Digital Photography??

xxxRebeccaxxx

xxxRebeccaxxx

Suspended / Banned
Messages
66
Name
Rebecca
Edit My Images
No
Hiya would like your opinions on digital photography and how the digital process has affected the photography industry!! :)
 
That's a large can of worms...

Personally think Digital Photography has opened up photography to the masses with decent photos available from Camera phones to P&S cameras which are available for next to nothing upto the pro kits that run into the thousands with the addon's running nito thousands more creating numerous David Baileys.

With a decent composition more and more people will get a superb shot.

The digital process is just the modern equivalent of playing in the darkroom, again more people have home computers and with software being freely available at no cost more people can lpay and tweak their images to get the desired effect.

This has had a big knock on effect for the pro's who can reproduce a cracking image time after time and on demand and making it harder to make a living although people will still pay for quality.

Just my opinions :shrug:
 
Its made it easy for everyone to take great photos, capturing memories and their lives, as well as it being a bit easier for pro's in terms of processing..etc.
 
Indeed!! making it harder for professionals to make a living as companys are saving alot of money via using websites such as (getty images) which allows them to pay amatuers reasonable prices for their images! sorry if i come across strong im in the middle of writing a essay for my ba hons lol:)
 
i would have thought digital being an easily transmitted medium has revolutionised photography and put it in the same category as live video transmission

xxxxi like itxxxx
 
Good luck with the exams! Can't really offer any suggestions...on a personal level, photography has turned my world upside down. No way I can put it in context though, got the camera in December 2007 and never looked back.

G.
 
LOL when I first started with a camera there was no such thing as Digital, god I sound old...

Can I remember using film yes, can I remember how I shot in film, not a bloody clue :D

Prefer digital, if I shot in film I'ld need to be a millionaire to process the film I'ld shot although would have arms like Popeye where I changeed all the film reels, 320 shots per sd card, 36 per film roll...
 
Awww i know!! but the quality is amazing!! and i love the surprise of seeing ** negs for the first time!! digital just doesnt give u that effect!!
 
xxxRebeccaxxx said:
Awww i know!! but the quality is amazing!! and i love the surprise of seeing ** negs for the first time!! digital just doesnt give u that effect!!
Click to expand...

I'ld have to disagree, if you ask any person who has seen me with a camera if I think I have a good shot I have to see it straight away, I can't wait to get it up on screen. I know it's a tad different to waiting for the neg to develop but you get the same buzz believing you've captured that superb picture...

The only downside is it doesn't take a fraction of the time to realise it didn't quite turn out how you had expected :D :D :D
 
xxxRebeccaxxx said:
what do u prefer?
Click to expand...

well that depends on a few things, like for example if i need the images straight away then i will use digital.

If however i'm shooting in black and white then i use the film camera
(photoshop is good but overall i think it's missing something)

also with film it slows me down and makes me think about each shot before i take it
:)
 
xxxRebeccaxxx said:
Have any of you used film?
Click to expand...

Yes. If it wasn't a pain in the arse to get on the computer (got to scan it first which means getting a scanner and I can't be faffed with that) and also the fact that you only have 36 on a roll and no review screen - I'd still use it. Given how many photographs I take it would begin to get expensive though, and I don't' fancy home developing either.
 
I haven't shot a digital camera for fun for at least 2 years...:cool:
 
trencheel303 said:
Yes. If it wasn't a pain in the arse to get on the computer (got to scan it first which means getting a scanner and I can't be faffed with that) and also the fact that you only have 36 on a roll and no review screen - I'd still use it. Given how many photographs I take it would begin to get expensive though, and I don't' fancy home developing either.
Click to expand...

To be honest if the LCD screen went missing from my S5 Pro I wouldn't notice...
 
xxxRebeccaxxx said:
but the quality is amazing!!
Click to expand...
It isn't just that the quality from film is amazing - it is that the manu's have managed to get people to regularly pay lots of money for the quick fix of digital imaging by making incremental 'improvements' on otherwise dead-end equipment and market it in such a way that replacing the whole camera body regularly is considered normal!

