Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of photographs? The argument one often hears goes something like this: back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing. In addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of photographers; now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good ones some still manage to take.
In article <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc195...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo
<grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of > photographs?
no. the quality is much better with digital.
> The argument one often hears goes something like this: > back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), > they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people > mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing.
nothing stops someone from taking their time on digital.
> In addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of photographers; > now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led > to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good > ones some still manage to take.
the barrier was actually *lower* with film, where you buy a disposable camera, drop it off and get photos back. with digital you need to know how to use a computer, edit images in photoshop, match screen to print colour, etc.
digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps them learn.
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:12:31 -0700 (PDT), eNo <grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of >photographs? The argument one often hears goes something like this: >back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), >they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people >mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing. In >addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of photographers; >now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led >to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good >ones some still manage to take.
What I think you are overlooking is that the internet came along and allowed people to share/show their images. We see more bad stuff now because we see more stuff. There will be more new images uploaded to Flickr in the next week than most of us have ever seen of other people's photographs in their entire pre-internet lifetime.
Who knows how many bad prints and slides are tucked away in shoeboxes that were never seen outside of the immediate circle of the photographer.
I've scanned hundreds of old family photographs, and I can tell you that no one in my family tree was an accomplished photographer. With Photoshop cropping and cloning, I've improved quite a few of them.
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:44:46 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article ><73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc195...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo ><grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of >> photographs?
>no. the quality is much better with digital.
>> The argument one often hears goes something like this: >> back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), >> they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people >> mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing.
>nothing stops someone from taking their time on digital.
>> In addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of photographers; >> now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led >> to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good >> ones some still manage to take.
>the barrier was actually *lower* with film, where you buy a disposable >camera, drop it off and get photos back. with digital you need to know >how to use a computer, edit images in photoshop, match screen to print >colour, etc.
>digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps >them learn.
eNo wrote: > Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of > photographs? The argument one often hears goes something like this: > back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), > they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people > mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing. In > addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of photographers; > now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led > to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good > ones some still manage to take.
The instant feedback from digital has helped me a lot to take better photo's.
There is a waterfalls near where I live that one afternoon I took a tripod and drove over just to experiment with aperture and shutter time. I got more useful experience in that afternoon than I have in many years with film.
The new digital darkroom software available in the last decade has changed the whole digital experience.
>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of >> photographs? The argument one often hears goes something like this: >> back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), >> they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people >> mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing. In >> addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of photographers; >> now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led >> to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good >> ones some still manage to take.
>The instant feedback from digital has helped me a lot to take better >photo's.
>There is a waterfalls near where I live that one afternoon I took a >tripod and drove over just to experiment with aperture and >shutter time. I got more useful experience in that afternoon than >I have in many years with film.
I agree. I have a laptop, and have taken it with me on a few occasions to preview - full-screen - the images. Then I go back to the same scene and re-shoot.
In message <311020091944469876%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>In article ><73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc195...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo ><grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of >> photographs?
>no. the quality is much better with digital.
That is true. However that is the technical quality... not sure about the standard of composition etc.
>> The argument one often hears goes something like this: >> back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), >> they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people >> mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing.
>nothing stops someone from taking their time on digital.
True but most tend not to. However many professionals used motor drives on film. SO it does depend on what you are doing.
>> In addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of photographers; >> now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led >> to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good >> ones some still manage to take.
There is some truth in that... however with modern cameras it is much easier to take a "passable" photo.
>the barrier was actually *lower* with film, where you buy a disposable >camera, drop it off and get photos back. with digital you need to know >how to use a computer, edit images in photoshop, match screen to print >colour, etc.
This is a red herring as large numbers of people with camera-phones etc have a "one button to facebook/Flikr" set up built in so there is virtually no technical knowledge required. I know many kids (and adults) who publish to Facebook etc who would not even know how to start photoshop.
>digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps >them learn.
That is true.
