Is photography going downhill with digital?

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.com/blog1/?p=789

I can only speak from my own personal experience.
I started shooting film in 1947 and it became a serious hobby for at
least 50 years. I had a B/W and Color Darkroom and developed and printed
many of my own pictures especially the winners.
I probably shot about 500 pics a year and got about 50 keepers, that I
enlarged to 5x7 (Paper and Chemicals were very expensive in those
days....especially color).

In 2000 I started taking digital photos. I also took a course in
Photoshop to be able to edit the images correctly and bought a photo
quality inkjet printer to produce 8x10s of my keepers.
The whole world changed almost overnight.
I took way more pictures, experimented more, tried out novel lighting
techniques, stitched panoramic images together and did a bunch of
things that I had wanted to do with film but resisted, because of the
cost of processing the images.

The quality of my images improved dramatically, especially when tweaked
in PS.
Now, I have so many 8x10 keepers that storing and presenting them
properly is a major challenge.

Hey! I shoot a lot of crap too because I experiment so much....but only
the keepers get shown to the rest of the world.
I think that because so many people are shooting digital pictures today
and displaying everything they produce, you invariably see a lot more
really boring and poorly executed pictures.
OTOH. I see a whole lot more, really excellent pictures that just were
never seen in the "film days".
Bob Williams

Bob Williams

"eNo" <> wrote in message
news:73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-...
> 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
<
Hi!
Photography for most of us is a hobby. It's a fun thing. It's a way to can
our souvenirs. It's a way to try different things. The P&S has opened the
possibility for young and old to experiment, to have fun. No film to buy.
Replication of the same scene 10 times over. Who does it hurt (except
personal pride sometimes)? Of course, results are not necessarily very
artistic... but who cares? I remember the B&W shots with Aunt Elma's head
cut off at the forehead Who does this hurt (beside Elma)? We will still
have great photographers. We will still have the so-so photos. The
difference? We can ALL have a "shot" at it (cheap pun intended). My grand
child who is 4 has started with a very cheap camera... In a way, more
persons can turn to it and yes, more can learn and be on their way to
becoming good at it. We don't necessarily have to become experts. And those
who are really bad don't spoil anything for the rest of us. Let's cease to
be purists. There's room for the good, the great and the bad. What counts
is having fun doing it.
Cheers,
Marcel

celcius

"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?
>
> 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.

whisky-dave

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

Roy Smith

? "Allen" <> ?????? ??? ??????
news: ...
> whisky-dave wrote:
>> "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?
>>> 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

Tzortzakakis Dimitrios

On Oct 31, 6:12*pm, eNo <grandepat...@gmail.com> 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 athttp://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=789

I bet it is about the same.

The serious photographers took a gazillion shots, many of which were
dreck, some of which were decent, and a few of which were superb.

The snap shot shooter took a gazillion pictures, the vast majority of
which were dreck, and a tiny percentage were acceptable.

Nowadays, everyone shoots a pile of pics, and most of them get trashed
as soon as Adobe or Corel displays them (or they hide on lusers' hard
drives, never to be seen in public). Most of those pics really, really
need to be trashed.

The middle ground (where I fell when I was shooting film) took a long
time to compose a single shot, and never took enough pictures to alter
the overall percentages by very much (although thinking back over my
best shots, I guess I have about 2 that I really, really like as
photos, as opposed to the memories they record).

FWIW

Chris

Chris

On Nov 2, 1:05*pm, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
> ? "Allen" <all...@austin.rr.com> ?????? ??? ??????news:rLydnWbB2IJwYHPXnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@gigane ws.com...
>
> > whisky-dave wrote:
> >> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> >>news:311020091944469876%...
> >>> In article
> >>> <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc195...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo
> >>> <grandepat...@gmail.com> 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

Chris

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" <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> ? "Allen" <all...@austin.rr.com> ?????? ??? ??????news:rLydnWbB2IJwYHPXnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@gigane ws.com...
>>
>>> whisky-dave wrote:
>>>> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:311020091944469876%...
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc195...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo
>>>>> <grandepat...@gmail.com> 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

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.

Data Point

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:04:54 +0000, No spam please wrote:


> 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".

The beauty of digital is the capacity to 'delete and deny'
IOW: I only take good shots, the gaps in the numerical order
must mean I need to change batteries or something.

Toxic