The 'revolution' was in the economic process as much as that of amateurs who can now 'instantly' bore people with their plethora of out of focus ideas with clipped highlights.
 
Voyager said:
It isn't just that the quality from film is amazing - it is that the manu's have managed to get people to regularly pay lots of money for the quick fix of digital imaging by making incremental 'improvements' on otherwise dead-end equipment and market it in such a way that replacing the whole camera body regularly is considered normal!

The 'revolution' was in the economic process as much as that of amateurs who can now 'instantly' bore people with their plethora of out of focus ideas with clipped highlights.
Click to expand...

:lol: who p'd in your cornflakes this morning?

Digital for me means instant confirmation that I have the image in the bag. Essential for work.
Quality is 'better' than film with the latest camera releases and we can even get 'medium-format' quality from a 35mm-size camera body with the D3x. So what if it doesn't have the same 'feel' as film - hardly anyone even knows what that means nowadays anyway. Totally irrelevant IMO.
Added to that the multi-off-camera flash capabilities with Nikon's CLS, then it's clear that digital is a clear winner as far as Professional photographers are concerned.

I also shoot film for fun by the way, but there's no way on God's Earth I'd ever use it for a paying job today, not if you threatened to put pins in my eyes.
 
As a wildlife enthusiast it has added an extra dimension to my days out. I i encounter something new a set of images can allow me the chance to ID it later. I did dabble a bit with film camera taken through my scope. But these cant compare with the cheapness and quantity of images i can take via digital.

A first for Britain an Eastern crowned warbler was recently Identified by an image wrongly named . The twitchers were out in force the following day :nono:
 
xxxRebeccaxxx said:
Hiya would like your opinions on digital photography and how the digital process has affected the photography industry!! :)
Click to expand...

TheNissanMan said:
That's a large can of worms...
Click to expand...

Indeed it is.

xxxRebeccaxxx said:
Indeed!! making it harder for professionals to make a living.....
Click to expand...

I agree that the advent of digital has created a very different world but, the positives outweigh the negatives in my point of view.

Digital has made photography more accessible to the masses, it's cheaper, quicker and easier to learn with, so as a result, there are more folk picking up camera's now than ever before.

I'm not one who shares any animosity toward photography being enjoyed by anyone and everyone, regardless of the level or standard of their output.

Skills are learned and nurtured, they are for everybody to obtain and not just the selected few. I think it's a fantastic feat that someone who has no prior education or training, can pick up a camera, learn, evolve and improve themselves through enjoyment, experimentation and devotion, then succeed in an honest career.

It appears that the louder complaints or fuss in relation to the digital age comes from those who have become far too accustomed or reliant on routine or formula.

Digital yields a rapid product, we really need to keep on our toes if we intend to survive in the industry. Failure to accept this is detrimental.

If you wish to survive in the digital age, you'll need to focus more on the core of the art, content, narrative, subject matter, the technique, the mechanics etc. Not only will your success rely on the understanding of technology, you'll need notable individuality, confidence, a strong style and an equal understanding/respect to the business elements.

Technologies are to be harnessed, respected and utilised, not to be blamed when the next person is taking better images or when tactics of exploitation are inflicted upon us by another agency or another corporation.

It's a bit like blaming pieces of decorated paper and rotund slabs of metal for abject greed or the existence of cars for DUI offences.

Technology is a gift and it's fate lies in the hands of it's users.

With regards to the monotonous film vs digital debate:

Use whichever medium (or a combination) that makes you happy, get's you motivated, pays the bills or maintains your momentum. Subtract any pretensions, sentimentalities or materialistic loyalties because as far as enjoyment is concerned = neither is better.

