nospam wrote:
> In article
> <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc1955f5@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo
> <grandepatzer@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
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:NmrlvXBVZU7KFAYN@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <311020091944469876%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes
>>In article
>><73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc1955f5@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo
>><grandepatzer@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?
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:311020091944469876%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article
> <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc1955f5@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo
> <grandepatzer@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.
>
> read the rest at http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=789
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
"eNo" <grandepatzer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc1955f5@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
>
> read the rest at http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=789
<
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
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:311020091944469876%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article
> <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc1955f5@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo
> <grandepatzer@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.
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" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:311020091944469876%nospam@nospam.invalid...
>> In article
>> <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc1955f5@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo
>> <grandepatzer@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
? "Allen" <allent@austin.rr.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:rLydnWbB2IJwYHPXnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> whisky-dave wrote:
>> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:311020091944469876%nospam@nospam.invalid...
>>> In article
>>> <73b33b91-0db3-47a7-9ab3-7f4bdc1955f5@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, eNo
>>> <grandepatzer@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.
>
> read the rest athttp://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=789
I bet it is about the same.
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).
Re: Is photography going downhill with digital? 
Linear Mode
