Has technology changed photography for the "better"?
Oct 7, 2011 13:29:11 #
This topic came up on a photo- thread and I felt it would be better housed here.
My hope is to get a dialogue going, which eventually helps me make up my OWN mind.
Below are the starter comment(s) for the original discussion as a "jumping off point".
Please consider adding your opinions/thoughts on the matter and help this amateur start thinking like a professional... IF that's possible! *smiles*
__________________________________
gizzy.whicker wrote:
"...The advent of the modern digital camera has fundamentally changed photography, for the better as far as I'm concerned."
__________________________________
I've been pondering this lately and I'm not sure it's for the better in the long-run. I'm one of those who consider photography an "art". The greatest photographers ever to snap a photo, really paid their dues and learned every aspect of their art-form (craft) from every angle.
The advent of digital photography and the lightening-fast advances in technology kinda saturates the market with photos done by folks like me... who hasn't paid her dues and gets "happy accidents" all the time.
I intend to learn everything I possibly can about photography, find my niche and pay my dues... to someday be financially successful and wildly in-demand (okay, maybe not WILDLY *wink* )... but my stuff will be in stiff competition with photos done by amateurs armed with the latest auto-equipment.
Who (or what) is really creating the beautiful works of art, then? The photographer or the camera?
Sorry for the tangent... maybe I'll move this to the Discussion Section, 'cause I'd really like to start the dialogue. Maybe it'll help me figure things out...
_______________________________
gizzy.whicker added:
"I like the way you think, and you're correct that most of us aren't learning the art-form of traditional photography. But rather than trying to learn manual technical data that's now handled so accurately by digital cameras, we now can concentrate more on learning good composition techniques, ponder various lighting situations, and in general have more fun looking through the lens instead of pondering fractional equations for ISO settings."
My hope is to get a dialogue going, which eventually helps me make up my OWN mind.
Below are the starter comment(s) for the original discussion as a "jumping off point".
Please consider adding your opinions/thoughts on the matter and help this amateur start thinking like a professional... IF that's possible! *smiles*
__________________________________
gizzy.whicker wrote:
"...The advent of the modern digital camera has fundamentally changed photography, for the better as far as I'm concerned."
__________________________________
I've been pondering this lately and I'm not sure it's for the better in the long-run. I'm one of those who consider photography an "art". The greatest photographers ever to snap a photo, really paid their dues and learned every aspect of their art-form (craft) from every angle.
The advent of digital photography and the lightening-fast advances in technology kinda saturates the market with photos done by folks like me... who hasn't paid her dues and gets "happy accidents" all the time.
I intend to learn everything I possibly can about photography, find my niche and pay my dues... to someday be financially successful and wildly in-demand (okay, maybe not WILDLY *wink* )... but my stuff will be in stiff competition with photos done by amateurs armed with the latest auto-equipment.
Who (or what) is really creating the beautiful works of art, then? The photographer or the camera?
Sorry for the tangent... maybe I'll move this to the Discussion Section, 'cause I'd really like to start the dialogue. Maybe it'll help me figure things out...
_______________________________
gizzy.whicker added:
"I like the way you think, and you're correct that most of us aren't learning the art-form of traditional photography. But rather than trying to learn manual technical data that's now handled so accurately by digital cameras, we now can concentrate more on learning good composition techniques, ponder various lighting situations, and in general have more fun looking through the lens instead of pondering fractional equations for ISO settings."
Oct 7, 2011 13:39:12 #
You make an excellent point, gizzy (may I call you gizzy?)Math and I definitely DON'T get along (and to think I originally chose Radiology as a career... FRAUGHT with Math! lol).
But I think a lot of the "why" has been lost by automation.
Why, if I raise the ISO and shorten the aperture and decrease the shutter speed, do I get this particular result?
Certainly a large part of becoming adept at digital photography involves experimentation and learning what does what, when... but rarely do I remember what I did or why. I usually adjust for the lighting, choose my angle for the shot... make sure it's all steady and shoot.
