Why digital cameras = better photographers

"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...

I just stumbled on a BBC article titled as subject line

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3409155.stm

Not better photographers, just makes their duds less expensive. People who
get their photos back from the lab and only have 2 or 3 decent shots per
roll will still only take 2 or 3 decent shots per 24 shots, so they are not
better photographers. With digital they only pay printing for those 2 or 3
photos, not for all 24. It also means they have fairly instant feedback when
a shot doesn't work, so they can try again until they do get it right. Again
the hit-rate hasn't improved, just the number of frames shot has increased,
leading to an increase in the number of good shots. Does this mean a person
is a better photographer? of course not! it just means they produce more
decent photos than they would have with film.
While I am still a big fan of film, I think people who would otherwise use
P&S film cameras are far better off with P&S digital. I hope film doesn't
die for many years though, because I still think my film photos are far
better than anything I've taken digitally (and i've played with some nice
high end digital cams). It's sort of like vinyl vs CD I guess - film may
not be technically as good, but IMO still looks better.

From: TP

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

What a coincidence.


TP, i thought i had declared you a persona non-grata to my posts; quit it
please.

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..

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.


Although SLR and other optical viewfinders can show everything you
need to see, in my experience they are not ideal for composition.
Many people who use both large format and SLR cameras will tell you
that its easier to compose with the former because you're looking *at*
a 2D image of the scene. The feeling of using an SLR viewfinder is
more looking *through*, and as a result you have a greater tendency to
focus on particular elements within the scene while ignoring other
elements which may have a big impact on the composition. The LCD
screen used in digicams, despite all of its flaws, does have
legitimate compositional advantages over optical viewfinders.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com

In article ,
brian wrote:
Although SLR and other optical viewfinders can show everything you
need to see, in my experience they are not ideal for composition.
Many people who use both large format and SLR cameras will tell you
that its easier to compose with the former because you're looking *at*
a 2D image of the scene. The feeling of using an SLR viewfinder is
more looking *through*, and as a result you have a greater tendency to
focus on particular elements within the scene while ignoring other
elements which may have a big impact on the composition.

I think that SLRs are better in this repect than analog P&S cameras or
range finders. I find it surprising that I never read about this issue as
a drawback of those systems.

The SLR and the screen also make a difference. Of course, a 100% HP finder
(in Nikon terminology) makes it easier to see the entire frame than a 93%
finder at a higher magnification (such as used in the FE2/FM2/FM3a) series.

Of course it is much easier to compose using a large format camera because
the large format camera will be on a tripod. Thing become much easier if
you spend a couple of minutes examining the frame before you release the
shutter.


--
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

"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...
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;


It's just that, as Gordon more or less pointed out, the article rehashes all
the crap arguments we hear again and again. Of course digital does have a
place in photography--it would have gone the way of the Kodak disc camera by
now if it did not. I've said before I suspect you of being a troll because
of the way you precisely hit hot button topics time and again. (In fact,
you do that so well, I half suspect you of being a group regular in
disguise.) This article is the perfect example, as it says the same-old
asinine things that get film users going...

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"brian" wrote in message
m...

Although SLR and other optical viewfinders can show everything you
need to see, in my experience they are not ideal for composition.
Many people who use both large format and SLR cameras will tell you
that its easier to compose with the former because you're looking *at*
a 2D image of the scene. The feeling of using an SLR viewfinder is
more looking *through*, and as a result you have a greater tendency to
focus on particular elements within the scene while ignoring other
elements which may have a big impact on the composition. The LCD
screen used in digicams, despite all of its flaws, does have
legitimate compositional advantages over optical viewfinders.


What? An SLR viewfinder image gives you a flat, 2D projection from the lens
onto ground glass - the same as a large format camera. If we're talking
about view cameras, I believe there are two main things that aid composition
in that scenario. First off, we get a lot of horizontal and vertical
guidelines, which are a great help for your composition. Secondly, view
cameras force you to take a long time to *think* about the shot. The image
is upside-down. The camera is big, heavy and difficult to position
correctly. You have to load film after every shot. The photographer studies
the scene on the ground glass, using a loupe, checking every detail to
near-obsessive levels.
This is absolutely NOTHING like taking a shot with a digital camera by
viewing the LCD screen - which I think is perhaps the worst way to
photograph anything. When you look through the SLR viewfinder, you are
seeing what will be recorded on film and you are looking VERY closely at the
image - you've got your eye right up against the screen!!
Now. Try to do the same with an LCD screen. First off, they're usually quite
bad in bright daylight conditions. Secondly, you can't see any detail
whatsoever - the screens usually have pretty crappy resolutions and are
quite small. It's virtually impossible to tell accurately what is in focus.
Thirdly, people tend to hold the camera AWAY from themselves when using an
LCD screen - making it harder to see anything in the picture and making
camera shake much more likely to occur.

Now, if you had been talking about cheap P&S cameras with bad viewfinders,
then I'd be inclined to agree that an LCD screen is better from a
compositional point of view.

Chris.

(Sabineellen) wrote:

TP, i thought i had declared you a persona non-grata to my posts


Declare what you like, Mike.

"Matt Clara" wrote:
"Sabineellen" wrote:

snip

It's just that, as Gordon more or less pointed out, the article rehashes all
the crap arguments we hear again and again. Of course digital does have a
place in photography--it would have gone the way of the Kodak disc camera by
now if it did not. I've said before I suspect you of being a troll because
of the way you precisely hit hot button topics time and again. (In fact,
you do that so well, I half suspect you of being a group regular in
disguise.)


Agreed. Clue: Look no further than "Mike Henley".

"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net...
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.


No, but a word processor sure makes editing a breeze!

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

It's just that, as Gordon more or less pointed out, the article rehashes all
the crap arguments we hear again and again. Of course digital does have a
place in photography--it would have gone the way of the Kodak disc camera by
now if it did not. I've said before I suspect you of being a troll because
of the way you precisely hit hot button topics time and again. (In fact,
you do that so well, I half suspect you of being a group regular in
disguise.) This article is the perfect example, as it says the same-old
asinine things that get film users going...


Dear Matt,

I'm tired of denying time and again the charges you insist upon against me. My
posts are not obligatory and no one has to read or reply to them if they don't
share the interest. I do not post with any names other than the two known to
you and most others.