back alley
IMAGES
'you push the button, we do the rest'
How has digital photography changed photography?
- Thread starter hawkeye
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 89
- Views 10K
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
It made my film cameras affordable.
That, and I've seen far more focusing tests than I thought I'd care to see.
That, and I've seen far more focusing tests than I thought I'd care to see.
xwhatsit
Well-known
I speak entirely as a complete novice and beginner w.r.t. photography. But from my point of view, which is entirely a consumer point of view, it's `cheapened' photography. What I mean is; once upon a time, you would look through the family photo album. For many people, you might have only 2 or 3 photos of a person within a single decade. That's Uncle George, back when he had a beard, outside the old holiday house on the beach... It might also be the only photo you have of that holiday house from that side before it got demolished. So that photo has inherent value; it might not be a very good photo at all, the colours might be faded and it was out of focus and overexposed to begin with, but that's the only one you have, so it's (relatively) treasured and carefully handled.
Nowadays, highschool girls take 30 pictures of the food on the plate served at their graduation dinner alone; these are uploaded to Facebook within a few hours after everybody has gone home. We have more pictures of Uncle George and Auntie Josephine and their three kids that we could ever wish for.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing at all. From the consumer point of view, they can document their lives entirely without care. I think this is a really great thing. But, coming to film, it's fun and nice to have an individual print have worth and to take the time with the process. One feels more enfranchised.
Nowadays, highschool girls take 30 pictures of the food on the plate served at their graduation dinner alone; these are uploaded to Facebook within a few hours after everybody has gone home. We have more pictures of Uncle George and Auntie Josephine and their three kids that we could ever wish for.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing at all. From the consumer point of view, they can document their lives entirely without care. I think this is a really great thing. But, coming to film, it's fun and nice to have an individual print have worth and to take the time with the process. One feels more enfranchised.
sig
Well-known
Agree, however what all of these changes in technology has done, is to make photography cheaper and more available so more people can enjoy it (and that is a good thing)
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
It has changed some ways in the business, both for pros and customers contracting them, and it has changed some ways for students, institutes and teachers, and for companies printing just everybody's images, and for stores, newspapers, magazines, but that's not photography...
The new concept it brought was, after getting a digital camera, we can make images without paying anything at all, and we can see them immediately, but that's not photography...
As Roger Hicks said, after digital photography, photography remains untouched and identical to what it's always been.
Cheers,
Juan
The new concept it brought was, after getting a digital camera, we can make images without paying anything at all, and we can see them immediately, but that's not photography...
As Roger Hicks said, after digital photography, photography remains untouched and identical to what it's always been.
Cheers,
Juan
sig
Well-known
I made a good living off of it in the 1980s.
imokruok
Well-known
I very recently started shooting on film. For me, I moved slightly away from digital because film *makes* me think about the image. I don't have unlimited opportunity to try and get a shot right. Rather than shoot 10 images of the same thing hoping that one of the shots turns out right, I really have to think about the 2 or 3 shots I'm going to take on film. I have fewer shots to get the image right AND I can't see the result until later.
So, bottom line, film makes me think. Digital is great, but I'm way less technical about it. To specifically answer the question, digital photography makes me think less about taking photos.
So, bottom line, film makes me think. Digital is great, but I'm way less technical about it. To specifically answer the question, digital photography makes me think less about taking photos.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
" also think that this is a moment like 1839 when photography was first introduced and somebody said that "from this day forward, painting is dead."
Just as a point of accuracy, the quote is attributed to Paul Delaroche, who actually never said it. He was a famous painter, not a photographer, but also influential in promoting the Daguerreotype. It would have been a good quote, had he actually said it, though. 🙂
Just as a point of accuracy, the quote is attributed to Paul Delaroche, who actually never said it. He was a famous painter, not a photographer, but also influential in promoting the Daguerreotype. It would have been a good quote, had he actually said it, though. 🙂
"from this day forward, Slow-Scan Vidicon is dead."
You may quote me on that.
You may quote me on that.
sig
Well-known
I was just trying to mock your opinion about 'digital photography is not photography' and the 'it is not photography if you are not paying' statement. I always thought that photography had something to do with capturing light....
When you are at it, how instant can the photo check be before it is not photography? And if your digital camera has a broken display and you can not get the instant feedback is it closer to photography?
When you are at it, how instant can the photo check be before it is not photography? And if your digital camera has a broken display and you can not get the instant feedback is it closer to photography?
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I see things exactly the same way as Roger. (Scary, is it not?)
