The advantage of the d____l revolution is that after making a huge investment of money each exposure is practically free, especially if the images are not printed. Therefore, unlike film, the user has an urge to take lots of images. And wonder of wonder if the finger twitches enough times eventually a good image will appear! It reminds me of watching 6 or 7 year olds play soccer - the ball ends up near one goal or the other and with all the kicking going on, at some point, the ball will score a goal, maybe by the wrong team, but a goal will be scored!
And the crowd roars,"Digisnaps rule!"
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
I don't worry too much about the points you raise. The real difficulties, the real work starts once you've mastered the technical craft. A proportion, however small, of the adepts of digital photography will get to that transition, the same can be said of users of traditional silver halide based photography.
This is true.
Originally Posted by phaedrus
There are added benefits to everything having a camera attached and the presumed increase in d-photos being made. People will shoot more; they will learn to appreciate how hard it is to take a good picture and may appreciate good photography more than past generations; people will become better composers of pictures if not better photographers.
This last bit is important and valuable (at least I think it is). At the end of the day the composition is one of the intellectually tough parts of image creation, with the other important bit being content. The combination of the two is what makes an ordinary image a piece of art. As most people take more pictures they will as a matter of course try to improve and with that improvement greater sensitivity and appreciation for the power of images and image making -- they will become art enthusiasts.
Last edited by jd callow; 05-25-2007 at 01:42 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I guess I might be considered one of the younger ones (27), but I grew up with a Canon FTb. I have several friends who remain dedicated to film. I also have friends who look at my old F1n and my F5 and wonder why the hell I have such a 'clunky hunk of s__t when Digital will do the same thing"?
Normally after clubbing them with my F1n they come around or at least agree to appease me.
I bought a D100 about a year and a half ago, thinking that it would be easier than paying for processing. I can't stand the thing for any kind of artistic work and it has subsequently been relegated to work functions. I can get some decent images out of it, but it requires so much work in Photoshop that I just can't justify it. I did some pictures of my girlfriend last week for her application to a website... I did it all on the F5 and loaded some Ultra Color 400 (ISO'd at 320). Infinitely better results than anything the D100 ever considered going.
Program functions dropped the bar years ago. You could just set it to Auto and fire off mindlessly without worrying about F-stop or depth of field. Growing up with an all manual camera I can utilize those functions much more effectively. If I want a shorter depth of field, I can set the Aperature Priority Mode accordingly... If I need an action shot, I can set the shutter priority mode accordingly. For landscapes at night, I can eyeball it in all manual. Most people can't access the full potential of their equipment due to limited knowledge of the mechanics. That doesn't bother me much. As long as I can still use my equipment to its full capabilities.
Is it just the rise of digit@l that has caused this decline in the overall quality of photos and photographers?
I'm not sure that the ability to cheaply take lots of shots is anything new:
[The new technology has] "created an army of photographers who run rampant over the globe, photographing objects of all sorts, sizes and shapes, under almost every condition, without ever pausing to ask themselves, is this or that artistic? …They spy a view, it seems to please, the camera is focused, the shot taken! There is no pause, why should there be? For art may err but nature cannot miss, says the poet, and they listen to the dictum. To them, composition, light, shade, form and texture are so many catch phrases…"And what is this evil technology in the quote (that I probably found here on APUG)?
[E. E. Cohen, "Bad Form in Photography," in The International Annual of Anthony's Photographic Bulletin. New York and London: E. and H. T. Anthony, 1893, p. 18.]
Maybe we can look at the overall contemporary photographic culture to find an answer. The post-modern attitude of "Hey, who's to say what is and isn't a good photo? It's all relative." paired with the rise of the snapshot aesthetic seems to have a pretty big influence.
Personally, my choice to move away from digit*l has nothing to do with dogma and everything to do with results. I have a D70 that I like well enough and the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 is nice and sharp. But if I put an 11x14 print made with the D70 up against the same size print shot with either the Bronica GS-1 6x7 or even my Rolleicord III, the digital shot just looks horrid. Digital vs 35mm? With my gear (Spotmatic & SMC Takumar glass or even Nikon n90s & nikkor 50mm f1.8) it's an even match. If you've got a Leica, you'll do better than digit*l, I would think. I'm hoping that the results from my 9x12cm are just stunning, too.
Personally when the time came to choose "upgrade DSLR body or not," I chose to put my money into a Jobo CPE-2 and a membership at my local darkroom.
Then again, I don't have any photo editors or art buyers or bridezillas demanding all digital output start to finish.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
It's like elephants who paint.
Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand
I am an old fart and want to know why this diatribe concerning the D--- camera usage is allowed to continue here.
It is allowed to continue because it bad mouths D------. if it said anything good it would be stopped. In point of fact, d------ is not the problem here. The problem is not the camera, it is the photographer.
It is easier to gain enlightenment than to explain enlightenment.
Supreme Master Ching Hai
even with film it happens
A co-worker used to work in a local, now closed, camera store.
An irate customer was given a full refund on a $5400 Nikon package deal - he was upset at the garbage they gave him back when he had his film processed - out of focus, heads cut off, etc.
Lost sale, but obviously knew the pig would never learn to sing.
vorsprung durch tecknik (not).....
"He took to writing poetry and visiting the elves: and though many shook their heads and touched their foreheads and said 'Poor old Baggins!' and though few believed any of his tales, he remained very happy till the end of his days, and those were extraordinarily long "- JRR Tolkien, ' The Hobbit '.
There isn’t anything wrong with owning a digital camera - I have a DSLR myself. If you have a need of one, and can afford it, then buy one. It is better to have knowledge of something, and then reject it, then to have no knowledge, and reject it out of hand. I’ve used mine enough to come to the conclusion that my Nikon F5 still produces superior results, and now it just sits and collects dust (I had the F5 out just today).
Personally, it isn’t the camera that I object to – the camera is after all just a bunch of electronics and glass – it is the technology. You allude to this point with your reference to Photoshop. There was a time when people looked at an image and believed that it represented reality (although in an artistic way), no longer. Photography has long been a medium for social and political change (where would we be without William Henry Jackson’s famous images of Yellowstone), but if an image can’t be believed, how can it move another person emotionally.
One another forum I participate in, GM Inside News, there are always photos of various new cars shown, and invariably the consensus is that the images were “Photoshopped”. This is sad. The other thing that saddens me is the lack of quality images that are now acceptable for magazine photograpy. There was a time when that was something that most photographers aspired to - it meant you had arrived, photographically. Now most magazines publish crap - work that the majority of members of APUG can easily exceed.
Quality, and craftsmanship never go out of style.