CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

^^^EXTREMELY well stated! :thumbup:

GreenReaper

Hear,Hear!! I agree. I have an old Minolta X-700. It was a great camera in it's day. In addition to full auto, there was aperture and shutter preferred modes, in addition to manual. I either used manual or auto, and still love my Calumet, folding. wooden field camera. Talk about "getting back to basics"!! Keep smiling

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

As it has been said many many many times it's not the gear it's the photographer that makes the picture. Learning how to use the technology is the easy part (no matter how simple or complicated) But the skills and talent of the photographer takes time and hard work.And lots of "oh $hits" to make great pictures. You never see the ones that get thrown away by the great photographers

peterg Loc: Santa Rosa, CA

Yes!
A great photo needs good Composition, Lighting and Technique. For many photos, a basic camera is all I need. For others, I need my camera's fancy feature(s) to make it happen.

Dlevon Loc: New Jersey

What does more outstanding mean?

starShoot

Quality is results from a merged ability of both equipment and photographer. Clearly, a very novice photographer -a picture taker- can set a modern digital camera on automatic everything and, especially in non-extreme light, produce excellent photographs. And, if the novice happens to have a native sense of composition, those photographs can produce extraordinary images. Thus, the distance between novices and expert has been narrowed in respect to ability to produce good images.
What the DSLR has given me over and above the SLR is control:

1. As stated often, control in PP. The mass production at the developer's shop is no longer making key decisions for me. Those now belong to me, for the better or to the detriment.
2. The DSLR enables me to have several instruments in one, well beyond change of lenses. For instance, ability to change the ISO at any time is equivalent to having two, three or more cameras with films of different ASA and/or different light temperatures. That is powerful.
3. DSLRs allow those of us who could not establish dark rooms, due to either cost or sensitivity to chemicals, to establish light rooms. Excellent computers and PP software cost a fraction of an excellent dark room, although the initial learning curve is a little steeper. But, at least I no longer botch film while trying to get it into the developing canister!

This is simple. If one is almost devoid of talent, a digital camera can help one to be decent, but the possibilities for the very talented are awesome.

For those who want limitations, excellent SLRs, rangefinders and film point-and-shoot cameras are very inexpensive now; so anybody wishing to do so can constrain one's possibilities to one's delight. Might I suggest a Kodak Brownie.

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

Yes it does. Your tools in this case are the understanding of the subject and workings to produce better results - though your example doesn't follow and isn't a very good comparison.

Graeme Loc: El Cerrito, California

However maybe like many of us they now would be spending too much time organizing and post-processing since they have too many images and so miss that elusive shot. Who was it that never even cropped his prints as it was al done through his viewfinder.

But there are some of us who missed the smell of chemicals, the dim glowing darkroom bulbs, although maybe not the finger stains. Or do we really?

Sunwriter Loc: High Plains

My example follows perfectly: limitations lead to creativity. It's a wonderful comparison! Perhaps the best ever known! World class! Soon to be famous! Huzzah!

:)

(I love these silly confabs!)

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

I agree.
Modern cameras give us options we never had before. We have increased our range of what we can photograph. I generally don't use the multiple frames per second mode but if you took 12, 24, or 36 photos you might end up with something useable. If you took one photo you may or may not but look at the cost of developing film. The auto-focus will allow you to get action shots that you may not have gotten before. Heck, the automatic settings allow people who have a sense of composition to take good photos. The down side of that is a lot wedding photographers are loosing business because people are using these new camera to take fairly good photos.
Shooting a volleyball at and ISO of 10,000, a shutter speed of 1/4000 sec., with a camera that sets the correct color balance, shooting a few hundred photos (without the cost of film), and seeing my photos instantly.... priceless.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

On the contrary, the point is clear in the title of the topic, and...


If you think that resolution is better, it is only better than 35mm SLR film. Large format is still better. Incidentally, I scan and post process my large format film, so the PP argument does not apply.

If you think that high ISO is better, digital can go higher so you can use higher shutter speeds and longer lenses. Does that make for better photographs or is it just a technical advantage that allows us to document more?

A DSLR may be easier to carry around but that does not make the photograph any better.

For that matter, mirrorless cameras are even easier to carry around and they can match the output of the best DSLR. Does that make them even better?

We are not making better or worse pictures, just more of them.

Capn_Dave

I have read through all these posts and hardly anyone read the title of the post. Then went on to say that photoshop can do this or that. It's not answering the question. A camera is a box that lets light into it. That is all it is. They all work the same. View cameras to DSLR. They have 3 functions shutter speed. ISO, and aperture. And aperture is usually in the lens.
Like it or not that's it. It's the photographer not the camera. It's a tool

gemartin Loc: Statesboro, GA

I typed up my own long replay and then read this and it encapsulates what I believe. Well stated, why go back, why handicap yourself, why not take advantage of what is available?

Sunwriter Loc: High Plains

Actually, not so simple. Modern digi-cams are computers with lenses. They do a lot more than "let in the light." Aye, there's the rub.

(This thread reminds me of the conversations art school sophomores have down at the beer palace. It starts with "Dude! Cezanne is way more cool than Matisse!" and ends up on Betty Markowitz's boobs.)

saichiez Loc: Beautiful Central Oregon

I would go for a yes and a no on this one.

The camera's are certainly capable of producing images that are better.... at least so far as 35mm film is concerned. Not at Medium Format and above.

OTOH, the shooters are not. The image market is flooded with a huge volume of marginal and poor quality pictures. That's equivalent to the poor showing of quality communication, spelling and writing skills due to the fallout of mediochre education in the schools.

Same with photography. A preponderance of images taken by people who have no understanding of exposure and composition.

Also leads to a lack of expectation in the consuming market which has grown significantly due to digital capture, no matter how good the equipment becomes.