Maybe my attitude stems from not having a camera that is fully manually adjustable *shrugs*. I remember those cameras... way back when I was a teenager. I used to work at an adult medical day care, and a couple of the gentlemen that were there, were avid, successful photographers. They were SO successful, the agency installed a darkroom for them... and I learned TONS about the process as as well some of the fundamentals of photography from their personal experience. They were more fond of using me as a model back then, than sending me out to practice... but that gave me a new set of experiences from which to draw.
What I took from meeting those gentlemen (aside from very close friendships)was the benefit of learning the "why" behind every adjustment they made. And their work was always in B&W... CRISP... clear and basically stunning!
But I think a lot of the "why" has been lost by automation.
Why, if I raise the ISO and shorten the aperture and decrease the shutter speed, do I get this particular result?
Certainly a large part of becoming adept at digital photography involves experimentation and learning what does what, when... but rarely do I remember what I did or why. I usually adjust for the lighting, choose my angle for the shot... make sure it's all steady and shoot.
Maybe my attitude stems from not having a camera that is fully manually adjustable *shrugs*. I remember those cameras... way back when I was a teenager. I used to work at an adult medical day care, and a couple of the gentlemen that were there, were avid, successful photographers. They were SO successful, the agency installed a darkroom for them... and I learned TONS about the process as as well some of the fundamentals of photography from their personal experience. They were more fond of using me as a model back then, than sending me out to practice... but that gave me a new set of experiences from which to draw.
What I took from meeting those gentlemen (aside from very close friendships)was the benefit of learning the "why" behind every adjustment they made. And their work was always in B&W... CRISP... clear and basically stunning!
Oct 7, 2011 14:35:22 #
though i only used Manual Cameras when i was learning. But since i Started photography on my own it has being digital. I think it has decreased the value of photography to the lowest level. Any one can just go into the market... Get himself and good camera and start answering photographer. If the world should be taken back to those day when photography is still an art. Am sure many of us would opt to quit.
Oct 7, 2011 15:19:11 #
I think it's for the better. In MY old days everything was manual, or "preset". I loved those cameras and still have a great fondness for B&W photos, or monochromes of most any kind. I learned to develop my own and to burn and dodge with the rest. I can still smell the hypo!
Digital cameras have not reduced the art aspect, they have merely made it affordable to many more people. Photography used to be EXPENSIVE! Even years ago did you ever price a medium or large format camera? And I don't necessarily mean a Hasselblad or Leica. A Mamiya RB-67, my dream camera then, was WAY out of my budget. Large format was impossibly pricey, but they were marvellous machines. And film in any quantity was expensive, also, much less developing if you didn't do it yourself. Besides waiting hours or days to get your prints only to see lots of results you would simply delete in our new digital world.
If you have artistic vision it will show now as it did then. It's just easier to find out now whether you have it nor not, or the patience and perseverance to stick with the learning curve. True artists will always shine and the wannabes, even though they may get a lucky shot now and then, will eventually fade away as far as "professionals" go. Not everybody can make a fortune as a photographer, just like not every group of teenage boys can be famous rock bands. Some will, most won't.
The beauty of digital photography is individual self-expression brought to millions who would never have had that chance a few decades ago. If you take it and you like it, it's good. Art, as well as beauty, is certainly in the eye of the beholder. Just take a look at some of the photography contest winners or some of the art in galleries. LOTS of it is not to my taste, but it is to somebody's. Photography, like all art, is a labor of love (just less expensive now) and if the love is in your heart you will do well. The art part is merely the love shining through.
End of my rant....
Digital cameras have not reduced the art aspect, they have merely made it affordable to many more people. Photography used to be EXPENSIVE! Even years ago did you ever price a medium or large format camera? And I don't necessarily mean a Hasselblad or Leica. A Mamiya RB-67, my dream camera then, was WAY out of my budget. Large format was impossibly pricey, but they were marvellous machines. And film in any quantity was expensive, also, much less developing if you didn't do it yourself. Besides waiting hours or days to get your prints only to see lots of results you would simply delete in our new digital world.