Good luck with the exams :thumbs:
 
Arkady said:
I also shoot film for fun by the way, but there's no way on God's Earth I'd ever use it for a paying job today, not if you threatened to put pins in my eyes.
Click to expand...
The digital process has fundamentally altered the way the way in which professional photographers work - and it was always going to - but what amazes me is the way in which we have gone from 'improving' the image, from the slow grainy monotones created from the large, unwieldy cameras of early photography that slowly transformed into a system that allowed individuals to capture high quality colour images with (relativity) cheap equipment to digital with a pretty large increase in equipment cost and a loss of quality that has taken the best part of this millennium to get near to an acceptable level.

With 'new' cameras (really only new sensors and software) we have people desperately looking at the resultant digital images in an attempt to show that they are 'better' than the last versions and 'worth' spending money on upgrading again (and again).

Yes, digital allows the unskilled a 'cheap' way of having a chance of creating an image they like, much in the way that an infinite number of monkeys will eventually hammer out the works of Shakespeare (and I'd have loved that opportunity when I started with photography nearly 40 years ago), but I do wonder if the skills in creating an image are being lost to the obsession with technical details and if the costs involved in the production of a few pictures are not really way larger than that from using film?
 
I used film since 1955.
Nowadays if i want to produce excellent pictures I use digital.
If I want to play with superb mechanics I revert to film.
 
Thanks for all the replies really nice to hear other peoples opinions x
 
Voyager said:
...With 'new' cameras (really only new sensors and software) we have people desperately looking at the resultant digital images in an attempt to show that they are 'better' than the last versions and 'worth' spending money on upgrading again (and again)...
Click to expand...

I've mentioned my thoughts on this a couple of times now and personally I think we've reached a watershed in terms of equipment from a purely IQ perspective...
With the Nikon D3 and D3x and Canon equivalents (sorry 'other' manufacturers - you're not even close), we now have cameras that can under the right conditions, produce sharper images than most photographers need, either for hobbyist or professional use, bearing in mind the majority of images are destined for online use or for print use below A3 size.

I've looked very hard at getting a D3s to supplement my other bodies and to be quite frank I'm going to buy another 2nd-hand D3. The money saved will go towards some new glass and flash units...
I generally find my D3 a more useful tool than my D3x, which only gets to come out of the bag if I 'think' I might want a really large image produced at a later date...

Future advances will be (I predict) limited to improved white balance detection, colour rendition and higher-ISO capability (and video capture, I guess, but I want to limit this discussion to stills, if you don't mind), along with improved off-camera flash capability...
 
Tsk, write your own essay :D :lol:

It's a pretty big topic, so I'll just comment on one of your posts:

xxxRebeccaxxx said:
Indeed!! making it harder for professionals to make a living as companys are saving alot of money via using websites such as (getty images) which allows them to pay amatuers reasonable prices for their images! sorry if i come across strong im in the middle of writing a essay for my ba hons lol:)
Click to expand...

I think you've got a bit of a one-sided view on this. If you've ever tried to get a photo accepted by a stock photo agency like Getty or Alamy, you'll see that they've got some pretty strict guidelines. It's not just a case of anyone can take a shot and get it on there. I'd imagine most of the stuff on Getty etc is from professionals rather than amateurs anyway (although I have no facts or figures to back that up I'm afraid!).

Digital photography has definitely opened up photography to a wider audience, do a search on here for the threads about giving away photos for free and you'll probably have enough material for your whole essay :D

Chris
 
Arkady said:
I think we've reached a watershed in terms of equipment from a purely IQ perspective...
With the Nikon D3 and D3x and Canon equivalents (sorry 'other' manufacturers - you're not even close), we now have cameras that can under the right conditions, produce sharper images than most photographers need, either for hobbyist or professional use, bearing in mind the majority of images are destined for online use or for print use below A3 size.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. My wife has bought a D700 and so far the results look pretty impressive. Although we've yet to see if they match up to the quality of the 20x16 Cibachrome prints from 15+ year-old slides we have on our walls.

