There's no "analog" camera. Only a film camera.


Quote Originally Posted by Steven L View Post
This is the statement I made yesterday at the local community center. The spokesman/teacher of our photo club was discussing the foto's made that month. Every month, all participants send in one or two of their best photo's to discuss on a big screen. After that, the teacher shows various ways to alter/enhance digital pictures with PS. Many of the basic ajustments could have been done when the picture was taken. Exposure, filter, position etc. A lot of ajustments could be done while printing (analogue). Only a few ajustments have to be done digitally.
Most "mistakes" are made while taking the shot. Wrong ISO number, wrong exposure time, wrong position. With the current digital camera's, a lot of the learning process is taken away with the fact that it doesn't matter how you take the picture. It doesn't cost anything to press the button. No film is wasted. If you had film to waste, you'd be more aware of the fact that a picture is bad.
I started hobby photography with a compact 35mm camera when I was a kid. Every picture was supposed to be good, because I had to pay for my own film. When I was older I bought my first digital compact. I didn't have the pressure to make a perfect picture, so I started to experiment with exposure, focus, digital filter etcetera. After a while, it felt like the pictures didn't have the extra value. It doesn't cost anything to store a digital picture on a computer and printers can print whatever I want. I went back to analogue to add the value of a good shot and the use of limited film.
Back to the photo club, yesterday. Someone send a picture of a house with the walls at an angle, due to the position of the camera, the lens and the position and shape of the house. It's called perspective, but the teacher wanted to show how to use PS to pull the walls straight again. He did a decent job at it and explained his steps good, but what he should have done was tell what to do to prevent unwanted slopes on walls. I told him after he finished his editing:"the photographer should have walked a few steps back and zoom in or use another type of lens." This type of teaching tells us that it's okay to screw up a photo, you can always photoshop afterwards. It's better to teach basic analogue photography than to PS. Even with a digital camera.
Am I right? Does anyone have that same experience?