If you have artistic vision it will show now as it did then. It's just easier to find out now whether you have it nor not, or the patience and perseverance to stick with the learning curve. True artists will always shine and the wannabes, even though they may get a lucky shot now and then, will eventually fade away as far as "professionals" go. Not everybody can make a fortune as a photographer, just like not every group of teenage boys can be famous rock bands. Some will, most won't.
The beauty of digital photography is individual self-expression brought to millions who would never have had that chance a few decades ago. If you take it and you like it, it's good. Art, as well as beauty, is certainly in the eye of the beholder. Just take a look at some of the photography contest winners or some of the art in galleries. LOTS of it is not to my taste, but it is to somebody's. Photography, like all art, is a labor of love (just less expensive now) and if the love is in your heart you will do well. The art part is merely the love shining through.
End of my rant....
Oct 7, 2011 15:26:32 #
Of course it has. It has given millions of people the opportunity to take photographs and preserve memories that they might not otherwise have been able to. Would you begrudge Grandma the picture of little Bobby? Would you snatch the digital P&S out of her hand and say "Hold on Harriet, FILM ONLY PLEASE! And DEVELOP IT YOURSELF, you technocrat!"
Elitist mumbo-jumbo that denies the broadening of the use of ANY technology that betters people's lives (whether WE like they way they are better or not) is full of crap, if you'll pardon my French. And I'm not accusing anyone here of DOING THIS, please don't misunderstand.
The electric stove was better than the wood stove. Any body here still cook on wood? ALL THE TIME? Thought not.
Electric Lights are better than gas. Or whale oil. Anybody here disconnect completely from the grid and use a bicycle to make electricity? Thought not.
Modern surgical techniques are better than leeches and bone saws.
Modern food production is better than subsistence farming. Just ask India and Pakistan, who are now net EXPORTERS of food grains, thanks to people like Norm Borlaug. And no thanks to jerks like Paul Ehrlich.
Technology changes nearly everything for the better. To deny its use to people who HAD been excluded from it is ultimate form of discrimination.
I think DaVinci would have LOVED a DSLR.
Elitist mumbo-jumbo that denies the broadening of the use of ANY technology that betters people's lives (whether WE like they way they are better or not) is full of crap, if you'll pardon my French. And I'm not accusing anyone here of DOING THIS, please don't misunderstand.
The electric stove was better than the wood stove. Any body here still cook on wood? ALL THE TIME? Thought not.
Electric Lights are better than gas. Or whale oil. Anybody here disconnect completely from the grid and use a bicycle to make electricity? Thought not.
Modern surgical techniques are better than leeches and bone saws.
Modern food production is better than subsistence farming. Just ask India and Pakistan, who are now net EXPORTERS of food grains, thanks to people like Norm Borlaug. And no thanks to jerks like Paul Ehrlich.
Technology changes nearly everything for the better. To deny its use to people who HAD been excluded from it is ultimate form of discrimination.
I think DaVinci would have LOVED a DSLR.
Oct 7, 2011 16:47:24 #
Jim and Lmarc:
You both make an excellent point in that it's certainly more affordable to follow one's passion for photography with the advent of DSLR's. I'm a poster child for that point, actually... and mine is not even considered a serious camera. I've been piss-poor all my life and getting this camera was a real stunner for me.
It took 6 months worth of budget re-working so that my husband could afford such an expensive present for me, and it was only a hair under $200.00 three years ago.
Another excellent point in that, since there is no need for film developing, it's cheaper... just hit the delete button.
Instant gratification is not always a good thing though, is it?
Don't we run the risk of under-appreciating something we don't have to work or strive to achieve?
Isn't that what folks are saying is wrong with this generation of kids these days? They ask and receive without working for it... therefore, when it gets broken, no biggee... just ask for another bigger, better, faster one!
When I entered my first serious photo contest this past summer, I was regarded with snooty stares because I didn't belong to the local photography club. No-one heard of me or my photos... I was a nobody. And when they discovered what kind of camera I was working with... it got MUCH worse.