BTW there was much the same argument when the cheap,easy to use and inferior film stuff replaced glass plates... Photography is not and was not "film".... film was just a phase photography went through. As were the several formats of film... 35mm is not "full frame" it was just a size that was popular for a while in one format. Digital is the current progression of image making. IT looks likely to last a long time as I can not see what the next step is. Though I expect some one said that when they moved from derogotypes :-)
-- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Chris H wrote: > BTW there was much the same argument when the cheap,easy to use and > inferior film stuff replaced glass plates... Digital is the current > progression of image making. IT looks likely to last a long time as I > can not see what the next step is. Though I expect some one said that > when they moved from derogotypes :-)
nospam wrote: > In article > <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc195...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo > <grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of >> photographs?
> no. the quality is much better with digital.
>> The argument one often hears goes something like this: >> back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), >> they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people >> mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing.
> nothing stops someone from taking their time on digital.
>> In addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of photographers; >> now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led >> to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good >> ones some still manage to take.
> the barrier was actually *lower* with film, where you buy a disposable > camera, drop it off and get photos back. with digital you need to know > how to use a computer, edit images in photoshop, match screen to print > colour, etc.
> digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps > them learn.
And here is another question just for you, Mr/Mrs Grandepatzer.gmail: Has the invention of paper, ink, and pencil reduced or improved the overall quality of writing over stone tablets and chisels? Let's consider just the post office, and the resources it would need to deliver billions of stone tablets. How many people would read your drivel if you had to hire a crew to carry your inane messages individually to the millions who might see it now that the internet exists? Allen
> In message <311020091944469876%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam > <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes >>In article >><73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc195...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo >><grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of >>> photographs?
>>no. the quality is much better with digital.
> That is true. However that is the technical quality... not sure about > the standard of composition etc.
>>> The argument one often hears goes something like this: >>> back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), >>> they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people >>> mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing.
>>nothing stops someone from taking their time on digital.
> True but most tend not to. However many professionals used motor drives > on film. SO it does depend on what you are doing.
>>> In addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of photographers; >>> now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led >>> to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good >>> ones some still manage to take.
> There is some truth in that... however with modern cameras it is much > easier to take a "passable" photo.
>>the barrier was actually *lower* with film, where you buy a disposable >>camera, drop it off and get photos back. with digital you need to know >>how to use a computer, edit images in photoshop, match screen to print >>colour, etc.
> This is a red herring as large numbers of people with camera-phones etc > have a "one button to facebook/Flikr" set up built in so there is > virtually no technical knowledge required. I know many kids (and adults) > who publish to Facebook etc who would not even know how to start > photoshop.
>>digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps >>them learn.
> That is true.
> BTW there was much the same argument when the cheap,easy to use and > inferior film stuff replaced glass plates... Photography is not and was > not "film".... film was just a phase photography went through. As were > the several formats of film... 35mm is not "full frame" it was just a > size that was popular for a while in one format. Digital is the current > progression of image making. IT looks likely to last a long time as I > can not see what the next step is. Though I expect some one said that > when they moved from derogotypes :-)
> -- > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Another thing about digital is that it has enabled photography to be used for new purposes.
Several companies now encourage employees to take pictures of data such as serial numbers instead of jotting them down in a notepad; or, to take a picture of a site instead of trying to describe it in words.
Even in the blind community, small P&S cams are being used to take pictures of printed material (such as signs, menus, handouts) which can then be run through an optical character recognition application, enabling the visually-impaired to function much more independantly than would otherwise be possible.
Some of us even use the cams to take pictures of new areas we visit, or fresh obstacles that appear, and then get sighted persons to describe the pictures later, effectively enabling blind people to learn a lot more about their community without actually having sighted guides with them every step of the way.
And, of course, it won't be long till the camera sensor is hooked directly to the brain, miraculously restoring sight to who knows how many victims.. of who knows how many afflictions.
An interesting question arises: If an individual has sensors instead of retinas, and the individual has the technical resources / expertise to "capture" and transfer to hard copy something he / she is "looking at," will the process still be considered photography?
> In article > <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc195...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo > <grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of >> photographs?
