gns
Well-known
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
It seems to me when people post their photos they are looking for praise, not critique.
This is the best way:
photogdave
Shops local
Stereotyping a person without knowing him. Way to go.
I was making a generalization, not a personal comment. How old did you say you were?
Matt(1pt4)
Established
retro
Well-known
Digital photography is easier than film photography. Like eating at
McDonalds is easier than preparing your own meals.
With the general public, "easier" always wins out over "harder"
hence McDonalds is hugely successful, just like digital photography
is.
McDonalds is easier than preparing your own meals.
With the general public, "easier" always wins out over "harder"
hence McDonalds is hugely successful, just like digital photography
is.
Borghesia
Well-known
I agree with that, most people like things being packaged and boxed. They mostly leave their camera on the green-auto switch ignoring all the nice technicalities and wisdoms that goes with photography. I have a few digital SLR's (even a 1ds MKII) and a couple of PS, but these camera's never charmed me.
With digital it's like capturing moments like video stills, in contrary of the handling of my analog camera's, where I can feel to be one with a subject. The results stays mystically unclear but always turn out to be very satisfying.
On photosites like Flickr or Photosig, the digital pics. doesn't interest me at all, too smooth, to plasticky and artificial. One can say that photography is what you best can capture in front of your lens, but it's a matter of taste. It's a luxury to listen to my favorite band from a LP, then the same band from a plain CD.
George S.
How many is enough?
Yes, digital IS easier than film photography. Why would that in itself, be a bad thing? Most people shooting digital are not using a $6,000 body, but are using a P&S and never go larger than 4x6 prints.
Sorry to keep rebutting you, but McDonal's is not successful because people are lazy. They're successful because they're either in an area where lunchtime workers can get in and out quickly and maybe still have 10 minutes to sit outside their workplace before the bell rings and they have to march in like worker ants. Not lazyness,,but convenience. Not many of us can go home and prepare our own lunch. They're also successful because they're in lower income areas where the residents can't afford to cook a full meal every night. There again, its not lazyness but reality.
gns
Well-known
Quote:"Digital photography is easier..."
I assume you mean only in a technology sense, but even that is not really true. Put film in fully auto camera, take film to the lab, pick up slides. Or how about shoot polaroid film. What is easier than that?
Just about all photography is "Easy" compared to say, oil painting or sculpting stone.
The hard part (by far) is, as I posted above, not the technology but what you do with it.
Deciding that is not easy at all. Digital or film.
Cheers,
Gary
I assume you mean only in a technology sense, but even that is not really true. Put film in fully auto camera, take film to the lab, pick up slides. Or how about shoot polaroid film. What is easier than that?
Just about all photography is "Easy" compared to say, oil painting or sculpting stone.
The hard part (by far) is, as I posted above, not the technology but what you do with it.
Deciding that is not easy at all. Digital or film.
Cheers,
Gary
Nh3
Well-known
With all do respect, if my intention was to take post-card like pictures with no grain and shadow detail and many other amateur-photographer-obsession-nonsense why would I ever waste my time with film...?
Its precisely the imperfection of film that I want.
pesphoto
Veteran
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Not exactly, if one has a scanner. I post plenty of images that originate on film and are printed in the darkroom, both color & black and white. Sure there are more steps, but since the internet isn't my main medium I'd rather stay with the darkroom. Not to imply that you should. But these kinds of threads are pretty pointless in the end- and now I've gone and gotten sucked into another long thread that I'd rather have not read...
Matt(1pt4)
Established
George S.
How many is enough?
Hi Gary,
Umm.. 1. Press shutter button on digital camera (no film to load)
2. Connect to printer or insert card into printer, and prints come out.
Or, replace step 2 with- upload shots to photo website, receive prints in mail.
No film to buy or load, no trip to photofinisher for drop off and pick up.
Never have to get in the car and leave your house.
The last time I wanted a "fast" test roll developed and printed by my local CVS drove me nuts. 1 trip to drop off film, then THREE trips back because it took them THREE TRIES to make my white dog look white. The photo dept. supervisor couldn't explain why the dog and the freshly fallen snow came out green. Yes, green. Very green. Not a slight tint of green, but GREEN. [Are you getting what I mean- they came out GREEN]
(The negatives were fine) Yes it was print film, and yes I told them the first time to be careful because the subject was white. I know its a CVS but three tries?
Last edited:
DougK
This space left blank
I don't buy this. Taking a good digital photo is every bit as difficult as taking a good film photo. Let's take the example of the M8 and the M7. Aren't both of these cameras essentially manually operated, regardless of the capture medium? So how is there any difference in difficulty between capturing a photo with one camera or the other?
EDIT: I'm not talking about post-processing here, just the difficulty in getting a shot worth the processing effort to develop and print, or to work on in Photoshop and then print or upload or whatever.
Last edited:
tmfabian
I met a man once...
oh for the love of...
neither medium is better or worse, they each offer their own pros and cons and they can both live peacefully together. This whole debate is like saying color is better than b&w.
The only thing that has been stated accurately is that digital can never replace film, just like film can never replace digital...sounds silly, but it's true...neither replaces the other completely, there are some things digital does better than film and some things film does better than digital, it's just that simple.
neither medium is better or worse, they each offer their own pros and cons and they can both live peacefully together. This whole debate is like saying color is better than b&w.
The only thing that has been stated accurately is that digital can never replace film, just like film can never replace digital...sounds silly, but it's true...neither replaces the other completely, there are some things digital does better than film and some things film does better than digital, it's just that simple.
pesphoto
Veteran
sojournerphoto
Veteran
er, I don't think any of my cameras have a green setting, whatever that is M'lud
Nh3
Well-known
The kids in the film version are more likable and look innocent and childish while the same kids in the digital version look like a bunch of brats.