There doesn't seem to be much respect for someone who didn't pay their dues and learn the long, arduous way.
(I don't think calculators were the greatest thing in the world, either... kids don't know how to add/subtract/multiply/divide on paper anymore!)
And what happens when that technology fails us? (... and it inevitably does!)
I certainly wouldn't deny the use of technology to anyone who wants to use it! It's there... it would be a waste NOT to use it!
And I certainly use my fair share, too... but in this failing economic climate; I've had to part with some "creature comforts provided by technology" and it strikes me just how dependent I'd become on it. There should be a back-up plan. At least with an understanding of how things work and why one action leads to a specific result; maybe one can improvise.
I think learning photography the "old-fashioned way", lends us an experience AND logic that will stick with us longer because we had to invest some energy in practicing, learning and striving to understand why some methods work and others do not.
Much in the same fashion as a Manager who has worked his way up in the company to his/her present status over time & who understands every aspect of the jobs his/her underlings are expected to perform, is a better manager than one who simply attended 4 years of college and has tons of theory under his/her belt but no actual experience.
My little camera can only do what its mechanical limitations will permit it to do... and my imagination, artistic vision and basic understanding of how that camera works (as well as the fundamentals of photography such as light, exposure, DOF etc.) will likely go past this camera's limitations. In fact, it has already... and I'm needing new technology... a more powerful DSLR with interchangeable... MANUAL... lenses, etc. .
How far does "better" actually go?
I've seen some INCREDIBLY STUNNING photos in this forum and others... positively perfect!
Yet the photographer(s) are always striving to be "better".
Fascinating.....
Anyway, thanks for indulging me a bit on this topic... both of you! You make valid points :)
You both make an excellent point in that it's certainly more affordable to follow one's passion for photography with the advent of DSLR's. I'm a poster child for that point, actually... and mine is not even considered a serious camera. I've been piss-poor all my life and getting this camera was a real stunner for me.
It took 6 months worth of budget re-working so that my husband could afford such an expensive present for me, and it was only a hair under $200.00 three years ago.
Another excellent point in that, since there is no need for film developing, it's cheaper... just hit the delete button.
Instant gratification is not always a good thing though, is it?
Don't we run the risk of under-appreciating something we don't have to work or strive to achieve?
Isn't that what folks are saying is wrong with this generation of kids these days? They ask and receive without working for it... therefore, when it gets broken, no biggee... just ask for another bigger, better, faster one!
When I entered my first serious photo contest this past summer, I was regarded with snooty stares because I didn't belong to the local photography club. No-one heard of me or my photos... I was a nobody. And when they discovered what kind of camera I was working with... it got MUCH worse.
There doesn't seem to be much respect for someone who didn't pay their dues and learn the long, arduous way.
(I don't think calculators were the greatest thing in the world, either... kids don't know how to add/subtract/multiply/divide on paper anymore!)
And what happens when that technology fails us? (... and it inevitably does!)
I certainly wouldn't deny the use of technology to anyone who wants to use it! It's there... it would be a waste NOT to use it!
And I certainly use my fair share, too... but in this failing economic climate; I've had to part with some "creature comforts provided by technology" and it strikes me just how dependent I'd become on it. There should be a back-up plan. At least with an understanding of how things work and why one action leads to a specific result; maybe one can improvise.
I think learning photography the "old-fashioned way", lends us an experience AND logic that will stick with us longer because we had to invest some energy in practicing, learning and striving to understand why some methods work and others do not.
Much in the same fashion as a Manager who has worked his way up in the company to his/her present status over time & who understands every aspect of the jobs his/her underlings are expected to perform, is a better manager than one who simply attended 4 years of college and has tons of theory under his/her belt but no actual experience.
My little camera can only do what its mechanical limitations will permit it to do... and my imagination, artistic vision and basic understanding of how that camera works (as well as the fundamentals of photography such as light, exposure, DOF etc.) will likely go past this camera's limitations. In fact, it has already... and I'm needing new technology... a more powerful DSLR with interchangeable... MANUAL... lenses, etc. .
