Do I need a digital camera any more

[daniel_ob]

Billions of images on just any matter can be downloaded from

internet. One can copy such images to PhotoShop and make whatever he

wish through layers,? not leaving his computer chair. Database even

further grows from minute to minute.

No one anymore ask about authenticity of digital image. They are

in ?news?, advertising, and many other commercial purpose images not

to show some truth and facts but to educate our thinking. Camera

development leads my main that soon and phone camera will capture D2X

quality. Just wedding photographer (or someone more) will go outside

to shoot for he needs likeness for his database.

Just several days ago I exposed my landscape JPG to one guy and he

asked me how long time I am in PS (photoshop)? After some explanation

he burned his TIF on screen before me saying that he do not use his

camera any more. By the way it was really wonderful and colorful his

TIF.

I am thinking to get Nikon D200 but cannot find answer what to do

with it.

Do we at all need digital cameras? What is future of digital imaging,

where DigitalSLR go and why they are investigated?

[robert_m3]

There may be millions if not billions of photos on the internet. It's completely irrelevant to my

own photography, which is not destined for the internet but for the enjoyment of my friends

and family. Why build and design any object since it's already been done. Why have kids since

there's billions of them running around.

 

Your friend liked your landscape so much he put it on his desktop. Enjoy the praise!

[mag_miksch]

<i>Do I need a digital camera any more</i> <p>

 

Nobody but you can answer this^^

[jeffrey_blake_adams]

You very well may not need one. You may find free or lisc'd images you can use. For those that need origial content, or wish to share "their" vision with the world, they will still need a way to capture their own images. Many corporations don't want to invest millions into an ad campaign and then see the same image they chose, used by another company, for them, the only answer is to commission a pro to create a unique image for them. Jeffrey

[daniel_ob]

Jeffrey

I agree with you, but what for that pro will use a camera. He can download so many ready picture: one cloud from one pic, one building from another. a basket from third,... short work in photoshop can get done he want. I saw recently a huge pic (c. 10 ft long) on the wall in one mall for perfume adds and I came close to see dots or pixels or grain (or whatever). With careful look it is visible that a woman on the pic is not a real woman but a doll worked out in photoshop to looks like a real. And many more examples. Are guys leaving camera work? I understand when someone wish to make his kids for album, or tourist session, or whatever like that, he cannot download it. But who really need D2X or D200 or Canon Mark for it and where that D2X go. No one will buy thousands of dollars camera for kids or some birthday as long as he just like to spend. To pay today $5000? Is it just to have it and like it for several months until someone shows me his D3X or D4X (if we will see it ever). Think about pixels in D1 Nikon: revolution is here.... Today 18MPx in Canon Mark. I just was surprise when I saw pic from hp camera imported into photoshop and "grain" removed, sharpness improved,.... That is I wonder where is a place for D200.

[terry_rory]

A couple of recent threads of mine (in another forum) featuring an area of countryside and a church some 10 miles away from where I live, induced an American gentleman to ask for directions to it from London so that he and his new wife could visit it.

 

He and his bride live in the USA and were taking a trip to England and needed ideas for places to visit. I do not pretend it was my photography 'skill' but the place itself (the little Saxon church especially) that made two people from thousands of miles away on another continent want to experience a place that I love enough to want to show pictures of it to total strangers.

 

They both enjoyed their trip and the countryside, the 950 year old church and the local pub and e-mailed me to tell me about it (with their own photos) some time later.

 

If none of us record, interpret and present our personal experience of place and people to others, then we just end up being consumers of anonymous corporate image fodder in the same way that some people consume corporate 'fast food fodder' rather than eat home made food prepared by (and eaten with) those we know and love.

 

I love the challenge of bringing out my experience of places I visit

in my photographs and just going home to look at someone else' ready made images is not always enough. I love the work of many photographers past and present in my bookshelves and at exhibitions and here on photo.net and other websites but not indiscriminantly and never to the exclusion of wanting to produce my own work as well.

[larrybc]

Daniel OB , nov 25, 2005; 01:33 p.m.

<br>> Jeffrey I agree with you, but what for that pro will use a

<br>> camera. He can download so many ready picture: one cloud

<br>> from one pic, one building from another. a basket from

<br>> third,... short work in photoshop can get done he want.

