Austerby
Well-known
Interesting new article from the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16483509
As a side note, the BBC does seem to be very interested in photography: they often have good articles and their picture editor, Phil Coombs, always has interesting things on his blog (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/philcoomes/)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16483509
As a side note, the BBC does seem to be very interested in photography: they often have good articles and their picture editor, Phil Coombs, always has interesting things on his blog (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/philcoomes/)
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
Very interesting read! Digital has changed photography and our perception in many more ways, mostly negative imho.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
Care to elaborate?
You want to open the can of worms?
Well, this is something I realized when I came back to film recently. I see that the esthetics have changed. When I moved back to film 5 years ago, people used to be awed by the color, this time around, I get a lot of remarks like what happened to the colors? People prefer the look of my A900 more. I think people (non hobbyists) got accustomed to digital color, while in my opinion this is the only aspect remaining in which film is better. They are used now to the flat look of out of the camera files. Contrasty files from transparencies are not in fashion anymore. Grain is unacceptable anymore. Crappy color balance is acceptable though, now that people take photos with their phones under so many different lighting conditions. I remember that previously even some warm colors from shooting with incandescent light used to attract criticism. Of course I am not talking about serious photographers but just average phone or digicam users. Esthetics have definitely changed, to the worse imo.
newsgrunt
Well-known
There were far better examples than the bungee jump gone wrong. Hello...Tahrir Sq ? The Iranian woman killed by a sniper ? etc
There is nothing wrong with digital color... this is a preference. Film is not better, just different. Digital files out of camera can look great at times... digital files can be just as contrasty as slides. Most non-photography people don't notice grain unless it is heavy handed. This all sounds like more pro film / digital hate to me. However, it is all preference and yuo have your opinion and I have mine. We should be happy for the choices we have.
Kiev Ilegalac
Established
Film-digital is a personal preference and I agree, it's an endless debate without "winner". But I just want to say that there's something fundamentally wrong in expression that esthetics has changed to the worse. All the issues usually debated (colors, grain, WB, etc.) are just on the surface and accidental to substance of good photograph, digital or film. Esthetic cant be better or worse it's always "better". Film vs. digital for me has to do more with the process then outcome, but then we have to ask ourselves what is our art, photograph or process itself in which we enjoy so much.
Alex
Alex
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Actually, I think the loss that digital has brought has far more to do with the ease and consequent normalisation of significant manipulation of the projected image.
For all the positives arising from 'citizen journalism' around the world, the loss of trust in the ability of the basis photographic image to present a meaningful representation of what was in front of the lens and its replacement with an (self-)entertainment based philosophy (it's all about the image) has seriously curtailed the ability of photography to bear witness.
Amateur photographers (as opposed to the phone wielding protesters) are widely encouraged to pursue professional perfection and ideals, when a large proportion of the professional photographic worl make their income by very actively misrepresenting what was in front of the lens in order to sell things. (the criticism here is on the encourangement of amaterus to bindly follow suit, advertising is just what it is)
/rantmode
Mike
Edited to add: yes. I know people did it before and that they always have done 'it'. I also know that film changes the way things look, just as you can with digital etc etc. My point is about perception and normalisation of approaches.
For all the positives arising from 'citizen journalism' around the world, the loss of trust in the ability of the basis photographic image to present a meaningful representation of what was in front of the lens and its replacement with an (self-)entertainment based philosophy (it's all about the image) has seriously curtailed the ability of photography to bear witness.
Amateur photographers (as opposed to the phone wielding protesters) are widely encouraged to pursue professional perfection and ideals, when a large proportion of the professional photographic worl make their income by very actively misrepresenting what was in front of the lens in order to sell things. (the criticism here is on the encourangement of amaterus to bindly follow suit, advertising is just what it is)
/rantmode
Mike
Edited to add: yes. I know people did it before and that they always have done 'it'. I also know that film changes the way things look, just as you can with digital etc etc. My point is about perception and normalisation of approaches.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
I don't think there is any pro film/digital hate in my post. I am just saying that people got accustomed to below par photography.
Ok, point taken... but speaking of subpar quality... did you ever see shoeboxes full of people's photos taken with disc cameras, 110 camera, and 126 cameras? Or people's disposable camera photos? I'd say people have gotten used to better quality since their phones do better than the cameras I mentioned.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
No doubt, but people are now bombarded litterally with photographs, every time they open their facebook page or similar, for the entire world to see. The slide shows you mention are normally for a very restricted number of people, and the shoeboxes even more private. There are pros and cons to everything I guess.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
You're mentioning really poor cameras.
I think that for the majority of users (IE those who have gone from a compact film camera or SLR to a small sensor point-n-shoot), the objective quality of their photographs has diminished. In some cases substantially.
But, they are saving a lot of money and are more easily able to share and, in general, do something with these photos.
However, these are the people who often have little understanding of archival issues. They are not taking proper care of their data and often getting prints on crappy paper done with crappy ink. Prints that will fade quickly.
Right, because the large majority of regular people used those cameras.
Andrea Taurisano
il cimento
I agree! Lots of better exapmles could be found, but not necessarily happened the day before they wrote the article.
redisburning
Well-known
did they?
our family always had nice cameras (Olympus OM cameras, as it were) and my Grandfather said his Navy buddies all had decent cameras if they had one. Maybe it was different amongst his group; they werent exactly pulling cleaning duty on a mid sized ship.
I mean, wasnt it that generation that valued life time products? His snorkel still works minus a new set of seals.
No doubt many people used quality cameras, but just like today most people used crappy cheap cameras. The majority certainly used the cameras I mentioned... they were made for the masses and could be bought at almost any store that sold film.
jm51
Member
Imagine the world without digital cameras.
No pics on the net, can't see ebay doing much trade.
No pics on the net, can't see ebay doing much trade.
kai.zorki
Established
For me the great thing about digital is, that i can set the iso on the fly.
Further more improving in photography is imho easier with digital.
Further more improving in photography is imho easier with digital.
gliderbee
Well-known
What bothers me is that under the title "People are better photographers", it says: "Sheer weight of numbers now means you can have better photos. If you're aiming to have five good pictures at an event and you take 240 instead of 24, your chances are better."
So, apparently, taking good pictures is a matter of chances, not of skill ...
OTOH, at the start of the article, it says (about the photographer in Berlin 1939): " In the end, out of the eight plates he got four award-winning photos.".
Do you think those "better photographers" get a ratio of 1 to 2 award-winning photos ? Or even 4 out of those 240 ?
Stefan.
So, apparently, taking good pictures is a matter of chances, not of skill ...
OTOH, at the start of the article, it says (about the photographer in Berlin 1939): " In the end, out of the eight plates he got four award-winning photos.".
Do you think those "better photographers" get a ratio of 1 to 2 award-winning photos ? Or even 4 out of those 240 ?
Stefan.
Corto
Well-known
Hmh........
Ive seen A LOT of press grade DSLR's in the hands of Soccermoms at my daughters sports-meets, Big fat white lenses and all.
I live in a small township, And our family knows most of these people. they bought "THE BEST" thinking that it must take the best pictures of their kid.