My digital camera, myself

My digital camera, myself

RICHARD CHAITT

I first became interested in photography after seeing the 1966 Michelangelo Antonioni movie Blow-Up. As my skills developed, I taught courses at the Y on South Broad Street. (That most students were single females reinforced my interest.) Over the next 30 years my equipment ranged from a screw-mount Leica up to a tripod-mounted view camera. During those years, film was only game in town.

I got my first digital camera in 2004. Today, just three years later, I’m converted to digital.

Hallelujah! No longer must I wonder if I’m in focus, if anyone blinked or whether my exposure was correct. Before digital, I had to finish the entire roll of film, take it to the camera shop, remember to ask for a photo CD, then return a day later to pick everything up. With a digital camera, the large LCD screen on the back answers all those questions within seconds.

The tipping point for me came after my return last spring from Europe. While looking through my film prints, I mentioned to the photofinisher that some shots looked too cool, some too warm, a few too dark and a few too light. His response was appropriate: “What do you expect for 29 cents!”

The psychic joys of do-it-yourself

Today, that fellow is history. Instead of delegating the printing function to some middleman and losing my own vision in the translation, I print my own images via computer. Doing so allows me to exercise creative control— an experience that not only produces prints to my idiosyncratic taste but bolsters my psyche as well. Who was it that said, “When you cut your own wood, you warm yourself twice”?

You don’t need expensive equipment to do this: Almost any computer printer can produce great photos when you use photo ink. Free software is available. I use Picasa for post-processing and for my personal photo website. Failing to post-process is a major flaw in many people’s work. With it you can correct verticals, contrast, red eye and color balance.

To be sure, the photo CD from my old Nikon allowed me to e-mail photos— but it had the equivalence of only 1.5 megapixels. This was fine for e-mailing when you only need a limited resolution. The images may appear sharp on your computer monitor, but they lost their sharpness when blown up past 5-by-7 size. So I decided to get a digital camera.

A Mercedes vs. a Corvair

To most people, “Good enough is good enough.” Their standard is a print from a disposable camera. The number of people who want prints that really knock your socks off is relatively few. The curious thing— which you discover with computers— is that the difference between these two levels of quality isn’t that great. How many pixels do you really need? In reality, not that many. Think of pixels the way you think of horsepower in a car. A Mercedes won’t get me to the airport any faster than my old 95-horsepower Corvair. The same is true for digital photos: Beyond a certain level, megapixels are largely useless.

When you go digital, the camera’s handling ability becomes more important than its pixel power. Try out any camera by taking photos, before purchasing it. Mastering what you have will produce better results than constantly upgrading to the latest model.

The case for spontaneity

Another big advantage to digital cameras is their portability. Many models fit in your shirt pocket. You can carry it around almost like a toothbrush. If you do that, you can shoot photograph as the opportunities arise, instead of planning a photo shoot in advance. A larger camera may take much better photos than my digital point-and-shoot. But if I don’t want to lug a large camera with me to a picnic or a ball game, there are no photos. Having something always beats nothing.

Ultimately, digital cameras merely remind us what was always true back in the days of film: The person behind the camera is much more important than the equipment. You can’t purchase vision.



To read a response, click here.
To read another view by RA Friedman, click here.