Has done little for composition. It's too easy (cheap) to just keep pressing the shutter button. Folks used to take more care with lighting, framing, and so on. Also, now it's too easy to share bad shots.
Post-processing is another story. The digital darkroom is an awesome tool.
All in all, it's a wash for most shots churned out and shared by casual shooters.
For serious amateurs and pros, the quality is way up. Just one opinion.
eNo wrote: > Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of > photographs? The argument one often hears goes something like this: > back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), > they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people > mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing. In > addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of photographers; > now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led > to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good > ones some still manage to take.
I can only speak from my own personal experience. I started shooting film in 1947 and it became a serious hobby for at least 50 years. I had a B/W and Color Darkroom and developed and printed many of my own pictures especially the winners. I probably shot about 500 pics a year and got about 50 keepers, that I enlarged to 5x7 (Paper and Chemicals were very expensive in those days....especially color).
In 2000 I started taking digital photos. I also took a course in Photoshop to be able to edit the images correctly and bought a photo quality inkjet printer to produce 8x10s of my keepers. The whole world changed almost overnight. I took way more pictures, experimented more, tried out novel lighting techniques, stitched panoramic images together and did a bunch of things that I had wanted to do with film but resisted, because of the cost of processing the images.
The quality of my images improved dramatically, especially when tweaked in PS. Now, I have so many 8x10 keepers that storing and presenting them properly is a major challenge.
Hey! I shoot a lot of crap too because I experiment so much....but only the keepers get shown to the rest of the world. I think that because so many people are shooting digital pictures today and displaying everything they produce, you invariably see a lot more really boring and poorly executed pictures. OTOH. I see a whole lot more, really excellent pictures that just were never seen in the "film days". Bob Williams
> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of > photographs? The argument one often hears goes something like this: > back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), > they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people > mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing. In > addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of photographers; > now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led > to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good > ones some still manage to take.
< Hi! Photography for most of us is a hobby. It's a fun thing. It's a way to can our souvenirs. It's a way to try different things. The P&S has opened the possibility for young and old to experiment, to have fun. No film to buy. Replication of the same scene 10 times over. Who does it hurt (except personal pride sometimes)? Of course, results are not necessarily very artistic... but who cares? I remember the B&W shots with Aunt Elma's head cut off at the forehead ;-) Who does this hurt (beside Elma)? We will still have great photographers. We will still have the so-so photos. The difference? We can ALL have a "shot" at it (cheap pun intended). My grand child who is 4 has started with a very cheap camera... In a way, more persons can turn to it and yes, more can learn and be on their way to becoming good at it. We don't necessarily have to become experts. And those who are really bad don't spoil anything for the rest of us. Let's cease to be purists. There's room for the good, the great and the bad. What counts is having fun doing it. Cheers, Marcel
> In article > <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc195...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo > <grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of >> photographs?
> no. the quality is much better with digital.
For me the photograph is something you can hold usually on paper sometimes framed, and for me some of the best pictures have been in monochrome then 'baked' on a rotary glazer to give it that extra glossy look.
>> The argument one often hears goes something like this: >> back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), >> they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people >> mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing.
> nothing stops someone from taking their time on digital.
True, but one could have said that about 250 exposure backs I often though of getting. Pros and those that could afford it always take more than they need photograph wise anyway.
>> In addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of photographers; >> now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led >> to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good >> ones some still manage to take.
> the barrier was actually *lower* with film, where you buy a disposable > camera, drop it off and get photos back. with digital you need to know > how to use a computer, edit images in photoshop, match screen to print > colour, etc.
No you don;t you can take them to chemists to photostores to print out. I've even seem the machine in shops where you just take your memory to the machine and off it goes, even home printers have that facility.
I make a good living working for a company who manufactures disk storage systems. Every time I get a paycheck, I'm grateful for things like Flickr and which encourage people like me to take zillions of mediocre images and upload them for free. More images taken means more disk drives sold. As far as I'm concerned, we should be giving cameras away for free :-)
whisky-dave wrote: > "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message > news:311020091944469876%nospam@nospam.invalid... >> In article >> <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc195...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo >> <grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of >>> photographs? >> no. the quality is much better with digital.
