Is photography going downhill with digital?

whisky-dave wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article
, eNo
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

? "Allen" ?????? ??? ??????
...
whisky-dave wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article
, eNo
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

Hi,
I started to photograph in 1955 with BOX TENGOR (6x9cm) and later I
bought super (or very super and acientific) camera EXAKTA WAREX with
Pancolar, Tesar and Domiplan.
I very agree with Chris and Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, we appreciate these
old cameras and our main goal was a shot nice image.
Today is pursuit or hunt for number of pixels, of course more pixels for
90% photographers is better (but I don´t agree).
I am a standpatter one, I own NIKON F4S, MOSKVA 5 (6x9cm) and very good
NIKON D50 (6Mpx).
I don´t buy new camera with more and more pixels every year. It´s
absolutely nonsense.
rene

Chris napsal(a):
On Nov 2, 1:05 pm, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" wrote:
? "Allen" ?????? ??? ??????news:rLydnWbB2IJwYHPXnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@gigane ws.com...

whisky-dave wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article
, eNo
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

"van dark" wrote in message
...
Hi,
I started to photograph in 1955 with BOX TENGOR (6x9cm) and later I bought
super (or very super and acientific) camera EXAKTA WAREX with Pancolar,
Tesar and Domiplan.
I very agree with Chris and Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, we appreciate these
old cameras and our main goal was a shot nice image.
Today is pursuit or hunt for number of pixels, of course more pixels for
90% photographers is better (but I don´t agree).
I am a standpatter one, I own NIKON F4S, MOSKVA 5 (6x9cm) and very good
NIKON D50 (6Mpx).
I don´t buy new camera with more and more pixels every year. It´s
absolutely nonsense.
rene

Chris napsal(a):
On Nov 2, 1:05 pm, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" wrote:
? "Allen" ?????? ???
??????news:rLydnWbB2IJwYHPXnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@gigane ws.com...

whisky-dave wrote:
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article
,
eNo
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

Hello everyone.

I've been using 35mm since the 1960s. I tried to follow the good practise of
noting down the exposure for every shot. It was time-consuming at best and
impractical in rain.
I bought an APS SLR. Nice and compact and the film noted the exposure info
for me. This made it easier to experiment with shots (no writing down
needed) and I could compare the resulting shots.
I still had to wait for the film to be processed - a few days (at the lab's
cheap rate).
I then bought a second-hand DSLR. I saw the results of my experiments within
seconds of taking them and I could apply the results to the next shot.
My DSLR definitely was the best aid to my photography in terms of
experimenting with exposure.
I also don't have to wait for "the best shot" if I am shooting an event. I
can give the organiser a CD of shots and let them choose "the best shot".

I'd rather not think about the money I'd have spent on film and processing!
I used to process B&W myself but had to set up the darkroom every time. Bit
of a chore.

Regards, Rog.

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:04:54 -0000, "No spam please"
wrote:


I'd rather not think about the money I'd have spent on film and processing!
I used to process B&W myself but had to set up the darkroom every time. Bit
of a chore.

Regards, Rog.


The first time I bought an advanced super-zoom P&S digital camera was in
order to accommodate my needs for a 9 month wilderness trek. I couldn't
afford to miss shots from dust on the sensor, the weight, potential
breakage of delicate mirror and shutter mechanisms, etc. After that trek,
and some 70,000 shots later, I did the math of how much it would have cost
in film, as well as the burden it would amount to just in hauling that much
film there and back. The weight of that many (~1,944) little boxes and
size, adds up fast. Even with the needed compact and folding solar-array
for charging, the weight and size was minimal compared to what a film
camera would have needed. Now add in the proof-prints too on return, where
would anyone store that much? A digital camera, in the hands of a prolific
photographer, will pay for itself within a few months if not sooner. Seven
years later and that camera is still going strong never needing one repair,
even the OEM Li-Ion battery is still fine, with some 400,000 excellent
photos to its credit today.

