So is digital ALL bad?

Why, though, do I write an article on a digital revolution two decades old?

Quite simple. Digital has changed photography much more than providing an alternative medium to film. It leveled the playing field and raised the standard in a way we can't begin to imagine or quantify. As with everything in life we have to take the bad with the good. Digital photography did not escape this basic truth.

In this recent series of blog articles I aim to share bits of my personal take on my photography. Not only my photography but also my take on photography in general.

When I attempt to explain any concept, air an opinion or make a statement, it will be along a pre-determined train of thought.

This train of thought is based on personal experience, understanding and styles. Many more very subjective aspects could come into play. Likes, dislikes and preferences are also always ready to strike. I promise to try and be balanced or at least point out strong bias as such.

For this reason I wish to give you a bit more insight into my perspective. Armed with this information, you can decide whether to take what I write seriously or not.

I take a very old school and also sentimental approach to my photography.

For one, it is my opinion that wide angle lenses have little or no place in photographing people. At least not with the intention of creating any image beyond context to your latest tweet. Now I could grab examples from the net to illustrate the point but this might not be received well.

See, if you photograph a pretty girl or a bride with a wide lens, chances are the images will be rather unflattering. Throw in hands or feet closer to the camera and the closer parts appear very large. Very unflattering. I have yet to meet a girl who likes the idea that she has large hands or feet.

Photograph a person at any high angle from above and borderline grotesque is on the cards quite soon. Heads are very close and feet are very far away by comparison. Faces and heads being so close appear very large. Now if you are shooting images for a 1980's music video that might work well. For the rest not so much.

Using a wide lens to put people in perspective inside a scene? Well, that is a different thing when done well. But this is very different from portraiture.

Of course there are always exceptions. The problem is that not all of us are Alfred Eisenstaedt...

By now you might wonder why I mention this.

Lens selection and style of photography is hardly a digital issue. This is true.

My perception of this paints a picture of a vicious circle.

We spend much more time on social media than we do looking at well-executed portrait images.

Many more people now generate people and portraiture images in the digital era. There is little or no regard for using an appropriate lens - often due to inexperience.

Wide angle images from mobile phones form a large majority of what we see on social media.

More people see these images shared on social media platforms. These images become the accepted norm and often even very fashionable.

Since these images are the fashionable norm they are in demand and more people shoot that way.

Can you see where this is going?

This is terrible for decent portraiture photography but not for photography generally.

Creating and sharing images in ways and volumes never done before is exactly what raised the standard.

The flip side to the coin is the new generation of photographer that respects no "rules". The reason for that is simple. The new generation of photographer does not know that these "rules" even exist. Who made these rules anyway?

Because of this, the general standard of photography has improved. To try and quantify this improvement is hardly possible.

Many who would never have tried photography before digital now own very decent cameras. Many of them are producing and sharing very good images. The pool of photographers increased thanks to the digital era.

Don't believe me?

Look for a glossy hard cover coffee table book with many photos.

Try to find one that might be more travel orientated. Some landscapes or exotic destinations would work well. If the date of publication is before the year 2000 take some time and page through it.

Do the images in there hold a candle to what has become the norm on countless web-based sites?

Spend a few hours on Flickr and do some critical comparisons.

It is also my opinion that digital obliterated most of the magical adventure that was photography.

Much of the need for some abstract skill is gone forever. The wonderful anticipation and elation? All gone.

Seeing the exposures on very fragile film when you FINALLY open that tank? This is now a very rare treat to a very small group of people.

But then, so are the disappointments and the long waits.

Did I mention that there is a growing number of people shooting film again?

The digital revolution has taken photography out of the hands of a select few. The end product (or a generally acceptable one) became much simpler to achieve. I could almost say that the digital revolution dumbed photography down. This might be seen as rather condescending, though. For that reason I did not say it. Now the fact that I thought it...well, I did not SAY it now, did I?

Any old way we look at this, the digital revolution brought with it more good than bad.

Those who still want to smell like a darkroom are free to join a growing number of film shooters. The more the merrier. We need to keep the Ilford, Kodak and Fuji film plants open.

We could even lament some of these "purist" issues under red light.

Happy shooting!