> For me the photograph is something you can hold usually on paper sometimes > framed, and for me some of the best pictures have been in monochrome then > 'baked' > on a rotary glazer to give it that extra glossy look.
>>> The argument one often hears goes something like this: >>> back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), >>> they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people >>> mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing. >> nothing stops someone from taking their time on digital.
> True, but one could have said that about 250 exposure backs I often > though of getting. Pros and those that could afford it always take more than > they need > photograph wise anyway.
>>> In addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of photographers; >>> now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led >>> to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good >>> ones some still manage to take. >> the barrier was actually *lower* with film, where you buy a disposable >> camera, drop it off and get photos back. with digital you need to know >> how to use a computer, edit images in photoshop, match screen to print >> colour, etc.
> No you don;t you can take them to chemists to photostores to print out. > I've even seem the machine in shops where you just take your memory to the > machine > and off it goes, even home printers have that facility.
>> digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps >> them learn.
Yesterday I took the last of my old darkroom stuff the Goodwill. This was stuff I had missed on previous passes, and included a blotter roll (anyone remember those?) and an electric slide binder. I started doing darkroom work in 1941 and I don't miss it. Allen
> whisky-dave wrote: >> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message >> news:311020091944469876%nospam@nospam.invalid... >>> In article >>> <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc195...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo >>> <grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of >>>> photographs? >>> no. the quality is much better with digital.
>> For me the photograph is something you can hold usually on paper >> sometimes >> framed, and for me some of the best pictures have been in monochrome then >> 'baked' >> on a rotary glazer to give it that extra glossy look.
>>>> The argument one often hears goes something like this: >>>> back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), >>>> they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people >>>> mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing. >>> nothing stops someone from taking their time on digital.
>> True, but one could have said that about 250 exposure backs I often >> though of getting. Pros and those that could afford it always take more >> than they need >> photograph wise anyway.
>>>> In addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of >>>> photographers; >>>> now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led >>>> to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good >>>> ones some still manage to take. >>> the barrier was actually *lower* with film, where you buy a disposable >>> camera, drop it off and get photos back. with digital you need to know >>> how to use a computer, edit images in photoshop, match screen to print >>> colour, etc.
>> No you don;t you can take them to chemists to photostores to print out. >> I've even seem the machine in shops where you just take your memory to >> the machine >> and off it goes, even home printers have that facility.
>>> digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps >>> them learn.
> Yesterday I took the last of my old darkroom stuff the Goodwill. This was > stuff I had missed on previous passes, and included a blotter roll (anyone > remember those?) and an electric slide binder. I started doing darkroom > work in 1941 and I don't miss it.
And neither do I. I printed in both colour and B&W (including Cibachrome), I don't miss the chemicals putrid smell, nor the effort for printing an 8 X 10 colour , warming up the chemicals, and trying to remove the colour cast. These days, I just print them on my Canon printer, which ewven works woth generic ink and generic paper! The bad photos just are deleted, the keepers remain both on the hard drive and sd card, when I reach about the size of a cd, I burn one and give it to my sister. And I can have as many 4X5" as I want!
-- Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering mechanized infantry reservist hordad AT otenet DOT gr
On Oct 31, 6:12 pm, eNo <grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of > photographs? The argument one often hears goes something like this: > back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), > they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people > mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing. In > addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of photographers; > now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led > to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good > ones some still manage to take.
The serious photographers took a gazillion shots, many of which were dreck, some of which were decent, and a few of which were superb.
The snap shot shooter took a gazillion pictures, the vast majority of which were dreck, and a tiny percentage were acceptable.
Nowadays, everyone shoots a pile of pics, and most of them get trashed as soon as Adobe or Corel displays them (or they hide on lusers' hard drives, never to be seen in public). Most of those pics really, really need to be trashed.
The middle ground (where I fell when I was shooting film) took a long time to compose a single shot, and never took enough pictures to alter the overall percentages by very much (although thinking back over my best shots, I guess I have about 2 that I really, really like as photos, as opposed to the memories they record).
