|
|
the photos presented in this site were all shot using a canon eos d30. [update now using a canon 1ds]. this digital slr works just like a regular film camera except it uses a cmos sensor to record images. after more than 30000 shots since i first got my hands on one early november 2000, i am convinced that digital photography changes everything. there are technical differences but two other aspects make the shift from film at least paradigmatic if not more... well, maybe it is just free polaroids after all.
quality is on par or better than 35mm film. see michael reichmann's analysis for a good argument. my experience is that the limits of the optics or those of the photographer are significantly more perceptible than that of the sensor. additionally, tools such as genuine fractals allow an increase in resolution that is nothing short of magical and opens the way to very large size prints from the original 3.5 mpixel image.
two on-camera settings allow what was only previously available by changing film: white balance and sensitivity. instead of juggling with tungsten and daylight film, or shooting neon lit scenes with a pink filter, the user just selects one of several settings and voila, the white is balanced. for sensitivity, unlike film the trade off is mostly one of noise as when the iso sensitivity is increased, the size of the pixels do not change (unlike the larger molecules used in faster film) but since fewer photons will be required to represent the same color, thermal noise will become more visible over the signal, especially in darker areas of an image.
unlike with silver photography, feedback with digital photography is immediate and precise. the screen on the back of the camera gives not only immediate composition feedback, it can also show a histogram of the shot's exposure. one can immediately correct in order to better expose the image and at the same time recognize impossible shots: shots for which the amplitude between dark and light zones is greater than the latitude of the sensor. complex exposures, flash photography, ... all these become more enjoyable as feedback is immediate and does not require a tedious recording of shooting conditions and exposure. additionally, experimentation is virtually free as no film is involved and therefore no guilt is associated with chemical pollution... taking many more shots than needed while using the feedback to slowly converge to the desired shot becomes a very good way of improving one's abilities and intuition.
because of all these elements, digital photography is a fantastic tool to learn photography, even for our chemical brothers.
 |
the greatest benefit of digital photography is probably not technological. after spending days in the streets initiating discussion with my camera, playing with kids and always soon after with their extended families and neighborhoods, i can attest digital photography is probably one of the most efficient conversation piece today even when there is no common language... the social element of digital photography is probably similar to that of polaroid imaging. however, because of the high volume of images that can be taken, the camera can become a toy while recording the moment. |
|
most people who agree to be photographed generally take a serious, sometimes shy pause. it is only after the first shot is shown that people open up and start laughing and giggling. then the fun part begins. this atmosphere helps other people take part in the riot, some holding a reflector, some making fun, some suggesting new photos or scenes... in myanmar and india, i only carried a 50mm and a 17-35mm lenses which even with a d30 (x1.6) are short focals, yet i could always approach and shoot people from very close to capture the portraits i wanted. |
 |
documentary and street photography by michael h. reichmann