sc_rufctr
Leica nuts
Has digital RUINED photography for the average person?
That might sound like a stupid question but if you think about what is happening out there it may not be so stupid.
To explain my question further let me ask you another question...
How many people have decent film cameras and lenses stored away in a closet or an attic that is no longer being used?
We all know these same people would now be using a digital camera. The problem is the newish digital cameras they are using would at best be described as a point and shoot.
So when you break it down there are literally millions of really decent cameras and lenses being stored away never to be used again!
Replaced by what? Pretty ordinary photos generated by pretty ordinary hardware that becomes redundant and out dated almost as soon as it hits the shelves of the camera shop.
These same cameras have tiny fixed lenses with heaps of built in distortion. They just can’t be compared to a good SLR or M mount lens.
The reason all of this has happened is because people love the convenience and economics of digital. Also, most mobile phones now having a very sub standard camera built in.
These images are even more “ordinary”… The new interchangeable lens digital cameras are great but most average users go for a cheap fixed lens point and shoot! (sub $200)
And lastly… How are these images being stored? On external hard drives that are basically a ticking time bomb.
How many images have already been lost because of hardware failures?
I work in the IT support industry and I know for a fact that most people don’t have a proper back up schedule or routine in place.
They use the fingers crossed approach mostly.
Have you ever seen an adult cry after losing a few gigabytes of data? I have and it’s not pretty.
My mother bought a Konica C35 in the mid seventies. She traveled to Europe and everywhere she went she had her camera with her.
She still has the color and B&W photos from this trip stored away in her precious photo albums. Sure the color images aren’t what they used to be but she had the good sense to store her negatives properly so most are still usable.
The B&W are still perfect… Extraordinary when you think about it.
I wonder how many people using their cheap digital cameras today will be able to view their images in 40 years time. Not many I bet. Maybe the convenience and economics of digital has a very real hidden cost.
That might sound like a stupid question but if you think about what is happening out there it may not be so stupid.
To explain my question further let me ask you another question...
How many people have decent film cameras and lenses stored away in a closet or an attic that is no longer being used?
We all know these same people would now be using a digital camera. The problem is the newish digital cameras they are using would at best be described as a point and shoot.
So when you break it down there are literally millions of really decent cameras and lenses being stored away never to be used again!
Replaced by what? Pretty ordinary photos generated by pretty ordinary hardware that becomes redundant and out dated almost as soon as it hits the shelves of the camera shop.
These same cameras have tiny fixed lenses with heaps of built in distortion. They just can’t be compared to a good SLR or M mount lens.
The reason all of this has happened is because people love the convenience and economics of digital. Also, most mobile phones now having a very sub standard camera built in.
These images are even more “ordinary”… The new interchangeable lens digital cameras are great but most average users go for a cheap fixed lens point and shoot! (sub $200)
And lastly… How are these images being stored? On external hard drives that are basically a ticking time bomb.
How many images have already been lost because of hardware failures?
I work in the IT support industry and I know for a fact that most people don’t have a proper back up schedule or routine in place.
They use the fingers crossed approach mostly.
Have you ever seen an adult cry after losing a few gigabytes of data? I have and it’s not pretty.
My mother bought a Konica C35 in the mid seventies. She traveled to Europe and everywhere she went she had her camera with her.
She still has the color and B&W photos from this trip stored away in her precious photo albums. Sure the color images aren’t what they used to be but she had the good sense to store her negatives properly so most are still usable.
The B&W are still perfect… Extraordinary when you think about it.
I wonder how many people using their cheap digital cameras today will be able to view their images in 40 years time. Not many I bet. Maybe the convenience and economics of digital has a very real hidden cost.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
External? Most people I know (excluding people with some data/media collecting mania) don't own an external drive, or only own one because the internal is too small or already broken. What with Windows and Mac placing the home directory of the user on the system (internal) drive by default, pictures will usually be on the internal drive, to be scrapped along with the computer as that fails, and at the very best burned to an assortment of CDs and DVDs in mixed state of decay and labelling.
Last edited:
Neare
Well-known
The culture of photography has changed more so.
Here is a point to think about: Point and shoots which as you say your average person uses have a very slow auto focus speed. Now beacuse of this people can't effectively take action shots, so they no longer try. So now the skill and intuition involved in photography which even the average person had once upon a time has diminished as they don't need to know anything. So what has happened is that all their photos have become so mundane as they keep taking shots of "interesting objects" from boring angles and their friends, all huddled in the middle of the frame awkwardly smiling at the camera and all the tonality destroyed by the flash.
Rant over.