How far does "better" actually go?
I've seen some INCREDIBLY STUNNING photos in this forum and others... positively perfect!
Yet the photographer(s) are always striving to be "better".
Fascinating.....
Anyway, thanks for indulging me a bit on this topic... both of you! You make valid points :)
Oct 7, 2011 17:25:35 #
One other point, if I may. To some degree you may be equating photography with digital technology. Photography is in the vision and soul of the photographer, not the box, lenses and bells and whistles of his machine. A true photographic artist can get a better photo with a shoebox, a needle to make a pinhole and some home-sensitized glass in the back than I could ever get with the most expensive digital out there. It's not the depth of field or electronics of the box, not the sensor size nor mirror lock-up. Any camera can expose film or CCD sensors but it takes humans to make a work of art, however that may be defined. All this technology does is allow more people to try. If you can do it with digital, you can do it with the old technology and vice-versa. There's nothing magical about technology, nor lack thereof.
Oct 7, 2011 17:30:48 #
Oct 7, 2011 17:42:57 #
This is a GREAT discussion! One of the best I've seen. You guys are all very articulate. How true it is that its not the size nor the cost of the photographic equipment, it's the gifted artistic eye of the beholder, able to visualize and compose before pressing the shutter button. Keep up the string. This is great material. Thanks Tilde for getting it going.
Oct 7, 2011 17:44:36 #
tilde531 wrote:
You make an excellent point, gizzy (may I call you... (show quote)
Okay, at the risk of upsetting a lot of people, I feel you either have it or you don't.. Which means you have to be artistic and technological savvy. Some people have one, very, very few people have both.
Their are very few photographs that I have seen on the site who post on a consistent basis which show they have both. Sorry, most of us just are'nt there yet.which includes myself ,most of us are still learning. Maybe one day some of us will get there. Maybe not. Most of us will not.
It's a hard cold fact. You may love taking pictures, but you may never get to a real artistic level in the field. Everyone can keep trying, and you will improve, but a great Artist you will never be.
Back to the subject, modern technology has made a lot of people think they are good at photography, not made them good at photography.
Just my personal point of view.
Oct 7, 2011 17:56:22 #
Is it cheating in some way to simply buy the best camera available and eliminate any doubt or short comings inherent in lower priced equipment? And produce technically top quality photographs by hiring someone to "process" them and have them printed by a high caliber print house.
This leaves only the question of content doesn't it?
This leaves only the question of content doesn't it?
Oct 7, 2011 20:19:51 #
You're absolutely correct, ShakyShutter. It's always good advice to have the best possible equipment you can afford, whether it be tools, appliances, electronics, medical, etc. And you're correct once again in that it then leaves only the content to be adjudged. Other comments are close to the truth too in that it's very rare to have top quality equipment as well as the knowledge and talent to produce consistant content. There are a lot of great minds and talent on this site. Eat your heart out, Ansel Adams.
Oct 7, 2011 20:26:48 #
A short answer to a long winded question, in some ways YES and in some ways NO.
Oct 7, 2011 22:32:12 #
Aleaze
Loc: Michigan
I believe digital editing software has created a bigger impact on photography than the camera. It has become very easy to correct any errors, making it easier for an average photo to become a high quality piece of art. There are now many average photographers who are experts with photoshop that are now "pro" making a living when they could not just using film. So they are creating great content with their talent of photoshop
Is it Better? Digital allows more people to create better photos. So, Yes.
Is it Better? Digital allows more people to create better photos. So, Yes.
Oct 7, 2011 23:17:14 #
Although it's true the modern digital cameras and various editing programs have helped folks take "pictures" it hasn't improved the ability to take great images. One must learn how to pose a subject if doing portraits or how to compose that image in the zoo. Anyone can set their camera on auto and get a decent picture. Everyone should learn to use the various settings on their camera. I would venture a guess that most shoot on auto. Having said that if we learn to use the controls built into the camera we will become better photographers with the modern digital camera.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.