And there in lies the rub. A few rolls of Velvia and a decent lens can produce a fantastic image for not that much money and will continue to do so as long as the medium is available. But it is not in the camera makers interest to sell kit that lasts for ages, better to sell cameras that age and are regularly replaced isn't it?
 
I was brought up on film. Shot Tri-X developed in Microdol developer. Switched to TMax when it came out For trannie shot Kodak EPP. All of this on medium format. Started digital in 2002 with an Oly E20. never looked back. Digital has made a major improvement to me . I can get my work done quicker and easier, plus I don't need a darkroom.

Like Arkady I chose the camera I use bases on the final result, the 20D has been known to come out on various occasions, and share a bag with the 5D or 1Ds.
 
This is no way an attempt in getting imformation to put into my essay btw! that would be stupid!! its purely a theory that im putting across to see what other people think! i do not believe i am in anyway one sided having used both the highest quality digital and film! its just my opinion on how it has changed the industry!

having read this report it just questioned my opinions

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/media/30photogs.html?scp=1&sq=stock photography&st=cse

but yea i do love the new mamiya 7 <3
 
xxxRebeccaxxx said:
Awww i know!! but the quality is amazing!! and i love the surprise of seeing ** negs for the first time!! digital just doesnt give u that effect!!
Click to expand...


Hi, I realise that the quote above is not your original question but I will use it as a platform to try to answer:

1. Anticipation and expectation indeed are there with digital. I use digital and film (in fact, I have just come back from an early walk along the river and finished a roll of Kodak Portra 160VC) Both film and digital are the same in that the anticipation of an excellent image or beautiful photograph is there.

2. Your original question is all about technology per se and then trying to condense a part of the technological revolution for the topic. Digital imaging was inevitable and the gearing up for it in so many ways took place years ago as people realised that spin offs of the space programme and arms development could be used for other things in which a vast amount of profit could be made.

3. Your original question is along the lines of:

How have the supermarkets affected the smaller retailer/corner shop?

Well both can exist (and do) you can get some things from one but generally you can get all things from the other (and conveniently enough to make people dependent) From some 'better class' supermarkets you get everything and quality and then those better quality supermarkets and users argue about the best!


4. Quote "...how the digital process has affected the photography industry" End quote.

If you consider that the main camera makers were: American / German / Japanese / Eastern Block (war booty) then the German and Japanese are still there (in force) the Americans make disposables (I realise that is a naughty statement) and the Eastern Block ain't no more. So, the main players are still there in the 'photography industry' but their efforts are where the money is and the money is where they lead the massess to. As for film and it's manufacturing - that has taken a battering and as long as the number of users/purchasers of film decreases so does the R&D into better products, so the profits dwindle - you could see a day when only one or two main players stick with manufacturing film.

5. Personal now (if I may); You asked "...would like your opinions on digital photography...". Well, it has helped to make people believe that

A. Anyone can do 'IT'. A digital image is that, done and dusted! No. Many people thought that Cubism (for example) was a piece of cake and that any child could do it!

B. We have images coming out of everywhere and they have for some time lost their meaning/potency on many, many people. it goes something like:

Image = Look & move on, instead of:

Image = Look, see, think, analyse = Art.

Neither of the above are intended to include 'family snaps' There will always be a place for memories and reminders.

C. It is too convenient; so easy to fire off 100+ and then come home and see what might be on there i.e. even cropped out of the corner and then that becomes the main image - I've done it, many times.

I have a love hate relationship with digital and especially the light years spent in front of a screen in post processing.

Digital = the inevitable march of processor R&D and of course the lens industry tied in with it. Optics were great in the 30's 40' 50' 60' - you get it.

Well I have a feeling that I'm going to get it now!

Thanks for reading
 
Voyager said:
But it is not in the camera makers interest to sell kit that lasts for ages, better to sell cameras that age and are regularly replaced isn't it?
Click to expand...