> > whisky-dave wrote: > >> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message > >>news:311020091944469876%nospam@nospam.invalid... > >>> In article > >>> <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc195...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo > >>> <grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of > >>>> photographs? > >>> no. the quality is much better with digital.
> >> For me the photograph is something you can hold usually on paper > >> sometimes > >> framed, and for me some of the best pictures have been in monochrome then > >> 'baked' > >> on a rotary glazer to give it that extra glossy look.
> >>>> The argument one often hears goes something like this: > >>>> back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), > >>>> they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people > >>>> mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing. > >>> nothing stops someone from taking their time on digital.
> >> True, but one could have said that about 250 exposure backs I often > >> though of getting. Pros and those that could afford it always take more > >> than they need > >> photograph wise anyway.
> >>>> In addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of > >>>> photographers; > >>>> now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led > >>>> to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good > >>>> ones some still manage to take. > >>> the barrier was actually *lower* with film, where you buy a disposable > >>> camera, drop it off and get photos back. with digital you need to know > >>> how to use a computer, edit images in photoshop, match screen to print > >>> colour, etc.
> >> No you don;t you can take them to chemists to photostores to print out. > >> I've even seem the machine in shops where you just take your memory to > >> the machine > >> and off it goes, even home printers have that facility.
> >>> digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps > >>> them learn.
> > Yesterday I took the last of my old darkroom stuff the Goodwill. This was > > stuff I had missed on previous passes, and included a blotter roll (anyone > > remember those?) and an electric slide binder. I started doing darkroom > > work in 1941 and I don't miss it.
> And neither do I. I printed in both colour and B&W (including Cibachrome), I > don't miss the chemicals putrid smell, nor the effort for printing an 8 X 10 > colour , warming up the chemicals, and trying to remove the colour cast. > These days, I just print them on my Canon printer, which ewven works woth > generic ink and generic paper! The bad photos just are deleted, the keepers > remain both on the hard drive and sd card, when I reach about the size of a > cd, I burn one and give it to my sister. And I can have as many 4X5" as I > want!
> -- > Tzortzakakis Dimitrios > major in electrical engineering > mechanized infantry reservist > hordad AT otenet DOT gr
And for $49 we got a truly portable photo printer (Yah 4x5 only, so what, big deal) that connects directly to our camera and we print out family pics before we leave the family gathering.
Hi, I started to photograph in 1955 with BOX TENGOR (6x9cm) and later I bought super (or very super and acientific) camera EXAKTA WAREX with Pancolar, Tesar and Domiplan. I very agree with Chris and Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, we appreciate these old cameras and our main goal was a shot nice image. Today is pursuit or hunt for number of pixels, of course more pixels for 90% photographers is better (but I donīt agree). I am a standpatter one, I own NIKON F4S, MOSKVA 5 (6x9cm) and very good NIKON D50 (6Mpx). I donīt buy new camera with more and more pixels every year. Itīs absolutely nonsense. rene
>>> whisky-dave wrote: >>>> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message >>>> news:311020091944469876%nospam@nospam.invalid... >>>>> In article >>>>> <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc195...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo >>>>> <grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality of >>>>>> photographs? >>>>> no. the quality is much better with digital. >>>> For me the photograph is something you can hold usually on paper >>>> sometimes >>>> framed, and for me some of the best pictures have been in monochrome then >>>> 'baked' >>>> on a rotary glazer to give it that extra glossy look. >>>>>> The argument one often hears goes something like this: >>>>>> back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), >>>>>> they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people >>>>>> mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing. >>>>> nothing stops someone from taking their time on digital. >>>> True, but one could have said that about 250 exposure backs I often >>>> though of getting. Pros and those that could afford it always take more >>>> than they need >>>> photograph wise anyway. >>>>>> In addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of >>>>>> photographers; >>>>>> now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led >>>>>> to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good >>>>>> ones some still manage to take. >>>>> the barrier was actually *lower* with film, where you buy a disposable >>>>> camera, drop it off and get photos back. with digital you need to know >>>>> how to use a computer, edit images in photoshop, match screen to print >>>>> colour, etc. >>>> No you don;t you can take them to chemists to photostores to print out. >>>> I've even seem the machine in shops where you just take your memory to >>>> the machine >>>> and off it goes, even home printers have that facility. >>>>> digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps >>>>> them learn. >>> Yesterday I took the last of my old darkroom stuff the Goodwill. This was >>> stuff I had missed on previous passes, and included a blotter roll (anyone >>> remember those?) and an electric slide binder. I started doing darkroom >>> work in 1941 and I don't miss it. >> And neither do I. I printed in both colour and B&W (including Cibachrome), I >> don't miss the chemicals putrid smell, nor the effort for printing an 8 X 10 >> colour , warming up the chemicals, and trying to remove the colour cast. >> These days, I just print them on my Canon printer, which ewven works woth >> generic ink and generic paper! The bad photos just are deleted, the keepers >> remain both on the hard drive and sd card, when I reach about the size of a >> cd, I burn one and give it to my sister. And I can have as many 4X5" as I >> want!
