Digital photo

[irina_rudneva]

Some people think, that digital photo is a shame of photo art. But i think,that

it is future of photo.The digital photo simplifies actions. Also it enables to

be shown faster to talent.

Probably it is a problem for some people?

[sknowles]

The camera is the tool of the photographer, it's not the criteria to judge the value of the

product. Do we judge painters by their brushes and paint brands and types? We don't see

the technical information listed with each painting, so why do we expect this with

photography?

 

I think you can find all sorts of reasons why some photographers pay more attention to

the tools and argue with those that discount the tools to focus on the results. It's common

in other fields too, so it's not unique to photography. Personally, I think it's also a

commercial thing where companies sell new is better concept, and we assume older is

worse. This may apply to the tools but not necessarily to the results, where some make the

wrong connection.

 

I think some people make this connection on a personal level and then mistakenly

translates it to others. It's the nature of people, and sometimes you just have to take a

breath and realize what they're saying isn't reality, just a personal view and/or opinion. It's

similar to cars. Does a new car make you a better driver? Or does it just make you feel like

a better driver? Is a driver of an older car better or worse than one with a new car?

 

If you had two cameras from the same company, one digital and one film, which operated

the same except for the output, would it make a difference in your photography? Would

you see differently with each one based on what you know? Since they are slightly

different because of the technology, it changes how you work, and may effect the results a

little because they work differently and produce slightly different results (eg. film vs digital

latitude and color balance), but there will be more commonality in the results than

differences.

 

I finished reading Daniel Gilbert's book, "Stumbling on Happiness", and he makes an

excellent point where we focus far too much on differences negating the commonalities

which overwhelm the differences. I think this applies to some people's perception of

cameras saying they make differences that determines if one is a better or worse than the

other.

 

Good question. And cool photos. Keep going. Photos like yours have a quality and

longevity that outlasts many of the popular photos. Once things change, the only

remanents are the photos.

[irina_rudneva]

Thank you for your answer.It is sore point for many people. At first we should look at result and presence of talent.

[jerry_kirkwood]

Some people approach photography as a hobby, meaning they enjoy the entire process from start to end. Some collect cameras and like the solid old metal cameras with all manual controls. Some like to develop film and watch a print come up in a tray of developer.

 

Yes you are right, digital is undeniably the future of photography. Until there is no more film, there will be a choice. And as long as there is a choice, and internet forums where people can espouse their own opinions, there will be endless (and pointless)personal attacks and name-calling. For me the enjoyment of photography starts with the moment I pick up the camera and ends when the print is in the frame. I don't expect anyone to buy my prints or praise them, that's not why I do it. If it's impossible for some people to understand and accept that, I don't care.

[sknowles]

<p />I like Jerry's response. I've been a part-time amateur-serious photographer for 36+

years and enjoy it for the field side, getting the photograph. I retired recently to focus on

the product side for my own pleasure. I developed my Website for my own expression and

produce photocards for friends and family. Otherwise, like Jerry, it's a personal activity. It's

clear in the statements about my photography, and something some more serious and/or

professional forget when they criticize my images. I appreciate good criticism to improve

the results, as I've had over the years, but other criticism is simply their views and

opinions.

 

<p />That's where a photographer has to make a choice, shooting for yourself and/or

shooting for clients, and where the difference is between photographers. Some, like the

full-time professional and commercial ones, enjoy the work and producing as a career and

life, where some, like myself, enjoy it as much, but it's not the majority or whole of our

careers and life. It's still as important when we do the work, it's just not a full-time job.

 

<p />If you notice, many of the renown photographers didn't start in photography,

although it's a great profession as we know from its history, but started in fields where

photography provided an avenue for personal and professional expression.

<a href="http://www.mountainlight.com/">Galen Rowell</a> is one of the most noted

photographers in this vain. Read his essays and you'll note the equipment was important

but not the story. Although he used highend cameras, mostly for features and reliability,

he simplified them to make the fieldwork easy to get the images he wanted. I think he's

also an excellent example where you can make the case film versus digital debate is

irrelevant, he would still produce the same image because of what he did with the camera.

 

<p />Good luck.

[klix]

In photography, the end justifies the means. Digital does facilitate the means, but in the end it's the result that counts.

 

A great percentage of my own photography is digital (with a Nikon D200); however, for reasons that are not important, I still shoot B&W film (35mm and 120) and develop them in my darkroom.

 

Also, I still shoot slides (35mm and 120) because to me, personally, there is something magical about viewing, through a loupe, a well-exposed slide on a light table.

 

 

KL

[manjo]

Topics like this used to light fuses ... today the responses have less teeth. If you already think its a problem with people why even post such a question ? if you know the answer why ask the question? :-) I dont think there is any comparison between Film and Digtal image coz they were taken with 2 diff medium, it is up to the photographers taste what medium he would like to use to show is art/talent etc...

 

De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum

 

In english

 

Taste is not a matter of discussion.

[hique]

Irina, you are completely right.

 

The reasons why some people don't like digital photos are mostly passional, almost never

racional.