Is photography going downhill with digital?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Lens question
Next: Photo in the night
From: Chris H on 1 Nov 2009 03:27 In message <311020091944469876%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> writes >In article ><73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc1955f5(a)x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo ><grandepatzer(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of >> photographs? > >no. the quality is much better with digital. That is true. However that is the technical quality... not sure about the standard of composition etc. > >> The argument one often hears goes something like this: >> back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), >> they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people >> mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing. > >nothing stops someone from taking their time on digital. True but most tend not to. However many professionals used motor drives on film. SO it does depend on what you are doing. >> In addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of photographers; >> now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led >> to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good >> ones some still manage to take. There is some truth in that... however with modern cameras it is much easier to take a "passable" photo. >the barrier was actually *lower* with film, where you buy a disposable >camera, drop it off and get photos back. with digital you need to know >how to use a computer, edit images in photoshop, match screen to print >colour, etc. This is a red herring as large numbers of people with camera-phones etc have a "one button to facebook/Flikr" set up built in so there is virtually no technical knowledge required. I know many kids (and adults) who publish to Facebook etc who would not even know how to start photoshop. >digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps >them learn. That is true. BTW there was much the same argument when the cheap,easy to use and inferior film stuff replaced glass plates... Photography is not and was not "film".... film was just a phase photography went through. As were the several formats of film... 35mm is not "full frame" it was just a size that was popular for a while in one format. Digital is the current progression of image making. IT looks likely to last a long time as I can not see what the next step is. Though I expect some one said that when they moved from derogotypes :-) -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Walter Banks on 1 Nov 2009 06:15 Chris H wrote: > BTW there was much the same argument when the cheap,easy to use and > inferior film stuff replaced glass plates... Digital is the current > progression of image making. IT looks likely to last a long time as I > can not see what the next step is. Though I expect some one said that > when they moved from derogotypes :-) With a piano anyone could play music :) w..
From: Allen on 1 Nov 2009 09:57 nospam wrote: > In article > <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc1955f5(a)x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo > <grandepatzer(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of >> photographs? > > no. the quality is much better with digital. > >> The argument one often hears goes something like this: >> back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), >> they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people >> mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing. > > nothing stops someone from taking their time on digital. > >> In addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of photographers; >> now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led >> to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good >> ones some still manage to take. > > the barrier was actually *lower* with film, where you buy a disposable > camera, drop it off and get photos back. with digital you need to know > how to use a computer, edit images in photoshop, match screen to print > colour, etc. > > digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps > them learn. And here is another question just for you, Mr/Mrs Grandepatzer.gmail: Has the invention of paper, ink, and pencil reduced or improved the overall quality of writing over stone tablets and chisels? Let's consider just the post office, and the resources it would need to deliver billions of stone tablets. How many people would read your drivel if you had to hire a crew to carry your inane messages individually to the millions who might see it now that the internet exists? Allen
From: Dudley Hanks on 1 Nov 2009 13:25 "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:NmrlvXBVZU7KFAYN(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... > In message <311020091944469876%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam > <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> writes >>In article >><73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc1955f5(a)x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo >><grandepatzer(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of >>> photographs? >> >>no. the quality is much better with digital. > > That is true. However that is the technical quality... not sure about > the standard of composition etc. >> >>> The argument one often hears goes something like this: >>> back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), >>> they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people >>> mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing. >> >>nothing stops someone from taking their time on digital. > > True but most tend not to. However many professionals used motor drives > on film. SO it does depend on what you are doing. > >>> In addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of photographers; >>> now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led >>> to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good >>> ones some still manage to take. > > There is some truth in that... however with modern cameras it is much > easier to take a "passable" photo. > >>the barrier was actually *lower* with film, where you buy a disposable >>camera, drop it off and get photos back. with digital you need to know >>how to use a computer, edit images in photoshop, match screen to print >>colour, etc. > > This is a red herring as large numbers of people with camera-phones etc > have a "one button to facebook/Flikr" set up built in so there is > virtually no technical knowledge required. I know many kids (and adults) > who publish to Facebook etc who would not even know how to start > photoshop. > >>digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps >>them learn. > > That is true. > > > BTW there was much the same argument when the cheap,easy to use and > inferior film stuff replaced glass plates... Photography is not and was > not "film".... film was just a phase photography went through. As were > the several formats of film... 35mm is not "full frame" it was just a > size that was popular for a while in one format. Digital is the current > progression of image making. IT looks likely to last a long time as I > can not see what the next step is. Though I expect some one said that > when they moved from derogotypes :-) > > -- > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > > > Another thing about digital is that it has enabled photography to be used for new purposes. Several companies now encourage employees to take pictures of data such as serial numbers instead of jotting them down in a notepad; or, to take a picture of a site instead of trying to describe it in words. Even in the blind community, small P&S cams are being used to take pictures of printed material (such as signs, menus, handouts) which can then be run through an optical character recognition application, enabling the visually-impaired to function much more independantly than would otherwise be possible. Some of us even use the cams to take pictures of new areas we visit, or fresh obstacles that appear, and then get sighted persons to describe the pictures later, effectively enabling blind people to learn a lot more about their community without actually having sighted guides with them every step of the way. And, of course, it won't be long till the camera sensor is hooked directly to the brain, miraculously restoring sight to who knows how many victims.. of who knows how many afflictions. An interesting question arises: If an individual has sensors instead of retinas, and the individual has the technical resources / expertise to "capture" and transfer to hard copy something he / she is "looking at," will the process still be considered photography? Take Care, Dudley
From: Charles on 1 Nov 2009 16:05
"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:311020091944469876%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > In article > <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc1955f5(a)x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo > <grandepatzer(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of >> photographs? Has done little for composition. It's too easy (cheap) to just keep pressing the shutter button. Folks used to take more care with lighting, framing, and so on. Also, now it's too easy to share bad shots. Post-processing is another story. The digital darkroom is an awesome tool. All in all, it's a wash for most shots churned out and shared by casual shooters. For serious amateurs and pros, the quality is way up. Just one opinion. |