Here is a point to think about: Point and shoots which as you say your average person uses have a very slow auto focus speed. Now beacuse of this people can't effectively take action shots, so they no longer try. So now the skill and intuition involved in photography which even the average person had once upon a time has diminished as they don't need to know anything. So what has happened is that all their photos have become so mundane as they keep taking shots of "interesting objects" from boring angles and their friends, all huddled in the middle of the frame awkwardly smiling at the camera and all the tonality destroyed by the flash.
Rant over.
sc_rufctr
Leica nuts
Excellent point.
One good thing that is happening right now... The resurgence of film. I feel joy when I meet a young person shooting film.
And people say film is dead. When I hear that I can't help but laugh.
muf
Well-known
As it happens. My hard drive died about 6 weeks ago and although I have an external one and Trueimage to back up with, my last backup was early April. Lost everything I'd done for the last four months. I get your point. Agree with you and my favoured media is film.
sc_rufctr
Leica nuts
muf (I work in the IT support industry)
If it makes you feel any better one of the first things they taught us was... Once you start using a computer it's only a matter of time before you loose data.
It could have been much worse. Well done for having a backup hard drive.
If it makes you feel any better one of the first things they taught us was... Once you start using a computer it's only a matter of time before you loose data.
It could have been much worse. Well done for having a backup hard drive.
igi
Well-known
It is just a perception that we have so many "ordinary" photos today. We've had "ordinary" photos from ordinary people ever since!
One thing that's feeding the perception is the Internet. Because of the internet, you can see not only your mom's, your aunt's, your friends' ordinary photos, you can see anyone's ordinary photo! Add that to the rising number of people that can afford digital cameras and you have a whole lot more ordinary people with ordinary photos.
Do you expect ordinary people to even care about distortion, M lenses, CA, corner falloff etc?
Ordinary people with ordinary digital cameras didn't destroy photography.
It's the pros/purists/traditionalist/serious hobbyists who keep on complaining about the death of photography when it should be their responsibility to keep it alive.
One thing that's feeding the perception is the Internet. Because of the internet, you can see not only your mom's, your aunt's, your friends' ordinary photos, you can see anyone's ordinary photo! Add that to the rising number of people that can afford digital cameras and you have a whole lot more ordinary people with ordinary photos.
Do you expect ordinary people to even care about distortion, M lenses, CA, corner falloff etc?
Ordinary people with ordinary digital cameras didn't destroy photography.
It's the pros/purists/traditionalist/serious hobbyists who keep on complaining about the death of photography when it should be their responsibility to keep it alive.
Morca007
Matt
People with an axe to grind over the long and storied tradition of photographic record have very short memories.
sc_rufctr
Leica nuts
I'm not grinding any axe. I just hope people realize how vulnerable their digital images are if not stored securely and backed up.
This is interesting...
http://www.switched.com/2010/09/30/kodak-porta-400-film-made-exclusively-for-scanning-not-printi/?icid=main|aim|dl5|sec3_lnk3|174486
Quote from this link posted earlier... http://www.vividlight.com/articles/1513.htm
Cost
The big plug for digital has been cost savings.
The problem is these formats will eventually become obsolete. Before they do you'll have to come up with a way to transfer all of that data to a new format. That may be DVD or some other format that we don't know about yet. But what we do know is if you have a large number of archival disks it will take a lot of time and labor to transfer the images. Time and labor means money. If you plan on keeping those images for a long period of time you can count on performing this process several times. Suddenly digital doesn't look so cheap - or easy
This is interesting...
http://www.switched.com/2010/09/30/kodak-porta-400-film-made-exclusively-for-scanning-not-printi/?icid=main|aim|dl5|sec3_lnk3|174486
Quote from this link posted earlier... http://www.vividlight.com/articles/1513.htm
Cost
The big plug for digital has been cost savings.
"Of course $4,000 for a digital camera and $25,000 dollars for a digital camera back sound like a lot of money. But look at the cost savings in film and processing and you'll see that in the long run the digital system more than pays for itself."
The truth is the cost savings take place in the short run. The long run is over the next ten to fifteen years and involves the storage and retrieval of those images. CD-RW and CD-R disks are used by many photographers for the cataloging and backup of their digital images. CD-RW disks have a projected life of around 5 years, Some CD-R disks claim that your data is safe for up to 50 years.
The problem is these formats will eventually become obsolete. Before they do you'll have to come up with a way to transfer all of that data to a new format. That may be DVD or some other format that we don't know about yet. But what we do know is if you have a large number of archival disks it will take a lot of time and labor to transfer the images. Time and labor means money. If you plan on keeping those images for a long period of time you can count on performing this process several times. Suddenly digital doesn't look so cheap - or easy
Last edited:
Andy Kibber
Well-known
Compared to what? Manual focus cameras? Auto focus film P&S? Autofocus SLRs and DSLRs?
