Exposures and Art Loc: Murrells Inlet SC

Yep…and FUN is really a large part of capturing/creating an image! :lol:

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

You are quite correct, every generation lives in a different world, with different needs and different equipment to fulfil those needs. E.g, digital photo albums replacing printed ones, with only the size of screen limiting the display size.

doogie Loc: Washington

OMG! You just single handedly described 100% of the kids in the degree program I am going through as well those of us they consider to be relatives or associates of Mark Twain or Noah. LOL
When I started back to school in my Photography degree I lamented the loss of film and decided to protest. So (As I no longer am at the point in life that I need to prove anything to anyone as I'm retired) I decided to go all the way with it for fun. I declared my medium as film and alternative processes and not to stop there I now dress as my grandfather did. With a felt hat, Bracers, broadfalls, and ropp shirts. (Kind of fun, and the clothing is actually comfortable). What started as a protest ended up garnering me the endearment as the "Film" guy and his cup of coffee. Once in a while I am rewarded with a question about film, and much to the angst of the department head I am still firmly attached to my film, glass, and tin plates.

While I'm busy learning the technologies my Grandfather and Great-Grandfather knew and scratching my head when the exposure on a piece of sheet film or pane of glass doesn't absolutely satisfy me These "KIDS" are busy creating moving and ever evolving works of art representative of their generation.

A simple way to put it would be the following:

Ask a kid under 30 what time it is and they will look at that Ipod, smart phone thing-a-ma-what-ever-it-is-called. Ask someone over 30 what time it is and they will look at the Chronometer on their wrist (Wrist-watch)

Yes times are changing, however, it doesn't mean that everything does. There is still a place for film, and if not film, then it's ancestors tintypes and ambrotypes. :)

V/r,
Doogie

doogie Loc: Washington

***Cough***Cough*** I know a guy who knows a guy who might just have one. LOL :) :)

jgordon Loc: Boulder CO

What a great rant! Points for style and snarl content. I loved the analogy to music, and it captures the way I feel sometimes.

And, neither the world of art in general nor quality photography in particular are coming to an end.

When I was young many friends had SLR cameras and used them mainly for taking snap-shots of the sort that much resemble the snaps now being made with phone cameras.

The majority of music of any era has generally been garbage, but the good stuff tends to survive. Every musician I know (and I know many) listens to MP3 files. Those files are not up to the quality of CDs but they are perfectly good enough to hear the content of what the players are saying in their musical expressions -- and that is what counts most.

I am a jazz guy and a lot of modern pop/schlock makes my skin crawl, but a lot of music of other styles is really great and available for listening -- so what do I really have to complain about?

And what does any of that have to do with DSLR cameras?

Most of the folks on the UHH already have fine imaging machines. So, along with a little talent and a lot of work, most of us can have the ability to create fine images. Given that, why should it bother us that a lot of young people (and not young people) are snapping non-artistic memories with their phones?

In the fullness of time some great art will continue to be made (by whatever technology) and -- just like in the past -- a lot of junk will wind up in the big bad art graveyard in the sky. Or maybe now it is on the great junk storage server in the cloud?

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

You sound exactly like me. I will be doing photogravure next semester as part of my independent study. I just found out that most of it will be copper plate rather than polymer. :)

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

yup.
if you want emotional content in your photographs, you need to put something of yourself into it. and that means, and here i go again, getting rid of technology which blocks you from learning.

digital image making should be just as difficult as film photography. turn the camera on manual, focus your lens yourself, and don't cheat by going to the computer to try and make something of a lousy image. if it's lousy, try again, and again, and again. purchase a hand held light meter - it's way better than anything in anybody's camera. take 8 hour exposures. one activation, not 20. study your subject - learn light. got to a museum, look at the paintings - they will tell you about subject matter, light and composition.
then go back, and take another image. see if it replicates what your eye sees. see if, as a unmanipulated image, it retains its original credibility. forget the toys, used your eyes and brain. see how few activations you can use, not how many. put some effort into it.
gads, go buy a film camera and see what it's really all about (heh-heh).

Alashisan Loc: Arizona

I was a professional wedding (and other areas) photographer. In the 60's, I embraced 35mm when others insisted how stupid that was, that 2x3 or 2x2 negatives were an absolute minimum required for success--the joy of the couple and family would only be served by them. They were wrong, and soon others of my peers were doing the same.

Sure, there were exceptions, but then, I didn't accept those gigs. I had plenty of other couples that were fine with it and more than happy with the results.

When digital appeared, I embraced it immediately, began the transition and told others that the future was digital. Man, that idea was fully rejected by most of my fellow pros. Now, a memorable hold out of mine (about 3 years ago) said he finally got one 'just to preview' things. Well, now he's fully converted. He said he 'never' would. It's hard to fight the draw of simply easier and better when your passion is involved.

Now I am thrilled by the mirror-less devices, the shrinking of the camera size, the vast improvements made in fast responding EVF's, etc. I gave up my 1Ds series (all 3 of them now gathering dust), because I got tired of lugging those monsters around when it was no longer necessary.

They are now anachronistic, despite the fact that the images they can capture are still great and competent, their sensors are becoming a bit 'long in the tooth' regarding noise and dynamic range.

So what has happened? Now, I can travel light and still get the images that feel good to me. When something better comes along, you can sense it. Feel it in your bones. As it gets to the point where it brings you an 'oh yeah', and a smile, it has arrived to cause you to grow along with the technology. Just as today's cars are so much more reliable and better than those of years long gone by.

I understand the original point presented in this conversation. However, I know budding photographers, despite their cell cameras, still hungering for the objects of our affections. They simply can't afford them yet. Cell cams are the Polaroids of our time. But hose who want to go beyond are still there in force and eager to have the best.

I fully believe the DSLR will become a relic--in 10 years, most will be gone from the 'new' landscape.

Ciao y'all.

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

Disagree entirely. What you describe is not a change but the status quo. The element of the photographic community that saw it as an art form was never a large part of that community. The larger part only wanted snapshots as memories. The technology in the current generation of DSLR is only a set of tools used by those of us who care about the quality and the art of the photograph. The P&S is in danger of being replaced by the phone camera, but that will never provide the quality of the DSLR. There will always be a market for APS-C or FF cameras. It will probably not grow much, but there will also be a new generation of those who see art in photography. I would like to see any data on the ration of snapshot shooters to serious photographers, and how that ratio has been changing since the arrival of d-P&S and cell phone cameras.
In addition, DLSR cameras are developing new applications. I was interviews for a PBS piece on the environment, and the cameraman was using a Canon 5Ti for the video. Apparently, the quality is good enough for broadcast TV.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

I am with you. I don't think the percentage of people would have changed in decades. But the percentage of numbers of photos probably has. They never stop snapping with their phones.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

We have only seen what pics phones can produce today - they might just surpass DSLR quality in another 2/3 years?

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

In what way? The sensors in cell phones will never have the depth of field properties and capabilities if they remain that size.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Think back 20 years - would our minds not have boggled at today's silicon chip technology? Miniaturisation has possibly only just started. Is it not possible that picture info might be sent to a "giant sensor in the sky" to be returned as a file for viewing or editing? Or am I getting carried away with logarithmic advances in technology?

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

It doesn't change the laws of physics. Think of the depth of field difference of a video camera vs a dslr. The smaller sensor of the video camera cannot achieve the shallow depth of field of the dslr.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Yes - you are right - unfortunately some advantages that we think of as so important will be ignored in favour of different advantages in the future - if the trends of the last ten years or so continue.
Camera manufacturers seem to be quite happy to go backwards in one direction when ever they feel like it - to promote their latest advances (marketing ploys).