<br>

<br>Graphic designers have had this ability for years and yet there is still work to be had for pro photographers.

<br>

<br>> I saw recently a huge pic (c. 10 ft long) on the wall in one

<br>> mall for perfume adds and I came close to see dots or pixels

<br>> or grain (or whatever). With careful look it is visible that

<br>> a woman on the pic is not a real woman but a doll worked out

<br>> in photoshop to looks like a real.

<br>

<br>This is nothing new.

<br>

<br>> But who really need D2X or

<br>> D200 or Canon Mark for it and where that D2X go. No one will

<br>> buy thousands of dollars camera for kids or some birthday as

<br>> long as he just like to spend. To pay today $5000?

<br>

<br>Back before digital cameras, MOST people weren't spending over $1000 for a camera unless they were professionals. But even then, there were non-professional photographers who were spending $2000+ for something like a Nikon F5 and an 80-200/2.8 lens, or a Leica M2 and lens.

<br>

<br>Nowadays, $1000 was considered an entry level price for a DSLR and people bought them in large numbers! The D70 is Nikon's best selling camera! Non-pros might balk at spending $5000 on a DSLR, but consider that the Canon 5D is $3000, and the new Nikon D200 is $1500. And a Leica M6 is still over $1000, plus another $1000 or more for a lens! The fact is, people have and will continue to spend large amounts of money, and then post on Dpreview and Photo.net the latest pictures of their kids or pets.

<br>

<br>There will continue to be professional photographers, just as there will continue to be stock agencies that continue to buy stock photos, and graphic artists who continue to use such images. If anything, I think the demand for stock images has gone up due to the low cost of publishing and the explosion of websites.

<br>

<br>larsbc

<br>

[robert_roaldi1]

Someone, somehwere, has done everything already.

[rayfraser]

An infinity of momentous images from our future remain uncaptured. Not a single digital image exists today that accurately reproduces reality as seen by a human eye. No one can predict technological advances with any certainty; however I hope to view unprecedented beauty captured by others using extended dynamic range imagers on HDR monitors in the near future.

[SCL]

Based on your approach to things as outlined in the first part of your question, no, YOU don't apparently need a digital camera because YOU seem satisfied to accept others' interpretations. The future of digital imaging is incredible and only in its infant stages. Don't waste your money on a D200 until or unless YOU find meaning to its personal use for yourself.<p> I don't have a clue what you mean when you ask why DigitalSLR are investigated.

[godfrey]

<i>.."Do we need at all digital cameras? "..</i>

<br><br>

Do you want to make photographs? If not, you don't need a camera.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[zacker]

sure, it easy to "steal" Images off the net and claim them for your own, also, its fun to lie to your family and friends and tell them you took em...if you like doing that sort of thing, sure then, you dont need a camera at all.

-zacker-

[andrew robertson]

Don't feed the trolls.

 

Do we need canvases any more? Think of all the pictures that have been painted! There

must not be any possibilities left.

 

Or do we even need a written or spoken language any more? Everything that could be said

or written has already been expressed.

 

So, jump into a volcano. Even that has been done to death.

[andrew robertson]

But to answer Daniel, obviously you don't need a camera if you don't believe you can shoot

any pictures that haven't been done before.

[walter_beck]

Famous statements proved to be embarrasing.

 

Everything that can be invented has already been invented. Not sure of the year, but it was issued by the then person in charge of the govts invention office.

 

Who will ever need more than 640k of memory? Stated by Bill Gates, enough said.

 

Point is, if we only use what has already been done or accept that we have all we need, we do not add or advance the human experience. Its almost mental incest to continue to rehash the work of others. I like to "buy instead of build" when needed but being out in the world experiencing life and capturing it as best I can with my camera, is where its at for me.

[billfoster]

Is every sunset the same? Is every moment the same? Do you look the same today that you did yesterday? Photography is amazing because it captures individual moments and every moment is different. There are a million pictures of El Capitan on the net. You know what? Not one of them shows what it looks like right now.

[melresnick]

If you don't enjoy going out and capturing your own images, you don't need a camera, any camera.

 

That's OK. I don't enjoy hunting, fishing, or gardening, so I buy my food in the supermarket.

 

I don't understand reason for the question. What are you asking?

[melresnick]

Follow-up: I see you just joined Photo.net on November 03, 2005. What is you interest in photography?

[robert_swagman]

There was a similar question on a literary forum I attend: everything's been written about, so why continue writing?

 

To present something from a unique point of view. To create something that expresses our opinion. For our own pride, enjoyment and satisfaction.

 

Those answers are good enough for me, although they don't cover the entire spectrum of possible viable answers.

 

If copying and pasting other people's creative works is satisfactory for you, then have at it (just don't represent it as your own, and be very familiar with copyright law). I'd get no satisfaction from it it. It would not be my work.

 

Besides, no matter how good the PhotoShopper, there's an obvious difference in a cut and paste construction, and a work of art created entirely in camera by an artistic eye that understands composition as well as the technical aspects of capturing light. When I look at an image, I ask myself, 'How could this have been done better?' and, to be perfectly honest, 'Could I have done this better?' If the answer to the second is 'No', then I want to know why - what skills do I need to improve to make that 'No' a 'Yes'.

 

But,if you even have to ask the question, I guess you don't feel the way I do, and you should probably not waste your money on a camera. There are already too many 'point and shooters' out there with completely automatic digital cameras who are willing to call themselves photographers, as it is.

 

Who cares if everybody else has a digital camera? They're not me. Or you.

 

It's either a passion, or it's not.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Daniel,

 

You underestimate the power of the frame. Many do.

 

When you frame a scene you change its perception and create

millions of differing interpretation by how ever many that view it.

The emotional depth of perception the viewer possesses will

determine the uniqueness of each framed image according to

each individual.

 

There are two meanings in an image. Yours and the viewers.

Time and one's own life perspective will change that meaning on

a continuing basis. Ever watch a movie you saw long ago and

notice it seems different? The movie didn't change, your

perception did.

 

A little experiment. Take a Sharpie marker or any thick pointed

writing tool and write your signature bigger than your hand on a

big piece of paper in the most quick and spontaneous way much

like signing a check. Make it look as ugly and scribbly as you like.

 

Place a frame big enough to overlap the edges of the signature

and move it around to create different compositions. Notice the

change in perception on how you feel about the image. Ah, the

power of the frame.

 

Doesn't matter if you shoot digital, film, Photoshop collage or

scrawl it with your foot. Each capture will be as unique as a

snowflake and always appreciated differently by those that view

it. It's infinite.

 

Just recently shot my first digicam pics of scenes in my area that

inspired me to compose and click. When I look at them all in

front of me on my monitor, they don't look like anyone elses I see

on the web. They look odd like they were shot from another

parallel universe, but boy do they look beautiful to me and that's

all that matters.

[greg s]

"that soon and phone camera will capture D2X quality"

 

Not a chance, will not happen.

 

"I am thinking to get Nikon D200 but cannot find answer what to do with it."

 

Find your answer first, then buy the camera.

[yinkamd]

This question makes no sense, and I am not sure why all the discussion. If you don't want a camera, don't get one, period. Why go to school and learn to add when a calculator can do it?

Even if your photos are the worst in the world, isn't there pride in what YOU accomplish? You can take a look and say "look what I did"?

[Allen Herbert]

Camera development leads my main that soon and phone camera will capture D2X quality.

 

So what. What's that got to do with photography?

[daniel_frost]

"Is every sunset the same? Is every moment the same?..."

Bill Foster!

your thinking is a pure digital way of concluding. In your way of thinking: all sunsets are the same, for the sunset is when I turn the light off going to sleep. In analog way interpretion of the same think is like this: every sunrise is different, every street is different, and exiting is to gain new experience,...

The poster talk about D2X, D200, and cellphone cameras. Can you conclude something differently:

To Daniel: Yes Daniel, it is a pity of getting digital cameras of high price. If you like your way it is fine to workout picture in computer alone, but to make new one I do not recomend you to go expensive: max $200. Picture quality with most expensive, as D2X, and that $200 camera will not make any diference after photoshop adjustment. Good luck.

Digital camera is investigated with a goal to make profit to manufacturer. No photographer ever asked for a such device.

[daniel_frost]

Camera development leads my main that soon and phone camera will capture D2X quality.

So what. What's that got to do with photography?

 

$5000+1000(lens) and $200

Mr. Herbert do see any difference between that two numbers?