good or great. Second, it lets me correct any initial problems in my first estimation. Third, there's plenty of times when one is shooting a public that some noise or something will make you jitter a bit just at the point of exposure.
With film, one can't know if the photograph turned out well, and shooting multiple takes of something to get it just right would be very expensive: it's poke-and-pray; I want the prayer bit removed from my photography totally. I don't mind loading in film, or getting it developed, or any of that, but I do mind not being able to see my photographs after I expose them until they are developed.
Even with the higher cost, I'd probably shoot film if it were possible to see how the photograph turned out before it is developed. It's not, though, and so I shoot digital.
|