Is photography going downhill with digital?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Lens question
Next: Photo in the night
From: whisky-dave on 2 Nov 2009 08:48 "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? > > no. the quality is much better with digital. For me the photograph is something you can hold usually on paper sometimes framed, and for me some of the best pictures have been in monochrome then 'baked' on a rotary glazer to give it that extra glossy look. >> 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 one could have said that about 250 exposure backs I often though of getting. Pros and those that could afford it always take more than they need photograph wise anyway. >> 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. No you don;t you can take them to chemists to photostores to print out. I've even seem the machine in shops where you just take your memory to the machine and off it goes, even home printers have that facility. > > digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps > them learn.
From: Roy Smith on 2 Nov 2009 09:54 I make a good living working for a company who manufactures disk storage systems. Every time I get a paycheck, I'm grateful for things like Flickr and which encourage people like me to take zillions of mediocre images and upload them for free. More images taken means more disk drives sold. As far as I'm concerned, we should be giving cameras away for free :-)
From: Allen on 2 Nov 2009 10:42 whisky-dave wrote: > "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? >> no. the quality is much better with digital. > > For me the photograph is something you can hold usually on paper sometimes > framed, and for me some of the best pictures have been in monochrome then > 'baked' > on a rotary glazer to give it that extra glossy look. > > > >>> 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 one could have said that about 250 exposure backs I often > though of getting. Pros and those that could afford it always take more than > they need > photograph wise anyway. > >>> 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. > > No you don;t you can take them to chemists to photostores to print out. > I've even seem the machine in shops where you just take your memory to the > machine > and off it goes, even home printers have that facility. > > >> digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps >> them learn. > > Yesterday I took the last of my old darkroom stuff the Goodwill. This was stuff I had missed on previous passes, and included a blotter roll (anyone remember those?) and an electric slide binder. I started doing darkroom work in 1941 and I don't miss it. Allen
From: Tzortzakakis Dimitrios on 2 Nov 2009 13:05 ? "Allen" <allent(a)austin.rr.com> ?????? ??? ?????? news:rLydnWbB2IJwYHPXnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > whisky-dave wrote: >> "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? >>> no. the quality is much better with digital. >> >> For me the photograph is something you can hold usually on paper >> sometimes >> framed, and for me some of the best pictures have been in monochrome then >> 'baked' >> on a rotary glazer to give it that extra glossy look. >> >> >> >>>> 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 one could have said that about 250 exposure backs I often >> though of getting. Pros and those that could afford it always take more >> than they need >> photograph wise anyway. >> >>>> 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. >> >> No you don;t you can take them to chemists to photostores to print out. >> I've even seem the machine in shops where you just take your memory to >> the machine >> and off it goes, even home printers have that facility. >> >> >>> digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps >>> them learn. >> >> > Yesterday I took the last of my old darkroom stuff the Goodwill. This was > stuff I had missed on previous passes, and included a blotter roll (anyone > remember those?) and an electric slide binder. I started doing darkroom > work in 1941 and I don't miss it. And neither do I. I printed in both colour and B&W (including Cibachrome), I don't miss the chemicals putrid smell, nor the effort for printing an 8 X 10 colour , warming up the chemicals, and trying to remove the colour cast. These days, I just print them on my Canon printer, which ewven works woth generic ink and generic paper! The bad photos just are deleted, the keepers remain both on the hard drive and sd card, when I reach about the size of a cd, I burn one and give it to my sister. And I can have as many 4X5" as I want! -- Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering mechanized infantry reservist hordad AT otenet DOT gr
From: Chris on 2 Nov 2009 21:00
On Nov 2, 1:05 pm, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <no...(a)nospam.com> wrote: > ? "Allen" <all...(a)austin.rr.com> ?????? ??? ??????news:rLydnWbB2IJwYHPXnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > > whisky-dave wrote: > >> "nospam" <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message > >>news:311020091944469876%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > >>> In article > >>> <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc195...(a)x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo > >>> <grandepat...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of > >>>> photographs? > >>> no. the quality is much better with digital. > > >> For me the photograph is something you can hold usually on paper > >> sometimes > >> framed, and for me some of the best pictures have been in monochrome then > >> 'baked' > >> on a rotary glazer to give it that extra glossy look. > > >>>> 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 one could have said that about 250 exposure backs I often > >> though of getting. Pros and those that could afford it always take more > >> than they need > >> photograph wise anyway. > > >>>> 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. > > >> No you don;t you can take them to chemists to photostores to print out.. > >> I've even seem the machine in shops where you just take your memory to > >> the machine > >> and off it goes, even home printers have that facility. > > >>> digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps > >>> them learn. > > > Yesterday I took the last of my old darkroom stuff the Goodwill. This was > > stuff I had missed on previous passes, and included a blotter roll (anyone > > remember those?) and an electric slide binder. I started doing darkroom > > work in 1941 and I don't miss it. > > And neither do I. I printed in both colour and B&W (including Cibachrome), I > don't miss the chemicals putrid smell, nor the effort for printing an 8 X 10 > colour , warming up the chemicals, and trying to remove the colour cast. > These days, I just print them on my Canon printer, which ewven works woth > generic ink and generic paper! The bad photos just are deleted, the keepers > remain both on the hard drive and sd card, when I reach about the size of a > cd, I burn one and give it to my sister. And I can have as many 4X5" as I > want! > > -- > Tzortzakakis Dimitrios > major in electrical engineering > mechanized infantry reservist > hordad AT otenet DOT gr And for $49 we got a truly portable photo printer (Yah 4x5 only, so what, big deal) that connects directly to our camera and we print out family pics before we leave the family gathering. Chris |