Photographer versus technology

In my days of training for photography, it was clear that the machine was dependent on the trained photographer. Aperture, shutter, film speed, depth of field, all terms critical to getting the image you want in just the way you want it. That was then. With digital imagery, the photographer is dependent of the ability of the camera (much like the ones in the old day), it's software, and the way it is programmed. Any fool can take a photograph. It can most often be a good photograph. Not really a challenge...I am in constant debate with my friend who just bought a good digital Nikon. We fight about what a 'real' photograph is, and he insists that he can mimic anything I can do with a black and white SLR film camera. I disagree.

I teach photography with film cameras, and those abilities are what is most missing with the digital field. If you know nothing about photography or art, it will show in your images. But it does bug me, greatly, that a digital camera can render so clearly, crisply and show you that image immediately. That is the advantage. It's making me a lazy image-maker.

Digital can't do shallow depth of field, at least without the photographer knowing what that is. If your battery dies, you are stuck. I went to Paris, and both digital cameras died on me, but my trusty manual SLR film camera worked just fine.

Image: Imaginary Stonehenge, Chester County, Pennsylvania