Is photography going downhill with digital?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Lens question
Next: Photo in the night
From: nospam on 31 Oct 2009 19:44 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.
From: tony cooper on 31 Oct 2009 19:51 On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:12:31 -0700 (PDT), eNo <grandepatzer(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of >photographs? 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. 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. > >read the rest at http://esfotoclix.\ What I think you are overlooking is that the internet came along and allowed people to share/show their images. We see more bad stuff now because we see more stuff. There will be more new images uploaded to Flickr in the next week than most of us have ever seen of other people's photographs in their entire pre-internet lifetime. Who knows how many bad prints and slides are tucked away in shoeboxes that were never seen outside of the immediate circle of the photographer. I've scanned hundreds of old family photographs, and I can tell you that no one in my family tree was an accomplished photographer. With Photoshop cropping and cloning, I've improved quite a few of them. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: True Dat! on 31 Oct 2009 20:14 On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:44:46 -0400, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> 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. Spoken like a true inexperienced snapshooter.
From: Walter Banks on 31 Oct 2009 23:40 eNo wrote: > Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of > photographs? 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. 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 instant feedback from digital has helped me a lot to take better photo's. There is a waterfalls near where I live that one afternoon I took a tripod and drove over just to experiment with aperture and shutter time. I got more useful experience in that afternoon than I have in many years with film. The new digital darkroom software available in the last decade has changed the whole digital experience. w..
From: tony cooper on 31 Oct 2009 23:22
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:40:47 -0500, Walter Banks <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: > > >eNo wrote: > >> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of >> photographs? 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. 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 instant feedback from digital has helped me a lot to take better >photo's. > >There is a waterfalls near where I live that one afternoon I took a >tripod and drove over just to experiment with aperture and >shutter time. I got more useful experience in that afternoon than >I have in many years with film. I agree. I have a laptop, and have taken it with me on a few occasions to preview - full-screen - the images. Then I go back to the same scene and re-shoot. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |