Some say that digital makes photography easier; others, such as myself, firmly dispute that.
Photography first took on a difficult aspect with the advent of my F4s; suddenly, I couldn't even be certain that I had managed to load the film correctly, that it had engaged with the drive sprocket. Why? Because Nikon, in its madness, had imagined that snapping shut a camera back without first connecting a strip of film to a simple drive mechanism was going to be more reliable a method of engaging that film to the drive. Madre de Dios - absurdity. And blush after blush with failure after failure to perform that single, basic photographic essential.
But clicking the click was no more difficult then than now. The problems remain identical: correct exposure for your needs. And that's a mind decision, not simply a metered one.
As for making the shapes of your pictures, it was far easier with film because the viewfinders of good cameras were better. The direct consequence of that was that focus was easier. And no, I don't buy into the notion that digital is sharper and so focus has to be more accurate etc. etc. because focus, at the end of the day, is not usually something dependent on a very thin plane being rendered very crisply, it's about zones appearing crisp enough for the purposes required; we are suffering from yet more photographic nonsense issued by those fine photographers of walls, in whose case, a specif, non-usual form of focus does indeed apply.
I'm thinking here of a very expensive brand of camera, where one window is apparently used for focussing and yet another viewing form is utilized for seeing the actual area that the format is covering; is that so much better than what was being offered in the pre-M3 days, when exactly the same concept was thought a big deal? (My little Voigtlander Vito B required exactly the same double-decision system, except that the additional purchase of an external, accessory shoe rangefinder made me feel I was very much - or at least looked very much - the complete photographer!) I can't see that being better than any film reflex cameras that offered 100% viewfinder accuracy. But then, the same brand that offers the current exotica didn't offer 100% viewing back in the film era, either, though the prices were still stellar.
As for aesthetics, we have travelled that path until it's worn quite away. Aestheics are not camera functions - they are head-cum-heart functions - the human bit.
Camera technique. Photography must be one of the most simple concepts imaginable: focus, aperture, shutter speed and receptor sensitivity.
The process after that, the darkroom, was basic, and some now believe the computer to be even more so. I don't think it is, just that it allows more detailed control in some situations but also denies you the simple exposure control you had by moving your hand slowly (or rapidly) beneath the beam of light from the lens. You have no idea the number of times that I wish I could simply shade in a side or corner with the ease that my hand allowed. Yes, I do know ways to do it with Photoshop, but the hand was better, instinctive and very quick.
So harking back to the original question: no, I don't think photographs are improving at all, and I believe the art of photography, as a proportion of the volume of images made, has been diminished considerably in favour of a much larger mechanical heap of rubbish. Highly complicated sets of layers do not, of themselves, make interesting images, just images that are the result of said highly complex layers. The saying about those who know the price of everything but the value of nothing seems to have an ugly sister running a parallel course in digital photography.
Rob C
