A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is photography going downhill with digital?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 1st 09, 12:44 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Is photography going downhill with digital?

In article
, eNo
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.
  #2  
Old November 1st 09, 01:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
True Dat!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Is photography going downhill with digital?

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:44:46 -0400, nospam wrote:

In article
, eNo
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.

  #3  
Old November 1st 09, 07:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ray Fischer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,136
Default Is photography going downhill with digital?

True Dat! wrote:
nospam wrote:


digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps
them learn.


Spoken like a true inexperienced snapshooter.


Written like a know-nothing ass.

--
Ray Fischer


  #4  
Old November 1st 09, 09:27 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Chris H
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,283
Default Is photography going downhill with digital?

In message , nospam
writes
In article
, eNo
wrote:

Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of
photographs?


no. the quality is much better with digital.


That is true. However that is the technical quality... not sure about
the standard of composition etc.

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 most tend not to. However many professionals used motor drives
on film. SO it does depend on what you are doing.

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.


There is some truth in that... however with modern cameras it is much
easier to take a "passable" photo.

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.


This is a red herring as large numbers of people with camera-phones etc
have a "one button to facebook/Flikr" set up built in so there is
virtually no technical knowledge required. I know many kids (and adults)
who publish to Facebook etc who would not even know how to start
photoshop.

digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps
them learn.


That is true.


BTW there was much the same argument when the cheap,easy to use and
inferior film stuff replaced glass plates... Photography is not and was
not "film".... film was just a phase photography went through. As were
the several formats of film... 35mm is not "full frame" it was just a
size that was popular for a while in one format. Digital is the current
progression of image making. IT looks likely to last a long time as I
can not see what the next step is. Though I expect some one said that
when they moved from derogotypes :-)

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



  #5  
Old November 1st 09, 12:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Walter Banks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 803
Default Is photography going downhill with digital?



Chris H wrote:

BTW there was much the same argument when the cheap,easy to use and
inferior film stuff replaced glass plates... Digital is the current
progression of image making. IT looks likely to last a long time as I
can not see what the next step is. Though I expect some one said that
when they moved from derogotypes :-)


With a piano anyone could play music

w..

  #6  
Old November 1st 09, 03:57 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Allen[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 649
Default Is photography going downhill with digital?

nospam wrote:
In article
, eNo
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.

And here is another question just for you, Mr/Mrs Grandepatzer.gmail:
Has the invention of paper, ink, and pencil reduced or improved the
overall quality of writing over stone tablets and chisels? Let's
consider just the post office, and the resources it would need to
deliver billions of stone tablets. How many people would read your
drivel if you had to hire a crew to carry your inane messages
individually to the millions who might see it now that the internet exists?
Allen
  #7  
Old November 1st 09, 07:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Dudley Hanks[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,282
Default Is photography going downhill with digital?


"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , nospam
writes
In article
, eNo
wrote:

Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of
photographs?


no. the quality is much better with digital.


That is true. However that is the technical quality... not sure about
the standard of composition etc.

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 most tend not to. However many professionals used motor drives
on film. SO it does depend on what you are doing.

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.


There is some truth in that... however with modern cameras it is much
easier to take a "passable" photo.

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.


This is a red herring as large numbers of people with camera-phones etc
have a "one button to facebook/Flikr" set up built in so there is
virtually no technical knowledge required. I know many kids (and adults)
who publish to Facebook etc who would not even know how to start
photoshop.

digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps
them learn.


That is true.


BTW there was much the same argument when the cheap,easy to use and
inferior film stuff replaced glass plates... Photography is not and was
not "film".... film was just a phase photography went through. As were
the several formats of film... 35mm is not "full frame" it was just a
size that was popular for a while in one format. Digital is the current
progression of image making. IT looks likely to last a long time as I
can not see what the next step is. Though I expect some one said that
when they moved from derogotypes :-)

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




Another thing about digital is that it has enabled photography to be used
for new purposes.

Several companies now encourage employees to take pictures of data such as
serial numbers instead of jotting them down in a notepad; or, to take a
picture of a site instead of trying to describe it in words.

Even in the blind community, small P&S cams are being used to take pictures
of printed material (such as signs, menus, handouts) which can then be run
through an optical character recognition application, enabling the
visually-impaired to function much more independantly than would otherwise
be possible.

Some of us even use the cams to take pictures of new areas we visit, or
fresh obstacles that appear, and then get sighted persons to describe the
pictures later, effectively enabling blind people to learn a lot more about
their community without actually having sighted guides with them every step
of the way.

And, of course, it won't be long till the camera sensor is hooked directly
to the brain, miraculously restoring sight to who knows how many victims..
of who knows how many afflictions.

An interesting question arises: If an individual has sensors instead of
retinas, and the individual has the technical resources / expertise to
"capture" and transfer to hard copy something he / she is "looking at," will
the process still be considered photography?

Take Care,
Dudley



  #8  
Old November 1st 09, 10:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Charles[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 695
Default Is photography going downhill with digital?


"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article
, eNo
wrote:

Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of
photographs?


Has done little for composition. It's too easy (cheap) to just keep
pressing the shutter button. Folks used to take more care with lighting,
framing, and so on. Also, now it's too easy to share bad shots.

Post-processing is another story. The digital darkroom is an awesome tool.

All in all, it's a wash for most shots churned out and shared by casual
shooters.

For serious amateurs and pros, the quality is way up. Just one opinion.


  #9  
Old November 2nd 09, 02:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
whisky-dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 559
Default Is photography going downhill with digital?


"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.



  #10  
Old November 2nd 09, 03:54 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default Is photography going downhill with digital?

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 :-)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Call for Digital Art and Photography from L.A. Center for Digital Art Rex Bruce General Equipment For Sale 0 February 22nd 08 07:46 PM
Call for Digital Art and Photography from L.A. Center for Digital Art Rex Bruce Digital Photography 0 February 22nd 08 07:44 PM
Call for Digital Art and Photography from L.A. Center for Digital Art Rex Bruce In The Darkroom 0 February 22nd 08 07:43 PM
Call for Digital Art and Photography from L.A. Center for Digital Art [email protected] Fine Art, Framing and Display 0 February 22nd 08 07:07 PM
Digital Photography Tip #1: Avoid using the digital zoom feature Gary Hendricks Digital Photography 11 December 5th 04 01:45 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.