In message , Data Point
writes
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:04:54 -0000, "No spam please"
wrote:


I'd rather not think about the money I'd have spent on film and processing!
I used to process B&W myself but had to set up the darkroom every time. Bit
of a chore.

Regards, Rog.


The first time I bought an advanced super-zoom P&S digital camera was in
order to accommodate my needs for a 9 month wilderness trek. I couldn't
afford to miss shots from dust on the sensor, the weight, potential
breakage of delicate mirror and shutter mechanisms, etc.

His is a bit of a red herring. News reports and the military use DSLR's
in rain forests and deserts without any problems. The better DSLRs are
more environmental proof and rugged than most P&S

However you do have a point about weight and size.

After that trek,
and some 70,000 shots later, I did the math of how much it would have cost
in film, as well as the burden it would amount to just in hauling that much
film there and back.

Now many would say that the quality of your shots was poorer because you
were "machine gunning". However the professionals used to do something
similar with film to get the one good shot. People forget professionals
used motor drives and high capacity backs.

The weight of that many (~1,944) little boxes and
size, adds up fast.

Also film is not happy in hot environments... it goes off. The storage
and use temperature range for digital "film" is much higher if less
waterproof :-)

Even with the needed compact and folding solar-array
for charging, the weight and size was minimal compared to what a film
camera would have needed.

The power is the one place where film had the advantage. Though with
solar power for recharging the digital disadvantage is minimal

Now add in the proof-prints too on return, where
would anyone store that much?

True if you think you need a lot of storage for digital prints the
physical side is nothing compared to the slides, negatives and prints
from film.

A digital camera, in the hands of a prolific
photographer, will pay for itself within a few months if not sooner. Seven
years later and that camera is still going strong never needing one repair,
even the OEM Li-Ion battery is still fine, with some 400,000 excellent
photos to its credit today.

I agree... however as most photographers are men they *NEED* a new
camera with the latest gizmos every 2 years... it is a fact of nature
:-))))) Even though digital cameras will last years and out perform film
for quality.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H wrote:


His is a bit of a red herring. News reports and the military use DSLR's
in rain forests and deserts without any problems. The better DSLRs are
more environmental proof and rugged than most P&S

No red-herring at all. I don't care where or what the military use, or what
you have learned from only reading reports about cameras. Military
photographers are not lifetime pros, they only play at one during their
term of service because they happened to have an aptitude for photography
on an entry test. So that's what role they might assign to them, whether
they've ever held a camera before or not. And judging by some of the
military's choices they've made during my lifetime, most of them don't seem
too bright anyway. (My most favorite oxymoron, "Military intelligence".)
The P&S camera I selected for that particular trek has a titanium shell.
There was one report where even a jeep ran directly over the very same
model of camera. The only thing that happened to it was a small hairline
crack formed by one of the case's mounting screws. They were also using
them in Iraq by many of the combat personal because this particular model
was so rugged and dust-proof, since you seem to be concerned on what the
military use. It was interesting to see the very same camera I was using
being shown in many combat personnel photos taken by PJs. I may have even
saved a few of those press-releases where this model of camera was being
carried by the men.

DSLRs are NOT more environmental proof. Anybody who claims that has clearly
never used both styles of cameras outside of their living-rooms. The main
DSLR problem, change a lens in any dusty or harsh environment and you have
to stop to clean the sensor. Been there, did that, sold them all.
Condensation on mirrors, focusing-screens, and sensors in cold and damp
environments. Been there, did that, sold them all. A little condensation on
the mirror and shutter mechanism as the temperature of the camera drops
below freezing and the whole thing is useless until you can thaw it out and
dry it again. Been there, did that, sold them all. The lubricants used in
DSLR zoom lenses has to be viscous enough to hold their chosen setting in
position if you change the angle of the lens. Those lubricants turn into
cement in cold temperatures. Been there, did that, sold them all. No, DSLRs
are NOT more environmental proof. Contrary to your inexperienced opinion
and also contrary to anyone's opinion the same as yours.