>> -- >> Tzortzakakis Dimitrios >> major in electrical engineering >> mechanized infantry reservist >> hordad AT otenet DOT gr
> And for $49 we got a truly portable photo printer (Yah 4x5 only, so > what, big deal) that connects directly to our camera and we print out > family pics before we leave the family gathering.
> Hi, > I started to photograph in 1955 with BOX TENGOR (6x9cm) and later I bought > super (or very super and acientific) camera EXAKTA WAREX with Pancolar, > Tesar and Domiplan. > I very agree with Chris and Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, we appreciate these > old cameras and our main goal was a shot nice image. > Today is pursuit or hunt for number of pixels, of course more pixels for > 90% photographers is better (but I donīt agree). > I am a standpatter one, I own NIKON F4S, MOSKVA 5 (6x9cm) and very good > NIKON D50 (6Mpx). > I donīt buy new camera with more and more pixels every year. Itīs > absolutely nonsense. > rene
>>>> whisky-dave wrote: >>>>> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message >>>>> news:311020091944469876%nospam@nospam.invalid... >>>>>> In article >>>>>> <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc195...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> eNo >>>>>> <grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Has the digital revolution reduced or improved the overall quality >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> photographs? >>>>>> no. the quality is much better with digital. >>>>> For me the photograph is something you can hold usually on paper >>>>> sometimes >>>>> framed, and for me some of the best pictures have been in monochrome >>>>> then >>>>> 'baked' >>>>> on a rotary glazer to give it that extra glossy look. >>>>>>> The argument one often hears goes something like this: >>>>>>> back in the old days, when people shot film (thump chest as needed), >>>>>>> they took more time to consider a shot, but now with digital, people >>>>>>> mindlessly click away with no concern for what they are capturing. >>>>>> nothing stops someone from taking their time on digital. >>>>> True, but one could have said that about 250 exposure backs I often >>>>> though of getting. Pros and those that could afford it always take >>>>> more >>>>> than they need >>>>> photograph wise anyway. >>>>>>> In addition, digital has brought about a proliferation of >>>>>>> photographers; >>>>>>> now anyone (raise nose as needed) can take a photo, and this has led >>>>>>> to an oversupply of particularly poor images that drown the few good >>>>>>> ones some still manage to take. >>>>>> the barrier was actually *lower* with film, where you buy a >>>>>> disposable >>>>>> camera, drop it off and get photos back. with digital you need to >>>>>> know >>>>>> how to use a computer, edit images in photoshop, match screen to >>>>>> print >>>>>> colour, etc. >>>>> No you don;t you can take them to chemists to photostores to print >>>>> out. >>>>> I've even seem the machine in shops where you just take your memory to >>>>> the machine >>>>> and off it goes, even home printers have that facility. >>>>>> digital, however, is cheaper so people experiment more, which helps >>>>>> them learn. >>>> Yesterday I took the last of my old darkroom stuff the Goodwill. This >>>> was >>>> stuff I had missed on previous passes, and included a blotter roll >>>> (anyone >>>> remember those?) and an electric slide binder. I started doing darkroom >>>> work in 1941 and I don't miss it. >>> And neither do I. I printed in both colour and B&W (including >>> Cibachrome), I >>> don't miss the chemicals putrid smell, nor the effort for printing an 8 >>> X 10 >>> colour , warming up the chemicals, and trying to remove the colour cast. >>> These days, I just print them on my Canon printer, which ewven works >>> woth >>> generic ink and generic paper! The bad photos just are deleted, the >>> keepers >>> remain both on the hard drive and sd card, when I reach about the size >>> of a >>> cd, I burn one and give it to my sister. And I can have as many 4X5" as >>> I >>> want!