Interesting and pertinent point but not one that can be linked directly to the advent of digital technology. It's an abuse that spans much further than camera makers alone.

Manufacturers of all kinds, shapes and sizes implement tactics of cyclical consumption, i.e to make products that have shorter life cycles to maintain the flow of income and sustain company operation.

I agree that many 'prosumer' or entry level camera bodies often aren't much an upgrade to their predecessors at all, the improvements being marginal or cosmetic at best.
Even the more high end spec bodies, Canon and Nikon all have a shutter mechanism that will fail after an approximate amount of actuations.

Camera lenses however could be excluded. If looked after can last a few decades and longer. Bodies, will eventually cease to operate.

Some say it's an abuse or exploitation of the monetary system, to consume huge amounts of dwindling resources to manufacture items that are not designed to stand the test of time and use.

It's more than likely that the technology exists to make products that would last far longer but as this is not a profitable tactic, what other options do we have?
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
Interesting and pertinent point but not one that can be linked directly to the advent of digital technology. It's an abuse that spans much further than camera makers alone.

Manufacturers of all kinds, shapes and sizes implement tactics of cyclical consumption, i.e to make products that have shorter life cycles to maintain the flow of income and sustain company operation.

I agree that many 'prosumer' or entry level camera bodies often aren't much an an upgrade to their predecessors at all, the improvements being marginal or cosmetic at best.
The more high end spec bodies, Canon and Nikon all have a shutter mechanism that will fail after an approximate amount of actuations.

Camera lenses however could be excluded. If looked after can last a few decades and longer. Bodies, will eventually cease to operate.

Some say it's an abuse or exploitation of the monetary system, to consume huge amounts of dwindling resources to manufacture items that are not designed to stand the test of time and use.

It's more than likely that the technology exists to make products that would last far longer but as this is not a profitable tactic, what other options do we have?
Click to expand...

The right 'Not to Buy'

Regards
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
You have that right but how is it an option if your livelihood is photography? or anything else for that matter?
Click to expand...

Yes indeed but you have equipment now that will do a job that far exceeds anything 5 years ago. Say to the manufacturer No! I can do the job with what I have. Too simplistic?
 
alistair.o said:
Yes indeed but you have equipment now that will do a job that far exceeds anything 5 years ago. Say to the manufacturer No! I can do the job with what I have. Too simplistic?
Click to expand...

Not simplistic, just unrealistic in all honesty mate.

Even high end current camera bodies have a limited life expectancy, you could try and make a stand but the chances are that 5 year old gear may be on it's last legs if your a full timer or shoot in heavy conditions, simply saying I won't buy another one will essentially mean your throwing the towel in on your job.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not too happy that a shutter mechanism on a £4500 body is predicted to pack in after 300,000 actuations and then need replacing, but if I want to continue doing the job that I love, I simply have to accept it.

When the tools are no longer usable, repair or replace are my only options.
 
xxxRebeccaxxx said:
This is no way an attempt in getting imformation to put into my essay btw! that would be stupid!! its purely a theory that im putting across to see what other people think! i do not believe i am in anyway one sided having used both the highest quality digital and film! its just my opinion on how it has changed the industry!
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that's aimed at my post :shrug:?

I don't really follow though, I said you seemed to have a one-sided view that Getty is making it hard for professionals to sell their photos as amateurs are doing it now... All I was trying to put across was that pros can and do use getty too, so it's not necessarily making it harder for pro's to earn a living.

Nothing to do with film and digital, even less to do with the quality of the equipment! Just on the industry as a whole.

Chris
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
Even the more high end spec bodies, Canon and Nikon all have a shutter mechanism that will fail after an approximate amount of actuations.
Click to expand...
What is 'worse' is that they are probably designed to do just that.
Tomas Whitehouse said:
Camera lenses however could be excluded. If looked after can last a few decades and longer.
Click to expand...
Until a VR whatnot motor fails and the cost of repair is exorbitant.... They are thinking ahead you know. :p
Tomas Whitehouse said:
Some say it's an abuse or exploitation of the monetary system, to consume huge amounts of dwindling resources to manufacture items that are not designed to stand the test of time and use.

