If this is true, does it not prove that the machine gun effect is irrelevant to photographs that are keepers, regardless of the medium?
Originally Posted by cowanw
Last edited by cliveh; 07-18-2014 at 03:31 PM. Click to view previous post history.
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
Digital still images surpassed film, plates, paintings, drawings in total a while ago.
Same like text messages surpassed letters on paper.
But I like it on film and paper
That became true with George Eastman's "You push the button, we do the rest" approach to photography.
Originally Posted by David Lyga
Who says "photography' needs to be "artistic" Much of photography has always been about memory shots.
The artistic intricacies become either irrevelant or they become simply glossed over. Being 'artistic' does not require groundwork anymore,
FWIW, I recently heard a report on the radio or TV that over a billion photos are made very day now -- of course 99.9% digital. That strikes me as exaggerated, but when you see what people do with cell phones etc on a daily basis, it's almost believable.
Digital is not always bad
I know I'm going to get a nasty response, but digital shots are not necessarily bad. It's only how photographers shoot with it. When I shoot film, I slow down and more thoughtful. While shooting digital, I more careless. I was learned on a film camera so I still have analog habits which I think it's a good thing. The bad part about digital is some people shoot a ton, then don't edit the outtakes. Or there's another extreme where they take a single digital image then they edit the hell out of in in Photoshop. Some people in digital portraits have plastic skin. BTW. I save the silver halides for the good stuff
Originally Posted by David Lyga
"Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Quite possibly, but even if they are wrong by 50%... Here is a more reputable post One million physical photos in one day in 2011 on Flicker
Originally Posted by AgX
"There are a great many things I am in doubt about at the moment, and I should consider myself favoured if you would kindly enlighten me. Signed, Doubtful, off to Canada." (BJP 1914).
But where will those "billion digi photos" be in 10...20 years time?....doubtless most will have gone "corrupt". Unlike my carefully processed b&w negs from the 60's that print up as freshly as the day they were processed.
Originally Posted by Trask
These were taken on my Rolleiflex, slowly and with thought, as a result they are valued. Very different from today's digi cameras that rattle away at ten frames a second; faster that the brain can think. Such pictures are probably just as quickly discarded, just like the cameras that produced them will be when the next "super improved whiz-bang" model comes out.
It occurs to me some photographers are concerned with pictures, others with megapixels.
The mass production problem applies to photography quite well nowadays. I know I could instantly produce and share uncountable numbers of images of virtually whatever comes in front of my eyes at any instant, just having a simple digital device that records in fact instantly with a simple touch. Put this way it really sounds convenient and convenience is above all these days, especially for those who make money for conveniently selling billions of those mentioned devices and services for people to immediatley share their massly produced photos. And that is what people do everyday. It' s our modern convenient and often thoughtless life. This forum is the place that makes me feel good by hearing people who still want to concentrate and think and put their craft and efforts to create something meaningful in an image and that are aware how difficult that is, regardless of how convenient are the devices or methods they use. For meaningful images statistics don' t count.