I have no idea what you're talking about. Take a gander at old shoeboxes of photos at yardsales, flea markets, etc. The ratio of decent photos to crappy ones is more the same than ever.
sc_rufctr
Leica nuts
I think he meant auto focus DSLRs.
That may be true but those photos still exist and they meant something to someone regardless of how "crappy" they may be.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I don't think there are any more crappy/ordinary photos, percentage wise. today than before. As someone else has pointed out, we merely now have access to more on the net. Those shoe boxes full of photos did mean something to the original photographers but are now valueless, being in a yard sale, to the offspring of the original photographers. In the long run it really does not matter so long as they last roughly the life of the original photographer.
Bob
Bob
btgc
Veteran
Format obsolescence shouldn't be a problem. Sooner or later someone will start to offer service converting ancient .jpg files to current format. That is, if people will still have their ancient .jpg files!
Here comes another assumption - on long run will survive .jpg's stored in personal waults at data centers. That is, pictures of people who will be ready to pay subscription in hope DC's will still be running when their granchildren will be interested in pictures made by grandparents.
Here comes another assumption - on long run will survive .jpg's stored in personal waults at data centers. That is, pictures of people who will be ready to pay subscription in hope DC's will still be running when their granchildren will be interested in pictures made by grandparents.
Andy Kibber
Well-known
Absolutely. I don't see what that has to do with Neare's comment or this thread though.
igi
Well-known
I don't think we should limit ourselves to CD's, DVD's and hard disks as the only means of preserving digital images.
We have online photo albums where we can store digital images and as ridiculous as it may sound, I do believe they can last a hundred years there.
IT infrastructure and planning is a lot more reliable as anyone could think.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
My answer: No.
The things that ruined photography for the average person are the same ones before digital arrived:
1. Lack of realization that you have to master the basics before you can take decent pictures consistently.
2. Lack of patience to let your vision and standard grow naturally (different rate for each of us, but we will get better).
3. The thought that if only I have that camera, I'd be producing masterpieces, automagically.
4. GAS, an important ingredient for becoming a camera collector, but may have adverse effects on your goal to be a good photographer.
It has nothing to do with digital or film.
Now, if your question was:
Has digital ruined people's chance to discover film as a different and unique way to pursue photography?
Then my answer is a big
YES !!!!!!!!
... and that vexed me to no end.
Last edited:
btgc
Veteran
Online file storage infrastructure needs to be renewed from time to time, it also needs a lot of energy. It's fine while people pay for it. I mean, if someone will get tired paying for it after 10 years, where will go that pictures? I guess they will be just deleted, forever unless mighty Google will not secretively buy such orphaned pictures in bulk for peanuts before deletion from online photo sharing services.
In a word - are you ready to pay for company which will keep your pictures available? If you want your kids and grandkids looking at your digital pictures, be prepared to pay until end of your days. I'm not saying this is particularly bad, it's just fact - you can't store media in basement and hope 30-50 years later someone will just plug it in and go through pictures.
Neare
Well-known
whoever wrote that article...That $25,000 has to be upgraded a year after you buy it.
That is a lot of rolls of film.
Andy, that is why I was saying that it is the culture of photography that has changed, not the taking good photo's part. Peoples approach to taking photo's has changed now that they don't have a disposable limited to 27 shots. I think it would be safe to assume that people take a lot more crappy photo's nowadays, but they just delete them.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Well, the renewal of infrastructure can maintain data - I recently found an old university home page of mine from seventeen years ago which still is being served (but has lost all links to and from the outside world).
But that is a rare exception - most digitally published work I've done in the past 30 years has vanished from public storage, even from libraries. Indeed even the TV features I've done this year have already vanished, thanks to political lobbying by German private TV stations that forced public TV to stop all public access to their archives.
And I am talking high profile publications there. When it comes to users putting their data on online file space, it will predictably remain there even shorter - all the online file storage I've used for more than two years ended either effectively illegalized (peer-to-peer networks), changed the file sharing system to the effect of rendering my old data inaccessible (my ISP going "no media file types due to copyright concerns"), changed to expensive subscriber "premium" services (just about every friggin' photo sharing site that did not lock out pros), limited picture size at a value useless for professional distribution (every friggin' free photo sharing site), or went just plain broke (and presumably sold the disks holding my copyrighted data to some surplus store).
Sevo
user237428934
User deletion pending
No Sir....