If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why digital cameras = better photographers
I just stumbled on a BBC article titled as subject line http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3409155.stm |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why digital cameras = better photographers
I forgot to mention that the comments are equally interesting |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why digital cameras = better photographers
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why digital cameras = better photographers
"Sabineellen" wrote in message
... Stop that. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why digital cameras = better photographers
Sabineellen wrote:
I just stumbled on a BBC article titled as subject line http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3409155.stm That first point comment ". . . just keeping a finger on the shutter button and seeing what comes out." is funny. The other comment about National Geographic completely misses the point of the need for great editing skills. The fourth point about "composing in 3D" being a problem with normal viewfinders is another good joke. The fifth comment is dangerously suggestive and hopelessly false. The way to get good images is to take them initially, not to take crap and "PhotoShop" it into some masterpiece. The entire article is very misleading, and seems to be just another way to sell more P&S digital cameras. I feel sorry for people who buy into that mentality. Sad stuff . . . really. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why digital cameras = better photographers
Sabineellen writes:
I just stumbled on a BBC article titled as subject line http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3409155.stm The article is pretty far off the mark. For example: And what do you get instead? A disappointing crop of pictures which bear little resemblance to the mental snap shots you filed away at the time. Exposure problems, poor focussing, bad composition, flash flare and "red eye" are the most common problems experienced by amateur snappers. Many such headaches are a symptom of traditional cameras and film. Really? Which ones? All of the problems listed are symptoms of poor photographic technique and/or a cheap camera. Or this: How do the professionals get that exceptional shot? Sometimes, it's a case of just keeping a finger on the shutter button and seeing what comes out. Only if they are complete idiots. Only if you define professional in the simplest sense of "anyone who gets money for taking a picture." Most professionals, though, depend on talent and proper technique to a very large extent. In most cases, taking a lot of pictures will not increase the number of good pictures (the only exception is extremely fast photography, such as some types of sports photography). Or this: Digital cameras often give a more faithful reproduction and have a higher tolerance for poor lighting, so there is less need to resort to the harsh built-in flash on compact cameras. Digital cameras have a poorer tolerance for lighting problems than does negative film, and all but the most expensive of them will show poor results in low light, just as film cameras do. There's no substitute for adequate light in photography. Flash is often a necessary evil, and cranking up the ISO on a digicam is no substitute for it, unfortunately. All but the cheapest digital cameras allow you to compose the shot by looking at an LCD screen, rather than through a conventional viewfinder. This gives a completely flat image - just as the finished picture does, and should aid composition. Why? All you need to see is what is in the frame, and you can see that with both LCD and optical viewfinders. Additionally, LCD screens are unreliable for color and contrast verification, since so much depends on the screen itself (it may not accurately represent the image actually being recorded). LCD screens are also very hard to use for checking focus, since they are small and blurry. They can be hard to see in glaring light, and they consume batteries like there's no tomorrow. It's interesting to note that the best digital cameras have optical viewfinders. And the best cameras of either type have 100% viewfinders that show exactly what is being put into the final image frame. I've added my comments, but there's no guarantee that the BBC will publish them. I find it hard to believe that all comments thus far have been positive agreements with the original article, given the glaring errors and misinformation it contains. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why digital cameras = better photographers
Gordon Moat writes:
The fourth point about "composing in 3D" being a problem with normal viewfinders is another good joke. Particularly since binocular viewfinders are extremely rare. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why digital cameras = better photographers
In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote: The entire article is very misleading, and seems to be just another way to sell more P&S digital cameras. I feel sorry for people who buy into that mentality. Sad stuff . . . really. It did start of well: "Exposure problems, poor focussing, bad composition, flash flare and "red eye" are the most common problems experienced by amateur snappers.". This is true for both analog and digital. Less variable costs and instant review are advantages of digital. However, most amateurs continue to produce exactly the same low quality as they did before. A pen is enough to become a writer. But a better pen doesn't make the avarage person a better writer. -- The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Why digital cameras = better photographers
Gordon Moat writes:
The fourth point about "composing in 3D" being a problem with normal viewfinders is another good joke. Particularly since binocular viewfinders are extremely rare. Actually, Gordon, and Mxsmanic, the article somewhat hit a raw nerve for me. Some of the budget I had set aside hesitantly over the past few days for the gossen lightmeter and the Epson 4870 i just used to order an HP photosmart 945; a 5.3 megapixel with an 8x fujinon optical zoom lens and a DIMA 2004 winning image quality, aperture priority, shutter priority, exposure compensation up to -/+3 in 1/3 steps, few metering options including spot, takes AA batteries so i can use my uniross 2300mAh and SD card so i can use my two 512mbs (last two are the main reasons i chose it over others). I have an odd feeling i'll be using it a lot once it arrives. At the risk of irating Matt I'll clarify; 1) the shoot-in made me acutely aware of how much easier it is with digital to go out and shoot endlessly and have results immediately 2) the lightmeter and the scanner were somewhat costly and made me hesitate about the mounting costs of film, as i was wanting the meter because i wasn't entirely satisfied about in-camera ones' results in some of the images i got, and i was wanting the scanner so i can just have my films processed without prints to save on running costs, but with the digital i'll just see it on LCD and then compensate for exposure if it doesn't look right, and i won't pay for film or film related fees or equipment 3) the other thread about the longevity of film made it clear to me that film in normal conditions film is not really that durable; that was a major plus i had in mind for film 4) the other thread with my question as a hobbyist wondering about commercializing any potentially good photos i shoot made it clear to me that it's quite difficult, so i probably don't need the image quality of film, since even images from print scans on an all-in-one i've been doing lately i had to make small enough to be used on the web, so if 5.3 is good enough for me then that could be all that's really required 5) I can easily see how i can do photo essays/series/stories with a digital; i've been somewhat inhibited with film and limiting myself to certain "worthwhile" subjects. Now i can more freely experiment with "abstracts", animals, "street", "journalism" ... etc I guess the lightmeter and film scanner will just have to wait for now. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Why digital cameras = better photographers
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
digital cameras and flash = poor image quality?? | michaelb | Digital Photography | 25 | July 3rd 04 08:35 AM |
W.A.R.N.I.N.G....Digital cameras cause cancer | Jorge Prediguez | Digital Photography | 17 | July 2nd 04 04:10 AM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | In The Darkroom | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |