I respectfully have a beef with digital photography..

[BKSinAZ]

I respectfully have a beef with digital photography, although let me make it clear that the beef is not with the fine people who use digital.

I own a digital camera as well as some nice 35mm Nikon gear. I've shot both digital and 35mm for years, more than enough to have formed this opinion.

With digital almost all pictures come out crystal clear as long as your not jumping up and down while taking the picture. Anyone can take a good picture with a Digital camera. Unlike negative or slide photography, I feel digital photograpy has absolutly no challenges. Just point and shoot. As long as the shooter has a good subject and has an eye for good composition, the pictures seem to always come out perfect. Virtually no skill level is needed.

My biggest beef is when when I see a digital image in any critique forum asking for everyone's opinion on the image. With a digital image, what can I critique? "hummmm....yea your picture is crystal clear. Nice image" Wippy do!! You recorded a image. It almost angers me to be asked to critique a digital image.

With negative or slide there is a higher skill level needed. From an artistic stand point, more can be done to record an image. Unlike digital, a image can be recorded as the photographer wants the veiwer to see it.

I realize I will probably get shot in the back while walking down the street for writing this, but what do you all think?

[Bonkers]

The difference between a digital camera and a film camera is the image "receptacle", for lack of a better word. Film cameras use a film, digital cameras use a sensor, that is programmed to act like film in most ways.

You still need to adjust light, shutter speed, aperture, etc. I know this because I take lots of photos of things that require a tripod and slower shutter speeds.

The only thing you eliminate with digital photography is waste.

And now that digital cameras are rapidly approaching that 16-megapixel milestone that supposedly is the equivalent resolution of film, there will be no excuse for buying film cameras anymore....that is, unless you're one of those anti-technology folk!

[Axle]

Everybody's entitled to their own opinon. But you have to remember that even 35mm can be as easy as digital, a point and shoot camera to a SLR set on full automatic.

And I have seen digital work that far rivals my own. I still use 35mm simply because I have a pile of equipment for that, sure I could sell it all off and get a nice digital slr, but at the time I don't want to. It's wise to start off using 35mm so you get the technique and process down on how to use light, colour, composion, once you get it, there's no reason why not to switch up to digital especally when you're shooting so much film they know you by name at the developing lab (yeah, that's me).

Digital is just another medium for the same artist method.

[adina]

So basically what you're saying is because someone shoots digital they have absolutely no skill?

I think if you do a search, you'll find everyones opinion on this, as it has been discussed time and time again. No reason to hash it out one more time.

adina

[Sebastian]

Yet another uninformed, brash, flame-baiting post from someone who simply doesn't know any better, or does but likes to stir things up. Move on people, nothing to see here...

[Janie]

Yet another uninformed, brash, flame-baiting post from someone who simply doesn't know any better, or does but likes to stir things up. Move on people, nothing to see here...

Well, he should look at my new series I just posted - all with a digital SLR and in slow speed! You can have complete control over a digital SLR once you figure out how to use it! ;)

[Michael Fanelli]

I respectfully have a beef with digital photography, although let me make it clear that the beef is not with the fine people who use digital.

I own a digital camera as well as some nice 35mm Nikon gear. I've shot both digital and 35mm for years, more than enough to have formed this opinion.

With digital almost all pictures come out crystal clear as long as your not jumping up and down while taking the picture. Anyone can take a good picture with a Digital camera. Unlike negative or slide photography, I feel digital photograpy has absolutly no challenges. Just point and shoot. As long as the shooter has a good subject and has an eye for good composition, the pictures seem to always come out perfect. Virtually no skill level is needed.

My biggest beef is when when I see a digital image in any critique forum asking for everyone's opinion on the image. With a digital image, what can I critique? "hummmm....yea your picture is crystal clear. Nice image" Wippy do!! You recorded a image. It almost angers me to be asked to critique a digital image.

With negative or slide there is a higher skill level needed. From an artistic stand point, more can be done to record an image. Unlike digital, a image can be recorded as the photographer wants the veiwer to see it.

I realize I will probably get shot in the back while walking down the street for writing this, but what do you all think?

Sorry, but you are very wrong. Digital allows people an unprecedented amount of control over an image, much more than any film camera could ever provide. So, with slide or oprint film, you snap the photo and let the lab do all the work for you... what is that?

The key here is simple, what is photography all about, the image or the equipment? Your argument is equipment oriented, equipment and method are more important than the image.. You know, the same almost paranoid point of view was expressed by programmers when Windows and the Mac became popular: now anyone can use a computer without having to learn all the details of a UNIX command line. How dare they! Microsoft's Visual Basic really flamed their backsides, now anyone could code solid applications faster and more reliably without "paying their dues."

The bottom line? There are no extra points awarded for doing things the hard way. Judge the image, not the method used to get it.

[mjs1973]

The bottom line? There are no extra points awarded for doing things the hard way. Judge the image, not the method used to get it.

I couldn't agree more with this. I have taken some great shots with film, and digital (at least I think they are great). Are the film shots better than the digitals, just because they were captured on film? I think not.

The tools we use to create our art, is a personal choice we each have to make for our own reasons. Your choice may be differant than mine, but that doesn't make it write or wrong. To each his own. The final results is what matters the most.

[almo]

I own a digital camera as well as some nice 35mm Nikon gear. I've shot both digital and 35mm for years, more than enough to have formed this opinion.

Virtually no skill level is needed.



I realize I will probably get shot in the back while walking down the street for writing this, but what do you all think?

What is respectful about this?

[iJoe]

what about exposure latitude?

print film has the most slack for exposure in any medium
slide film is much less
digital is even less than slide

[Lava Lamp]

[QUOTE=BKSinAZ]I respectfully have a beef with digital photography...QUOTE]


Troll. I am living proof that you can take bad pictures with digital. I can give you a few thousand examples if you like.

[92135011]

there is some truth in what this person is saying.
In film photography, typically one would be forced to think more. If you dont think, you take lousy shots, wasting film and money. With digital, you can take as much as you want and get more good shots out of luck. Peoples minds change when they realize that the images can simply be deleted.

I can definately say that about myself. With film, I force myself to be a bit more careful. Think about exposure, DOF, and everything else a lot more carefully because I cannot do 5 shots of each thing as it burns away too much film.

[Franglais]

I think that the process as a whole has improved. This is not a digital vs film thing, it's about the whole process.

I'm finding that some subjects I shoot every year at this time are coming out better with my D70+RAW+Nikon Capture than with my F100+film+film scanner. The intelligence built into the system means that I'm getting closer to what I want automatically and adding my personal adjustment is easier.

This doesn't mean that every possible scene will come out better on digital. I stll have to have the experience to recognise when the process is going to fail and I have to do something else.

I do agree that having to make an effort is good - it makes me more careful in the whole process. I spent this afternoon at Paris Gay Pride and I was so careless, I hardly even noticed the light, I just left the flash on full auto and bashed away. The results are okay - but it's not the same thing as when I used to use the Leica and I anxiously searched out every patch of shade to ensuring that my subjects were well lit.

Is this the sort of thing you're talking about?

Charles

[Axle]

The bottom line? There are no extra points awarded for doing things the hard way. Judge the image, not the method used to get it.

Exactly! It's the person behind the camera, more than the camera itself.

[almo]

The bottom line? There are no extra points awarded for doing things the hard way. Judge the image, not the method used to get it.

"A modern, digital camera is just as stupid as anything else. Nothing out there is smarter than experience and knowing what you want to achieve, no matter how much it cost or how many "zones" it meters." - Sebastian Szyszka

[tomasito]

I see three major disadvantage for digital vs. film. 1st., storage for digital file... you need to have plenty I mean plenty. 2nd., many pros and amatures using their digital camera as I called (a machine gun style) load shot and hope for the best. And finally, in digital you shot something and you may not liking it therefore you may hit the delete it button. Unlike film you may not like it today, but maybe down the road it will be worth a lot .... just looked it the turn of the century images or just ten years ago... those images were preserved... in digital I'm not sure how much you'll preserve for the future. Don't get me wrong I'm not against digital, it certainly has some advantage in many field...
regards, tamas

[adina]

[QUOTE=Lava Lamp

Troll. I am living proof that you can take bad pictures with digital. I can give you a few thousand examples if you like.[/QUOTE]


Lava Lamp,

You Rock!!

[mdmc]

Okay, okay, I'm guilty! I shoot things this way and that way and see what I get and hoping for a suprise good image confident that it's not costing me $6-10 a roll for film.
What a pity things have gotten easier
Thanks for the beef,
I'm gonna go have a hamburger!
Mark.
BTW, pics are posted here from film and digital, I cant tell the diff, can you?

[almo]

BTW, pics are posted here from film and digital, I cant tell the diff, can you?

I usually can, but I have been surprised at times.

[mdmc]

I usually can, but I have been surprised at times.

Dang, I knew I was stickin my neck strap out on that one
Mark.

[92135011]

Okay, okay, I'm guilty! I shoot things this way and that way and see what I get and hoping for a suprise good image confident that it's not costing me $6-10 a roll for film.
What a pity things have gotten easier
Thanks for the beef,
I'm gonna go have a hamburger!
Mark.
BTW, pics are posted here from film and digital, I cant tell the diff, can you?

nope...but keep in perspective the size of the image and lack of resolution with any computer screen

[Lionheart]

is that you haven't shot enough of either 35mm or digital. Period. Either that or you need to work on your digital photographic skills to match your skill level with a 35mm camera. If you've shot enough of either, you would realize a photo is a photo is a photo. It takes the same skills to "record" an image on film as it does to a digital sensor. Exposure basics apply the same to digital as it does to film. The digital darkroom is quicker to use, and can do more, but requires no less skill than dark room photography. While I am not a a "pro", I done enough of this over the past 16 years (including darkroom processing and printing in color) to know that photography essentially hasn't changed, even if the "film" has. Digital cameras haven't made picture taking easier, just more convenient for post processing and viewing. Camera manufacturers made photography easier a long time ago with all the automated 35mm autofocus SLR's in the days before digital took off.

[Michael Fanelli]

Ack! I can't resist!

I see three major disadvantage for digital vs. film. 1st., storage for digital file... you need to have plenty I mean plenty.

Its a good thing that storage is dirt cheap. Cheaper, I'd bet, than providing the conditions necessary for film to survive without damage. You know, like being very careful how many times you project a slide. Or having the right temperature and humidity. Like avoiding mold, mildew, and even mice. Plus, digital makes as many perfect identical backups for the truly paranoid.

2nd., many pros and amatures using their digital camera as I called (a machine gun style) load shot and hope for the best.

The same thing happens with film and cameras with high fps rates such as my old EOS-3... except that you are limited to 36 frames. This has nothing do with film or digital.

And finally, in digital you shot something and you may not liking it therefore you may hit the delete it button. Unlike film you may not like it today, but maybe down the road it will be worth a lot

At a seminar many years ago, it was John Shaw who said (paraphrasing): "Unlike wine, bad photos don't get better with age."

[adina]

Ack! I can't resist!


At a seminar many years ago, it was John Shaw who said (paraphrasing): "Unlike wine, bad photos don't get better with age."

The only time I would think this would be relevant is in a photojournalistic enviroment. And not that a bad photo would get better, but that a useless photo would become useful. For example, the photo of Clinton and Monica taken at an event before their relationship was public knowledge. Digital photog may have just seen the president hugging an intern, nothing special, and deleted it. Little while later, when the sh!t hit the fan, that photo may have been useful.

[Michael Fanelli]

The only time I would think this would be relevant is in a photojournalistic enviroment. And not that a bad photo would get better, but that a useless photo would become useful. For example, the photo of Clinton and Monica taken at an event before their relationship was public knowledge. Digital photog may have just seen the president hugging an intern, nothing special, and deleted it. Little while later, when the sh!t hit the fan, that photo may have been useful.

Does that mean that all photojournalists keep all shots, film or digital, ever taken "just in case"? For every Monica there thousands and thousands of just plain garbage. Only a true pack rat could cope with all those frames!