If you look at the changes over the last 10-15 years, you can conclude where digital has many impacts.
But if you look at changes over the last 100-150 years, you could conclude that digital has had a minimal impact.
The example of comparing digital v. film to dry plates v. wet plates is a very good one. Did digital make "everyone" a photographer? Certainly not when you compare it to eliminating the need for a large cart on site to be able to coat your plate immediately before exposure and being able to simply buy a pre-coated dry plate to be used at some later date.
It is just a matter of perspective.
toylas
Newbie
I'm a noob as compared to most of the people here in terms of photography. I started with digital and started shooting film just for the reasons that imokruok started with film. I'm a poor student and when I know that even with cheap film, one shot would cost me about 30-40 cents, it makes me work on the picture. And I agree with chris00nj about the digital thing too.
Here's my two cents worth of opinion. Even though digital makes life a lot easier but I have to say that I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that 80% of the people who start with digital have no idea about what makes the right exposure, what effects does varying aperture, shutter etc have on pictures, let alone the rest of the technical aspects. It's like teaching the kindergarten kids arithmetics with calculators. I'm not saying that they can't or will not learn the real basics but most of them will end up being calculator (read trigger) happy with no basic knowledge. But they would want bigger more expensive cameras to make their pictures better. Oh and don't even dare to say that some brand is better than theirs. Their camera brand IS the best.
Well photography is still photography. All about making good pictures which we all can enjoy and maybe save some history in. Whatever medium ... I would just hate changing my cameras every few years.
Here's my two cents worth of opinion. Even though digital makes life a lot easier but I have to say that I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that 80% of the people who start with digital have no idea about what makes the right exposure, what effects does varying aperture, shutter etc have on pictures, let alone the rest of the technical aspects. It's like teaching the kindergarten kids arithmetics with calculators. I'm not saying that they can't or will not learn the real basics but most of them will end up being calculator (read trigger) happy with no basic knowledge. But they would want bigger more expensive cameras to make their pictures better. Oh and don't even dare to say that some brand is better than theirs. Their camera brand IS the best.
Well photography is still photography. All about making good pictures which we all can enjoy and maybe save some history in. Whatever medium ... I would just hate changing my cameras every few years.
Federico Alberto
Member
Lower costs, speedier workflow, greater flexibility
Lower costs, speedier workflow, greater flexibility
Couldn't agree more with everything you've said.
Digital has lowered costs, sped-up our workflow and given us incomparable flexibility for changing ISO levels or for experimenting with alternative WB settings while seeing the results instantaneously.
Lower costs, speedier workflow, greater flexibility
Couldn't agree more with everything you've said.
Digital has lowered costs, sped-up our workflow and given us incomparable flexibility for changing ISO levels or for experimenting with alternative WB settings while seeing the results instantaneously.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
"I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that 80% of the people who start with digital have no idea about what makes the right exposure, what effects does varying aperture, shutter etc have on pictures, let alone the rest of the technical aspects."
But, then, that 80 percent probably don't care to learn all that stuff. They just want to snap colorful photos on the cheap to post on flickr. And digital allows that.
But, then, that 80 percent probably don't care to learn all that stuff. They just want to snap colorful photos on the cheap to post on flickr. And digital allows that.
Chris101
summicronia
I both agree and disagree with this. Digital is much the same in the capture stage - you look at some sort of a screen and push a button when it looks right. But from capture to viewer, digital has opened up many pathways which were previously difficult, haphazard and expensive.
Pre-digital photography required storage and maintenance of physical items: negatives, transparencies and prints. Digital files can be duplicated exactly with ease, and so their storage is delocalized. They can be sorted, grouped, combined, sequenced and blended with other media. From the image's point of view - after it leaves the camera - digital has changed everything about photography.
sjw617
Panoramist
Starting out with film doesn't mean you know anything. We all learned as we went along and got better. I'd bet most of the people who bought film P&S cameras had no interest in learning more. They were just after snapshots of family events and were glad to have a no brainer camera.
Steve
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
And after all what does any moderrn DSLR do with a sensor that the F6 couldn't do with film ... not much physically!
imokruok
Well-known
Very true. But I think digital manipulation is almost entirely another issue, as for the most part, my workflow is basically the same whether the image came from a slide or a sensor. I don't print from film - I just have it all scanned.
I think film-to-digital is a great combo, because I do have the flexibility of using a digital workflow. But I also have the originals in an archival sleeve. I would guess that for much of the camera-toting population, many pictures older than five or six years old reside on the hard drive of an old computer sitting in a closet or basement.
Similar threads
