Is photography going downhill with digital?

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

read the rest at http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=789

eNo

In article
<73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3->, 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.

nospam

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:12:31 -0700 (PDT), eNo <>
wrote:

>Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of
>photographs? 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. 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.
>
>read the rest at http://esfotoclix.\

What I think you are overlooking is that the internet came along and
allowed people to share/show their images. We see more bad stuff now
because we see more stuff. There will be more new images uploaded to
Flickr in the next week than most of us have ever seen of other
people's photographs in their entire pre-internet lifetime.

Who knows how many bad prints and slides are tucked away in shoeboxes
that were never seen outside of the immediate circle of the
photographer.

I've scanned hundreds of old family photographs, and I can tell you
that no one in my family tree was an accomplished photographer. With
Photoshop cropping and cloning, I've improved quite a few of them.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:12:31 -0700 (PDT), eNo <>
wrote this:

>Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of
>photographs? 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. 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.
>
>read the rest at http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=789

Sounds Rich to me!

Glen

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

>In article
><73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3->, 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.

True Dat!

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:40:47 -0500, Walter Banks
<> wrote:

>
>
>eNo wrote:
>
>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of
>> photographs? 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. 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 instant feedback from digital has helped me a lot to take better
>photo's.
>
>There is a waterfalls near where I live that one afternoon I took a
>tripod and drove over just to experiment with aperture and
>shutter time. I got more useful experience in that afternoon than
>I have in many years with film.

I agree. I have a laptop, and have taken it with me on a few
occasions to preview - full-screen - the images. Then I go back to
the same scene and re-shoot.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

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

Ray Fischer

In message <311020091944469876%>, nospam
<> writes
>In article
><73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3->, 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 /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Chris H

"Chris H" <> wrote in message
news:...
> In message <311020091944469876%>, nospam
> <> writes
>>In article
>><73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3->, 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

Dudley Hanks

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:311020091944469876%...
> In article
> <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3->, 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.

Charles