I know what I'm doing when I select my equipment. I've been a pro nature
photographer all my life. It sounds like you haven't even been near
cameras. I also don't machine-gun shoot either. That's why I get so many
keepers. An average of 255 shots a day (70,000 in 9 months) is nothing when
I'm concentrating on a unique species or documenting a new environment. In
particularly interesting habitats up to 1,000 individual photos a day is
not uncommon. The month I spent documenting some of the rarest orchid
species in the world (including *the* rarest specimen in the world) where
few, if no, humans have ever traveled before netted even more shots than
that per day. When I'm working an interesting habitat I can shoot 24 hours
around the clock. Many species only appear at certain hours of the day. You
have to be up when they are. The chance of that location, that hour, that
day, that weather, that season, and that species may never coincide again
during your travels. Get 'em when you can, and get 'em good. Making sure
that you have a camera that can put up with anything in any situation,
including IR night photography and IR video modes in your P&S camera for
those nocturnal species.

I know exactly what I'm doing and exactly which camera is perfectly right
for the job. Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced
opinion.

Hallo Data point,
please, say me which camera is exactly perfectly right
for your job. My job is similar one.
Thanks.

Data Point napsal(a):
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H wrote:

His is a bit of a red herring. News reports and the military use DSLR's
in rain forests and deserts without any problems. The better DSLRs are
more environmental proof and rugged than most P&S

No red-herring at all. I don't care where or what the military use, or what
you have learned from only reading reports about cameras. Military
photographers are not lifetime pros, they only play at one during their
term of service because they happened to have an aptitude for photography
on an entry test. So that's what role they might assign to them, whether
they've ever held a camera before or not. And judging by some of the
military's choices they've made during my lifetime, most of them don't seem
too bright anyway. (My most favorite oxymoron, "Military intelligence".)
The P&S camera I selected for that particular trek has a titanium shell.
There was one report where even a jeep ran directly over the very same
model of camera. The only thing that happened to it was a small hairline
crack formed by one of the case's mounting screws. They were also using
them in Iraq by many of the combat personal because this particular model
was so rugged and dust-proof, since you seem to be concerned on what the
military use. It was interesting to see the very same camera I was using
being shown in many combat personnel photos taken by PJs. I may have even
saved a few of those press-releases where this model of camera was being
carried by the men.

DSLRs are NOT more environmental proof. Anybody who claims that has clearly
never used both styles of cameras outside of their living-rooms. The main
DSLR problem, change a lens in any dusty or harsh environment and you have
to stop to clean the sensor. Been there, did that, sold them all.
Condensation on mirrors, focusing-screens, and sensors in cold and damp
environments. Been there, did that, sold them all. A little condensation on
the mirror and shutter mechanism as the temperature of the camera drops
below freezing and the whole thing is useless until you can thaw it out and
dry it again. Been there, did that, sold them all. The lubricants used in
DSLR zoom lenses has to be viscous enough to hold their chosen setting in
position if you change the angle of the lens. Those lubricants turn into
cement in cold temperatures. Been there, did that, sold them all. No, DSLRs
are NOT more environmental proof. Contrary to your inexperienced opinion
and also contrary to anyone's opinion the same as yours.

I know what I'm doing when I select my equipment. I've been a pro nature
photographer all my life. It sounds like you haven't even been near
cameras. I also don't machine-gun shoot either. That's why I get so many
keepers. An average of 255 shots a day (70,000 in 9 months) is nothing when
I'm concentrating on a unique species or documenting a new environment. In
particularly interesting habitats up to 1,000 individual photos a day is
not uncommon. The month I spent documenting some of the rarest orchid
species in the world (including *the* rarest specimen in the world) where
few, if no, humans have ever traveled before netted even more shots than
that per day. When I'm working an interesting habitat I can shoot 24 hours
around the clock. Many species only appear at certain hours of the day. You
have to be up when they are. The chance of that location, that hour, that
day, that weather, that season, and that species may never coincide again
during your travels. Get 'em when you can, and get 'em good. Making sure
that you have a camera that can put up with anything in any situation,
including IR night photography and IR video modes in your P&S camera for
those nocturnal species.

