Another Reason Why Digital May Be Better

[jeremy_tok]

You've heard it all. Instant feedback, live histograms, vanishingly

low operating costs, instant turn-around time...

 

But how do you explain the fact that PN's top rated photos are

overwhelmingly shot in digital? Do lay people simply like digital

pictures better? How often do Leica shots make it to the top?

 

It doesn't seem to be an issue with better colour either. Lots of

greyscale shots make it ot the top.

[frank granovski]

But how do you explain the fact that PN's top rated photos are overwhelmingly shot in digital? Because they cannot afford a Leica? Because they don't know better? Because they want to be cool? I'll think about it for a while.

[shoebox]

No offense but I found this topic a bit boring. It's been brought up a couple of times

before.

 

I use exclusively a mechanical camera to take pictures. I see an oppotunity for a picture, a

nice composition instead of histograms and other techno stuffs. I like the feel of using my

camera. I like to stroke the rewind crank after each picture. I do it for my personal

pleasure so I don't mind doing darkroom works.

 

I don't mean digital is bad. What I mean is as long as you enjoy what you are doing, why

bother what other people use, what other people like? Just use whatever you feel like to

and shoot some films (or filled up some memory cards, external hard-drives... whatever).

[pics]

If you take a look around I'd say photo.net is a predominantly a digital shooter's website with the vast majority of people here using digital. So lets say 75% of the members are using a digital camera then it would be reasonable to expect a majority of the TRP to be digital photos. On a side note I wouldn't draw any correlation between photo.net rating trends and any factual information regarding photography.

[al_kaplan1]

Ask yourself that same question again in 20 year when your CD's have long since degraded to the point where they're unreadable, or you can't find anything at the computer store to even read the dang things anymore. You'll always be able to pump light through a negative.

[hugh_sakols]

There is a BIG difference between viewing a 72 dpi image from a digital elf and a 12x18

inch print (which for many is a small print). I'm not saying that great images can't be

made even from a 3.0 megapixel camera but that you will rarely see these images

published or printed larger than a 5x7 or 8x10. Does this make them bad images - NO.

If all I strived for was to make web shots, I would only use a compact digital camera.

 

Keep in mind that photographers have different reasons and goals for producing images.

For example, I always keep my campera on a tripod for landscapes and use fuji velvia.

Does it make it better - not for street photography or photojournalism. Whats better a

wonderfully composed 5x7 or a sharp as nails 16x20 - I can't answer that - it depends on

what you want to do with your image. I'm a film user who sees myself going digital when I

can afford it - $5000 for a camera body is a bit much. Of course I'm interested in the

process of printing.

[arthuryeo]

I have no doubt the top photos made it there because they are beautiful in the eyes of the general public. Furthermore, I have absolutely no doubt that Leica-R body together with its string of lenses can match or exceed those in the top photos.

 

Now, the M system is made for compactness and is used for different purpose. In terms of macro shots of flowers, landscape work, it can match or exceed but with more effort.

 

I think the problem lies not in what the Leica equipment can do but in the population of Leica-M owners submitting photos for critique versus the rest. First, how many people can afford to own Leica equipment versus how many own Nikons & Canons?

Second, how many Leica user in PN would actually submit photos for critque in the general area? At least, the guys in this forum seem to prefer the NW/W submission than the general critique areas in their accounts.

 

Furthermore, do you think the general mass public can truly appreciate Henri Cartier-Bresson and Eugene Smith type of photos? I seriously doubt it but that's where Leica excels in. That said, do you think submitting HC-B style type of street photos will get you anywhere in the general critique areas? I think such photos taste different to general public.

[feli]

Most of the stuff that is top rated has been Photoshopped to death.

Most people here don't shoot that style.

 

feli

[pensacolaphoto]

Are we supposed to change our tastes and follow digital users just because digital photos make it to the top at PN? To me, most importantly is that I enjoy photography and that I enjoy the cameras and lenses that I have. If I were a professional photographer working for some journal, I may prefer digital to get the job done more efficiently for that journal.

