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

I forgot to mention that the comments are equally interesting

(Sabineellen) on 01 Jul 2004 posted


I forgot to mention that the comments are equally interesting


fromit:
"The slower I work, and the less shots I take, the better the results. I
have a digital compact and a digital SLR but my best shots seem to be taken
on a simple camera with a simple lens. Oh, and with film.
Clive Rowley, UK"

Nice.

"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...





Stop that.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

(Sabineellen) wrote:

Some of the budget I had set aside hesitantly over the past few days for the
gossen lightmeter


Oh, is that the same one Mike Henley was going to buy?

What a coincidence.