>>> -- >>> Tzortzakakis Dimitrios >>> major in electrical engineering >>> mechanized infantry reservist >>> hordad AT otenet DOT gr
>> And for $49 we got a truly portable photo printer (Yah 4x5 only, so >> what, big deal) that connects directly to our camera and we print out >> family pics before we leave the family gathering.
>> Chris
Hello everyone.
I've been using 35mm since the 1960s. I tried to follow the good practise of noting down the exposure for every shot. It was time-consuming at best and impractical in rain. I bought an APS SLR. Nice and compact and the film noted the exposure info for me. This made it easier to experiment with shots (no writing down needed) and I could compare the resulting shots. I still had to wait for the film to be processed - a few days (at the lab's cheap rate). I then bought a second-hand DSLR. I saw the results of my experiments within seconds of taking them and I could apply the results to the next shot. My DSLR definitely was the best aid to my photography in terms of experimenting with exposure. I also don't have to wait for "the best shot" if I am shooting an event. I can give the organiser a CD of shots and let them choose "the best shot".
I'd rather not think about the money I'd have spent on film and processing! I used to process B&W myself but had to set up the darkroom every time. Bit of a chore.
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:04:54 -0000, "No spam please" <m...@spamnotwelcome.org> wrote:
>I'd rather not think about the money I'd have spent on film and processing! >I used to process B&W myself but had to set up the darkroom every time. Bit >of a chore.
>Regards, Rog.
The first time I bought an advanced super-zoom P&S digital camera was in order to accommodate my needs for a 9 month wilderness trek. I couldn't afford to miss shots from dust on the sensor, the weight, potential breakage of delicate mirror and shutter mechanisms, etc. After that trek, and some 70,000 shots later, I did the math of how much it would have cost in film, as well as the burden it would amount to just in hauling that much film there and back. The weight of that many (~1,944) little boxes and size, adds up fast. Even with the needed compact and folding solar-array for charging, the weight and size was minimal compared to what a film camera would have needed. Now add in the proof-prints too on return, where would anyone store that much? A digital camera, in the hands of a prolific photographer, will pay for itself within a few months if not sooner. Seven years later and that camera is still going strong never needing one repair, even the OEM Li-Ion battery is still fine, with some 400,000 excellent photos to its credit today.
In message <bp41f5lt7mo3qo9dj5uae9me7pkhp65...@4ax.com>, Data Point <datapo...@someisp.org> writes
>On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:04:54 -0000, "No spam please" <m...@spamnotwelcome.org> >wrote:
>>I'd rather not think about the money I'd have spent on film and processing! >>I used to process B&W myself but had to set up the darkroom every time. Bit >>of a chore.
>>Regards, Rog.
>The first time I bought an advanced super-zoom P&S digital camera was in >order to accommodate my needs for a 9 month wilderness trek. I couldn't >afford to miss shots from dust on the sensor, the weight, potential >breakage of delicate mirror and shutter mechanisms, etc.
His is a bit of a red herring. News reports and the military use DSLR's in rain forests and deserts without any problems. The better DSLRs are more environmental proof and rugged than most P&S
However you do have a point about weight and size.
> After that trek, >and some 70,000 shots later, I did the math of how much it would have cost >in film, as well as the burden it would amount to just in hauling that much >film there and back.