I know exactly what I'm doing and exactly which camera is perfectly right
for the job. Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced
opinion.

In message , Data Point
writes
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H wrote:


His is a bit of a red herring. News reports and the military use DSLR's
in rain forests and deserts without any problems. The better DSLRs are
more environmental proof and rugged than most P&S

No red-herring at all. I don't care where or what the military use,

Your comments were on environments camera were used in. The military use
them in harsh environments with often hard treatment and require them to
work.

or what
you have learned from only reading reports about cameras.

Who said it was in reports? I have used cameras in deserts, rather damp
wooded environments, cold snowy places and urban areas.

Military
photographers are not lifetime pros, they only play at one during their
term of service because they happened to have an aptitude for photography
on an entry test.

May be where you are but not where I am... where are you as an anonymous
person with a fake email address you have no credibility until you
identify yourself.

So that's what role they might assign to them, whether
they've ever held a camera before or not. And judging by some of the
military's choices they've made during my lifetime, most of them don't seem
too bright anyway.

It depends whose' military.... Some are not as bright as others.

(My most favorite oxymoron, "Military intelligence".)
Min too :-)

The P&S camera I selected for that particular trek has a titanium shell.
There was one report where even a jeep ran directly over the very same
model of camera.

So it is not one of the normal high street ones then... but a specialist
one.

military use. It was interesting to see the very same camera I was using
being shown in many combat personnel photos taken by PJs. I may have even
saved a few of those press-releases where this model of camera was being
carried by the men.

Rugged P&S are always useful as they are small and light

DSLRs are NOT more environmental proof. Anybody who claims that has clearly
never used both styles of cameras outside of their living-rooms.

I have with both types.

The main
DSLR problem, change a lens in any dusty or harsh environment and you have
to stop to clean the sensor.

Yes and no. It is one of the main drawbacks with DSLR's or SLR's in
any event. The answer is not to chance the lens any more than yo have
to. It all depends on what you are doing, where and why.

are NOT more environmental proof. Contrary to your inexperienced opinion
and also contrary to anyone's opinion the same as yours.

But then again I do read that has lots of
experience. With a fake name and email you have ZERO experience untill
you identify yourself. There are very many deluded kooks onthe internet
making out they are experts.

I know what I'm doing when I select my equipment. I've been a pro nature
photographer all my life. It sounds like you haven't even been near
cameras.

Only for the last 30 years... in hostile environments as much as comfy
ones.

I also don't machine-gun shoot either. That's why I get so many
keepers.

It depends on what you are shooting where and why.

An average of 255 shots a day (70,000 in 9 months) is nothing when
I'm concentrating on a unique species or documenting a new environment.

True.

I know exactly what I'm doing and exactly which camera is perfectly right
for the job.

So you say

Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced
opinion.


But has no experience so any experience I have is
greater. If you have the experience you claim you will have no problem
identifying yourself.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:24:03 +0100, van dark wrote:

Hallo Data point,
please, say me which camera is exactly perfectly right
for your job. My job is similar one.
Thanks.

For that particular extended wilderness trek back then (there's been many
more months-long treks since, and newer cameras bought since then), I used
a Sony F717 with the VCL-HQD1758 tel-extender. The best in any cameras and
optics that I could find that year. They had no equals for durability,
dependability, image quality, and the widest range of capabilities with its
included macro, IR imaging, and higher EVF resolution than many present-day
cameras. As well as the unique and extremely handy swiveling body that
allows you to also use the EVF, not just the LCD, in awkward framing
situations. I wish they'd make cameras like that again. Few cameras even
today can beat the images from that model. Newer is not always better.
5-megapixels is more than anyone needs for 11"x14" prints (and larger,
subject dependent) if the optics and sensor are good. 3 megapixels was
already shown to compete with the finest-grain 35mm films many years ago.