jjj, indeed, the fact that there weren't digital cameras until recently does have a lot to do with why virtually all great photographers learned on film. But this is a perfect example of a necessity that's become a virtue. Before word-processing grammar and spell-check software came along, there was a much higher proportion of good writers and spellers for the simple reason that you actually had to learn about grammar rather than rely on a computer to correct your mistakes. I should know, I'm a college English professor. The general quality of writing and basic grammar skills has taken a nose-dive in the last 10-20 years, and it's shameful. Ask any English teacher, and you'll hear the same thing.
And that issue occurred before computers became the norm, so I would blame the education system not the technology for that particular problem. Also in the UK you will hear academics complain about the poor standard of English,Maths etc amongst the current student intake, but then as the the qualifying Exams have become easier and you no longer have just the academic elite going to University, that is to be expected. It used to be the top 3-5% went to Uni, now they are trying to get 25% of people into higher education. So unless everyone suddenly got smarter, student standards had to take a serious nosedive.
BTW I was never formally taught any grammar as far as I recall and it never caused me any problems. I also believe the grammar centric teaching of foreign languages is a major reason why people struggle to learn them at school, despite the fact that learning to speak languages is a natural aptitude we all have.
You may be an English professor, but it seems your ability at statistical analysis and causuality is as bad as the English of the students you teach.
Likewise, the digital age of photography dumbs down the process of photography because it affords way too many "helps," and human nature is such that if you give us the chance to take shortcuts, we almost always will. It's called the Path of Least Resistance. Turns out, the easier a skill becomes through technology, the worse we become at it. Look at what's happened to the music industry. Now any tart with blond hair and a smile can land a recording contract as long as she's "managed" correctly.
How to sound like an old fogey in one short sentence. You only get a music career if you have the tunes to sell. Just like it's always been. Besides pretty, but talentless faces have always been a part of the music industry. Milli Vanilli are probably the most famous example of that.
And why do you and all your cohorts insist on constantly using the exception to prove the rule? Yes, the newbies can get immediate feedback and can act upon that and mull over the recorded settings when they look at their shots later. But honestly, how many SLR users do you think actually do that?
Most people chimp their images and if it hasn't worked they take another shot, whether they have the nous to work out why is another matter. The percentage that use cameras and have actual talent won't have changed. And will not.
You don't need a weatherman to know the way the wind blows there. And as far as that goes, I have no idea if you're better than the newbies because you learned on film, but the chances are good that it's true simply because film allowed you fewer parameters to screw up. If you were going to stay in photography with any reasonable chance of success and enjoyment, you had to learn about lighting and composition, etc.
And you still do. Duh! Plus įa change.
Now you don't need to know the first thing about it, since you have a practically infinite number of ways to correct the damage after the shot has been taken by simply sliding a guide up and down a scale.
More very naive nonsense, there is no slider for better composition and using the computer is no different from spending time in the darkroom, dodging and burning prints. Except it's a lotless smelly
And I'd wager that you do not or are not very good at post processing images using software, as every time I hear this silly argument it's from someone who cannot or will not use PS/Lightroom etc. I've taught people how to use cameras both digital and film, yet teaching film was actually much easier as it was much less complicated in so many ways. You 'simply
' exposed correctly,dropped it off at lab and got great looking images. Now you have to know about computers, colour spaces, colour management, RAW processing and a whole host of other techy crap to get an image to look nice. Most film, particularly slide looked good straight back from the lab and to anyone you showed it to. Now you have to have some serious technical expertise to just to get that very basic part right and you have to hope other people's monitors are calibrated correctly, so the images look good to them too .