Now many would say that the quality of your shots was poorer because you were "machine gunning". However the professionals used to do something similar with film to get the one good shot. People forget professionals used motor drives and high capacity backs.
> The weight of that many (~1,944) little boxes and >size, adds up fast.
Also film is not happy in hot environments... it goes off. The storage and use temperature range for digital "film" is much higher if less waterproof :-)
> Even with the needed compact and folding solar-array >for charging, the weight and size was minimal compared to what a film >camera would have needed.
The power is the one place where film had the advantage. Though with solar power for recharging the digital disadvantage is minimal
> Now add in the proof-prints too on return, where >would anyone store that much?
True if you think you need a lot of storage for digital prints the physical side is nothing compared to the slides, negatives and prints from film.
>A digital camera, in the hands of a prolific >photographer, will pay for itself within a few months if not sooner. Seven >years later and that camera is still going strong never needing one repair, >even the OEM Li-Ion battery is still fine, with some 400,000 excellent >photos to its credit today.
I agree... however as most photographers are men they *NEED* a new camera with the latest gizmos every 2 years... it is a fact of nature :-))))) Even though digital cameras will last years and out perform film for quality.
-- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:56:43 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>His is a bit of a red herring. News reports and the military use DSLR's >in rain forests and deserts without any problems. The better DSLRs are >more environmental proof and rugged than most P&S
No red-herring at all. I don't care where or what the military use, or what you have learned from only reading reports about cameras. Military photographers are not lifetime pros, they only play at one during their term of service because they happened to have an aptitude for photography on an entry test. So that's what role they might assign to them, whether they've ever held a camera before or not. And judging by some of the military's choices they've made during my lifetime, most of them don't seem too bright anyway. (My most favorite oxymoron, "Military intelligence".) The P&S camera I selected for that particular trek has a titanium shell. There was one report where even a jeep ran directly over the very same model of camera. The only thing that happened to it was a small hairline crack formed by one of the case's mounting screws. They were also using them in Iraq by many of the combat personal because this particular model was so rugged and dust-proof, since you seem to be concerned on what the military use. It was interesting to see the very same camera I was using being shown in many combat personnel photos taken by PJs. I may have even saved a few of those press-releases where this model of camera was being carried by the men.
DSLRs are NOT more environmental proof. Anybody who claims that has clearly never used both styles of cameras outside of their living-rooms. The main DSLR problem, change a lens in any dusty or harsh environment and you have to stop to clean the sensor. Been there, did that, sold them all. Condensation on mirrors, focusing-screens, and sensors in cold and damp environments. Been there, did that, sold them all. A little condensation on the mirror and shutter mechanism as the temperature of the camera drops below freezing and the whole thing is useless until you can thaw it out and dry it again. Been there, did that, sold them all. The lubricants used in DSLR zoom lenses has to be viscous enough to hold their chosen setting in position if you change the angle of the lens. Those lubricants turn into cement in cold temperatures. Been there, did that, sold them all. No, DSLRs are NOT more environmental proof. Contrary to your inexperienced opinion and also contrary to anyone's opinion the same as yours.
I know what I'm doing when I select my equipment. I've been a pro nature photographer all my life. It sounds like you haven't even been near cameras. I also don't machine-gun shoot either. That's why I get so many keepers. An average of 255 shots a day (70,000 in 9 months) is nothing when I'm concentrating on a unique species or documenting a new environment. In particularly interesting habitats up to 1,000 individual photos a day is not uncommon. The month I spent documenting some of the rarest orchid species in the world (including *the* rarest specimen in the world) where few, if no, humans have ever traveled before netted even more shots than that per day. When I'm working an interesting habitat I can shoot 24 hours around the clock. Many species only appear at certain hours of the day. You have to be up when they are. The chance of that location, that hour, that day, that weather, that season, and that species may never coincide again during your travels. Get 'em when you can, and get 'em good. Making sure that you have a camera that can put up with anything in any situation, including IR night photography and IR video modes in your P&S camera for those nocturnal species.
I know exactly what I'm doing and exactly which camera is perfectly right for the job. Contrary to your misguided, misinformed, and inexperienced opinion.
|
