ABC World News article on digital photography.

Did anyone happen to catch ABC's World News this evening? It had

a very brief news story on digital photography. Not so much the

technology or brands, etc but more along the lines of "are we

throwing away good pictures". They gave examples of some of the

most iconic photographs made through out the years that were more or

less accident photos or werent "keepers" at that time but later went

on to document huge world turning events. My interpretation of the

article was that some folks just click away with digital cameras and

as quickly as they press the shutter they delete photos without

taking the time to really study what they captured. I still havent

entered this digital age (other than a cheap P+S for ebay purposes).

What do you think? Are folks to quick to delete photos from their

memory cards? Often times I sit in my game room just looking back

through the many years worth of photos that I have accumulated.

Sure, most werent keepers. Only a small percentage ever get blown up

and framed. Even so the feelings and emotions that get generated

from looking at these photos are wonderful. Something I'm afraid

some digital shooters maybe missing out on. I like having a stack

of 24 or 36 photos in front of me. I love passing them around the

room and seeing the laughs they generate. I quess its possible that

some digital shooters are quick to delete and if not, may not ever

print anything but the "keepers". Any thoughts?

For me Digital is still new and I am still "finding" my groove with digital so I save every shot and open it up on the PC with photoshop to see if there is anything worth saving or working into a nice shot.

 

As for your stack of prints, I print a very small percentage of my digital images, i just toss them on CD Roms for storage and future review. I think you are right about people not printing their images, but at the same time, I enjoy them more on a 19" monitor than a 4x6 or 8x10 and I can email them around the world.

I think the author may have had a conclusion for which they wanted to generate support. While erasing memory may very well "lose" images, the typical consumer is likely to consign their shots to a black hole shoe box under the bed and I hardly find it convining that images will emerge from there to stun the world either. That also assumes that all the images are erased and not stored. With CDs being cheap, I (for one anyways) tend to save all of them and eliminate very few. I think when you get to high volume professionals and amateurs, they don't print everything either.

I must say that with the cheap price of hard drives, and burnable CD's and DVD's, it is much easier to store and re-view old pictures. I delete very few, and keep my special shots in organised folders on the hard drive, but I also have a few folders for those that perhaps may have been thrown away. I use external hard drives, a 20gb Freecom and more recently a 120gb Iomega, My special photo's are on both hard drives and copies on CD in a fireproof safe. I would hate to wake up one day and find ALL my pictures GONE. I do feel that people should consider the implications of putting all your eggs in one basket, but that could also be the same with printed pictures. At least a small external hard drive enables you to keep the lot somewhere safe.

 

I do believe that you are more likely to view digital pictures more, especially with the ease of transfering them here and there, and of being able to view them on other peoples PC's, TV's and sending by e-mail. It has definately revolutionised the photography industry, and as has been mentioned on here, these digital photo's have their own unique characteristics, perhaps we should embrace those by appreciating their place in photography rather than keep trying to compare them with film.

I concur that it's often difficult to assess the quality or "keep-worthiness" of any image only by reviewing it on the digicam's LCD. That's why I bought enough CF cards to enable me to shoot to my heart's content without worrying how much storage I have left. It's much more informing to review the images on a PC screen later, and occasionally I do find that surprisingly good image I might have otherwise erased. Whether any image I ever take becomes of historical importance (as one respondent alluded) is immaterial; what matters to me is, well, what matters to me.

 

Note of caution to Peter Burns: please realize that just because a safe is fireproof doesn't mean it's heat resistant. It's entirely possible for your fireproof safe to safely survive a fire, and yet for any CDs stored inside to become irretrievably warped from the heat.

Thanks Jon, The safe I have is not very expensive, it is the Sentry 1250, more for documents rather than a specialised data fireproof safe, but perhaps better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. I saw then in WalMart when I was in the USA, even cheaper for you lucky people :-) How on earth we survive over this side of the pond is beyond me, now where do I find one of those green card things :-)

i used the LCD to check for sharpness, exposure, in focus or not, and i delete the ones that don't fit the criteria or i just really hate. anything that is still sharp or still "tunable" into something cool in photoshop i save. but rite now im shooting film more and more cuz its just cool.

Interestingly enough I remember an interview with the photographer who took the famous RED BERET Monica Lewinski photo. He commented that many of the other photographers had the same shot but they were shooting digitally and deleted the seeminly "through away" image (he was shooting film). I also notice in my own photographs, that the photos I think are most interesting and impactful change with perspective of time. So I agree with the observation that if we delete the file there is a -chance- we may be deleting a bit of history.

The best way to archive your digital photos is on a DVD. Every time you get 4 GB worth of

photos, burn a DVD and go down to the bank and deposit it into your safety deposit box.

Sure beats trying to organize a slide or negative collection. If you were really paranoid you

could burn 2 DVDs and deposit each one into a different bank.

Digital shooters tend to shoot almost anything rather than worry about how worthy an image may be. It is also possible that more people are shooting rather than a smaller group who perhaps took photography more seriously.

 

Perhaps the average quality and value of a digital image is significantly lower due to these factors?

 

If someone grabs a truly great shot and doesn't print it, they are a lot tighter than I am which doesn't say much. Monitors have about 72 dpi and prints start in excess of 300 dpi with continous tone instead of dots.

 

Ramblings bought to you by John