[eliot_rosen1]

This is a mediocre troll at best. I've seen much better.

[daniel_taylor]

The top photos are overwhelmingly digital for a reason most film fans do not want to hear. Practice makes perfect whether you're talking about photography, or painting, or music, or any learned skill. And photographers with digital cameras simply out shoot and out practice their film counterparts. They improve their skills faster and have a larger body of work to draw from. It's not just Photo.net that has most of the top spots at any given moment occupied by digital. And people aren't voting those images into the top spots simply because they say "digital".

 

It's easy to pat one's self on the back and say that the top photos are "just what the masses like" or "don't look good printed" or "are photoshopped to death." Reality is that much of what's being put out by serious amateurs today would be considered high quality pro work just 10 years ago. I've been in photography long enough to notice an upward trend in the quality of work from serious amateurs, coinciding with the growth of digital.

 

It's not that the Leica body can't take a great shot. It's that the DSLR owner is more likely to be out shooting several times each week, if not every day. And if you want to be great at anything, that's how you do it: every single day.

[jay ott]

Your premise is false. All photos on PN are digital. Film users scan their films which means that some digital sensor is involved somewhere in the process.<p>

 

Compositon is composition regardless if it was photographed on digital to begin with or digitized later. "Garbage in, garbage out" is the great equalizer between the two mediums.<p>

 

Try this little experiment. Put an SLR on a tripod and try to make the worst composition you possibly can. Without moving your tripod, take the SLR off and put a DSLR on it and shoot. Compare the two shots. Both should be equally bad, only the medium has changed.

[john_amiet2]

I think this, and other similar threads need to address the real issue.

 

ie. WHEN is digital, or analog, the best choice, not WHY.

 

We all know that digital is better for some purposes. We also know that analog is better for other purposes. I don't believe the REASONS are going to change in a hurry, but WHEN to use which, is probably the hardest decicion for some of us to make. A seroius approach to this POV may be more productive, IMHO.

[ronald_moravec1]

They are up there because you can get them up with no effort. Therefore there are more of them. You are not subject to the bad consumer processing most people find, so they turn out decently.

 

Real photogs have to develope and scan, a much longer process even if you have a darkroom.

[feli]

> It's easy to pat one's self on the back and say that the top photos are "just what the

>masses like" or "don't look good printed" or "are photoshopped to death." Reality is that

>much of what's being put out by serious amateurs today would be considered high

>quality pro work just 10 years ago. I've been in photography long enough to notice an

>upward trend in the quality of work from serious amateurs, coinciding with the growth

>of digital.

 

 

About 10 years ago there was a book out called "Paintbox", or something to that effect. It's

been a while. Regardless, it was a collection of heavily manipulated, often photorealistic

images, that were generated on the "Paintbox" system, in the dark days of Photoshop 1.0

or earlier. It's not exactly straight photography, but more a style of graphic design or what

used to be called photomontage. No better or worse than straight photography; just a

different discipline. For people who are interested in this type of work, digital cameras are

a gift from heaven for several reason. The lack of grain is one and the ability to quickly

photograph many different elements that can be combined is another. Digital is also very

good at maco work, which is another important element for this type of work. In recent

years there has been an explosion of the use of Photoshop. Back when I went to art school

you worked with ink, paint and paper. Today students use Photoshop. Manipulating

images in this manner is very popular and second nature to a whole generation of

shooters. Photo.net seems to be a gathering place for people who share this interest. if

you want to see a constant stream of rangefinder style work, take a look at the LUG or

rangefindner forum.

[vuk_vuksanovic]

jeremy.

<br><br>

you are in big trouble if you really think photonet ratings are any sort of indicator of photographic quality. next time you're out on the streets around lunch-time, have a look where most people are going and let us know if it's an indicator of haute cuisine.