It's more than likely that the technology exists to make products that would last far longer but as this is not a profitable tactic, what other options do we have?
Click to expand...
This is really the problem as I see it - and it is not restricted to photography but the acceleration of 'digital' has highlighted it. I fully expect that at some point the 'next generation' of kit from Canon and Nikon to be entirely divorced from what has gone before - so they can get people in the cycle all over again.
 
Voyager said:
What is 'worse' is that they are probably designed to do just that.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put it past any manufacturer to be honest, they've done it since the beginning of time. :nono:

Voyager said:
Until a VR whatnot motor fails and the cost of repair is exorbitant.... They are thinking ahead you know. :p
Click to expand...

True but when considering the prime lenses that you need to re-assess mortgage for or entertain the sale of vital organs for, these tend to have acceptable life cycles with decades of use being common, excluding 'upgrades' of course.

As for IS and VR repair, I don't even want to think about what kind of fees are involved there :eek:
I need to look at either a 300mm or a 200mm for work purposes this year or next :'(

Voyager said:
This is really the problem as I see it - and it is not restricted to photography but the acceleration of 'digital' has highlighted it. I fully expect that at some point the 'next generation' of kit from Canon and Nikon to be entirely divorced from what has gone before - so they can get people in the cycle all over again.
Click to expand...

It's inevitable at some point but in comparison to the rate of mobile phone manufacturers for example, I think were much safer in the dslr world.

There'd be a revolution if Canon changed there mounting system again in the near future and if Nikon actually did release a medium format that looked like this: :puke: :lol:
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
There'd be a revolution if Canon changed there mounting system again in the near future and if Nikon actually did release a medium format that looked like this: :puke: :lol:
Click to expand...
I have an old T90 and some ER lenses unused right here... It is a good job the internet was not invented when Canon came up with that one!

Would they do it again? You bet. 4:3's is doing exactly that. Look at the cost of the 7-14 zooms and lack of any other 'wide angles' - greedy marketing opportunity anyone?

That D4 is a design student's project. But would Nikon make it happen? Maybe - but I bet they are wondering when to jump onto the 4:3 band wagon or watching what happens with that new Samsung or Sony APS-C interchangeable lens bodies. Or with Leica doing well with the M9 will Nikon recreate the S or Canon the 7?
 
Voyager said:
... Or with Leica doing well with the M9 will Nikon recreate the S or Canon the 7?
Click to expand...

Are they? I realise it's getting rave reviews, but does that equate to bulk sales?
Nikon released a rangefinder as back then that's what all the pro's were using - Leica and Contax...and it was relatively easy for a lens-manufacturer to engineer.
Once they got good at manufacturing cameras as opposed to just lenses (the cameras were initially just a hook to get people to buy more of their lenses) they went to SLR and for all practical purposes, never looked back.


I also think we're too cynical about the release-frequency of new kit - I'd be very interested to know how much of the R&D costs are recouped on new models if they're still releasing them every 18 months ten years from now...

I still think that in certain areas things will slow down.

Interestingly, there is no firm data for shutter actuation on older film cameras...because you can only estimate usage if you bought the camera from new...they just work or they don't... in those days it was something people just didn't worry about as a shutter replacement is a relativly cheap expense...
Even more so on a £3,000 camera...

The data for the D1 is as follows:
Average number of actuations after which shutter is still alive: 257,137.8
Average number of actuations after which shutter died: 160,000.0

The D1x is a little different however:
Average number of actuations after which shutter is still alive: 71,865.0
Average number of actuations after which shutter died: 610,000.0

The second number is the one to pay attention to: D1x has a far longer life-expectancy than it immediate predecessor... there are numbers available for newer models but since we still tend to be using those, the jury's still out...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top