Digital Photography, the savior or destruction of Photography? (Page 2): Strangely, everyone walking around with with a device capable of taking easily manipulated photos has doomed...

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

Strangely, everyone walking around with with a device capable of taking easily manipulated photos has doomed Bigfoot and alien spacecraft to nothing more than fond memories. Since everyone now has a camera phone, you’d think someone somewhere would get a snapshot of Bigfoot scratching his butt or something. And since digital images are so easily manipulated, you would think that someone taking a photo of a fuzzy blob in the woods or some strange lights in the sky could enhance them into whatever they wanted to see. But no, no Bigfoot or space alien pix anywhere these days.

Now when some of us had real cameras that took unaltered images of things that were actually there, everyone was getting pix of Bigfoot, alien spaceships and space aliens were probing anyone and everyone every Saturday night. Those serial probers must have been all the pervert aliens that regular normal aliens threw out.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

bikinkawboy wrote:

Strangely, everyone walking around with with a dev... (show quote)

You greatly under rate what could be done in the dark room

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

srt101fan wrote:

You've posed a question about the saving or destruction of "photography". You've made references to "traditional photography", "old-style photography" and "serious photographers". Without definitions you're just stirring up a pot. But you'll have fun and so will all the posters jumping in. As User ID would say: "it's entertainment"....

Exactly! I wanted to invite some conversation on how people feel about the state of photography! I think it is a subject that is worth considering. Most of us know the history of photography so why not think about where we are today and where we are going.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Bridges wrote:

Exactly! I wanted to invite some conversation on how people feel about the state of photography! I think it is a subject that is worth considering. Most of us know the history of photography so why not think about where we are today and where we are going.

I disagree that most people here know the history of photography, especially what can be accomplished in a darkroom. That's why so many seem to believe multiple imagery and adding or subtracting things from photos started with Photoshop.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Bridges wrote:

Exactly! I wanted to invite some conversation on how people feel about the state of photography! I think it is a subject that is worth considering. Most of us know the history of photography so why not think about where we are today and where we are going.

IMHO where we are going:

Wildlife, action and Sports: More and better photographs. With faster frame rates, sophisticated auto focus, essentially free shots and continuing software improvements, spray and pray will become the norm. We will probably change the name to "High Speed Sequential Shooting".

Portraits and Studio: I don't see a lot of changes. Artest's will continue dominate here. Post Processing will play a larger part as software progresses.

Landscape: This is where the real photographers will shine. All of the essentials will be shown off here. Exposure triangle, composition, perspective and PP skills will come together.

cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania

Bridges wrote:

Exactly! I wanted to invite some conversation on how people feel about the state of photography! I think it is a subject that is worth considering. Most of us know the history of photography so why not think about where we are today and where we are going.

Modern (digital) photography is an entirely different skill set. I know that you still need the same eye for composition, light etc. But digital processing is much different, I'm trying to learn it, but I find the lack of "feel" to digital processing makes it difficult for me, and I don't enjoy sitting in front of the computer. But if I'm going to stay in it I have to learn or give it up, and I'm not ready to quit yet.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

JohnSwanda wrote:

I disagree that most people here know the history of photography, especially what can be accomplished in a darkroom. That's why so many seem to believe multiple imagery and adding or subtracting things from photos started with Photoshop.

That's because their first exposure to "manipulation" was with Photoshop when it made the "news". They were never cognizant of darkroom work.

ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA

Savior for me since I'm cheap and didn't like spending lots on film and processing. I'm also a computer geek so digital fits perfectly for me. My dad couldn't make the transition and I expect many of his generation couldn't as well.

rdemarco52 Loc: Wantagh, NY

I always try to get it right with the camera, but post processing does let me fix any mistakes.

Nosaj Loc: Sarasota, Florida

I agree with your comment, and would go further to comment on the excessive use of commercial software products to change a photograph into a computergraph. In today’s world of photography, the camera is merely a data collection device; the “post processing” becomes the real image maker. So, why do people pay up to $3000 for a camera body and $2000 or more for a specialized lens? To end up with an image that the camera, lens, or human eye did not see in the first place!

Canisdirus

The format...film vs digital is irrelevant to the query.

Cellphones caused the destruction.
Digital was just an inevitability...as the next type of photography will be very different from digital...someday.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

rdemarco52 wrote:

I always try to get it right with the camera, but post processing does let me fix any mistakes.

Another misconception about PP - that its main use is to "fix" photos. I think the best use of PP is to take a photo which is as good as it can be in the camera and make it even better.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

JohnSwanda wrote:

Another misconception about PP - that its main use is to "fix" photos. I think the best use of PP is to take a photo which is as good as it can be in the camera and make it even better.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Beauty is everywhere when you have PhotoShop.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Nosaj wrote:

I agree with your comment, and would go further to comment on the excessive use of commercial software products to change a photograph into a computergraph. In today’s world of photography, the camera is merely a data collection device; the “post processing” becomes the real image maker. So, why do people pay up to $3000 for a camera body and $2000 or more for a specialized lens? To end up with an image that the camera, lens, or human eye did not see on the first place!

Even during the film days there have always been photographers who chose a purely photographic vision which was different than the way the eye sees things.