<br><br>

in spite of the greater effort in processing/scanning, i still choose to shoot film for aesthetic reasons that are very important to me. if, on the other hand, my aim was to gain the approval of photonet masses, i'd be doing glittery water droplets on something like a digital "rebel", applying 5 photoshop filters and setting up a complicated, kitchy border (usually, thick black withthin white inside, followed by a little more black--it evokes the velvet oil painting look very effectively).

<br><br>

btw--there is some fun to be had with a digital camera. i've even experienced a bit of my own:<br><a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/pentax/istds/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/pentax/istds/</a>

[cheec]

Jeremy, the fact that PN's top rated photos are overwhelmigly shot in digital simply means

that more PN photographers are using digital cameras these days.

 

Take a look through the past years POWs (picture of the week), you'll find that most, if not

all, are shot on film. I feel that the quality of pictures that made it to POW have not

changed (although it has become super-saturated artsy-fartsy these days) but it's the

camera models that changed.

[gabrielma]

Wal-Mart is incredibly popular and has unbelievable high traffic. Should all stores turn into Wal-Marts?

[fjords]

In the 70's, artists made intentional paintings of bad photographs, and now we have

photograhers intentionaly producing photos that look like unintentional bad paintings.

Ignorance is sweet, and feels good, but is a waste of kleenex and ky jelly, and is

contributing to global warming.

[gary_woodard]

I think digital appeals to the computer crowd, you know all the technical stuff,

PN is an internet site to be found only on computers, most film people can

take computers or leave em, more less spend 8hrs staring at the bloody

screen. I got involved with photography from the love of image making and

the feel of a fine camera and the beauty of viewing a chrome, the digital thing

is young and intreging but nothing like the power of film and photography.

Times change and stuff does too. I'm glad i got into it when I did, I would

probable pass on the plastic look of digital, and the 235 page instruction

manuals and the funky camera bodies were I to do consider it today.

[curtis_newport]

"Real photogs have to develope and scan..."

 

Ok. You win.

And REAL drivers drive horses. Automobiles are for "fake" drivers.

 

I don't consider myself a "real" photographer (yet). But I define them by their talent, training and experience, not by the tools they use.

[braden_barclay]

Response to Another Reason Why Digital May Be Better

 

The reason is simple; there is currently a huge 'wow' factor in what you can accomplish with a digital camera and a little photoshop manipulation. Solid darkroom knowledge will be a rare and sought-after skill in the future, and most of us will then be at the fore-front! I also agree with the comment regarding the fact that many of these highly rated digital shots wouldn't hold a candle in a gallery to a 12x18 hand printed.

[vuk_vuksanovic]

gary.

<br><br>

part of what makes art interesting and awe-inspiring is the difficulty of the craft. the more simple and automated photography becomes, the more it will lose its artistic value. i don't mean this simply form an economic perspective (price of pictures) but rather the value of engaging in the effort. i've already come to terms with the fact that photography is now pretty much worthless as a skilled craft and that's why i think the best strategy is to approach the hobby as an entirely personal endeavour and in the most complictaed/antiquated way possible. the joy of shooting something through my 1957, $5 (on ebay) russian lens that surpasses what anyone can do on his $1,000 digital "rebel" (talk about an orwellian name), or even something 10 times the price, is quite amusing.

[Brad_]

<I>Solid darkroom knowledge will be a rare and sought-after skill in the future, and most of

us will then be at the fore-front!</I><P>

 

No doubt along with those highly sought-after slide rule operators...

[vuk_vuksanovic]

<i>"I don't consider myself a "real" photographer (yet). But I define them by their talent, training and experience, not by the tools they use."</i>--<b>Curtis Newport</b>

<br><br>

curtis.

<br><br>

i suspect that a "real" photographer will know enough to understand how choice of tools is critical to the look of the image he wants to capture. i'm probably not a "real" photographer by your standards, <b>but</b> even i find it necessary to own several 50mm lenses.