Are we really making better photographs with DSLR cameras?
Nov 20, 2013 09:51:07 #
"Artistic" and "Technical" are not mediums. They are considerations and modes of thinking, but they are not mediums.
Nov 20, 2013 10:38:54 #
Nov 20, 2013 10:49:05 #
Nov 20, 2013 11:46:28 #
Who's art is better, Rembrandt or Jackson Pollock? Since so much of "better" is artistic interpretation, why is this even a discussion point? For commercial work, like everything else, it depends on your goal. Every technology has advantages & disadvantages. You evaluate on a case by case basis. There can be no generalization that will satisfy every situation.
Nov 20, 2013 18:06:15 #
CHOLLY, the OP says something and gives his "IMHO"and asks how we all see things.
You answer YES....and then proceed to disagree with everything he assumes.
I never considered the taking of photographs an art in itself....it is all science and technology applied, what the operator does is a whole different matter all together!
Just like guns, a tool is a tool, but as humans we all apply our own individual views and likes and dislikes.....Annie Oakley was a cute kid with a unique set of skills, you have to admit!
Humans are the painful element in any endeavor, this would be a dull world without them creating wonderful works of ART or total HORROR at times!
You answer YES....and then proceed to disagree with everything he assumes.
I never considered the taking of photographs an art in itself....it is all science and technology applied, what the operator does is a whole different matter all together!
Just like guns, a tool is a tool, but as humans we all apply our own individual views and likes and dislikes.....Annie Oakley was a cute kid with a unique set of skills, you have to admit!
Humans are the painful element in any endeavor, this would be a dull world without them creating wonderful works of ART or total HORROR at times!
Nov 20, 2013 20:14:39 #
Racmanaz wrote:
Kinda like it's better to have a physical girlfriend than a digital one you can not touch or feel. lol ;)
Another good point, I second that one.
Nov 20, 2013 20:17:16 #
Nov 20, 2013 20:32:33 #
Racmanaz
Loc: Sunny Tucson!
dmtill wrote:
Discusting we know your interesrs
And its not photography
And its not photography
Who are you talking about??
Nov 21, 2013 00:44:13 #
TucsonCoyote wrote:
CHOLLY, the OP says something and gives his "... (show quote)
^^^Hey, I can look at an image and tell you all the technical reasons why it is appealing. :thumbup:
Now that doesn't mean I have the artistic ability to CREATE an image that will be appealing on cue... because while the technical aspects of photography may be second nature, the artistic portion is not. At least, not for me. :oops:
Thing is though, the MORE control over a medium an artist has... the BETTER he/she will be able to bring their dream/vision/art.... to reality.
Look at it this way; an expert photographer can make beautiful pictures with a point and shoot. But with a fully functional modern DSLR and the SAME subject, he/she can produce an even BETTER work of art. :wink:
Nov 21, 2013 02:19:41 #
Yes my first picture that i composed with
My instimatic was from my insite on my
Artistic creative talent and love for the ocean
Was so inspirering but yes as technology
In cameras and digital and photoshop would
Definantly improve the exsposure etc outcome
But i will mever forget the day i took it
My instimatic was from my insite on my
Artistic creative talent and love for the ocean
Was so inspirering but yes as technology
In cameras and digital and photoshop would
Definantly improve the exsposure etc outcome
But i will mever forget the day i took it
Nov 21, 2013 10:31:41 #
Back to the original question. Yes, technology allows better images. It allows the amateur to take more photos and get lucky more often. It allows a skilled photographer to experiment more without worrying about expense of film. The digital aspect allows PP of individual images, rather than depend on an expensive darkroom with time limited chemicals, or someone else's opinion of what you wanted. That being said, the camera is still just a tool. Better tools produce better results in the hands of an expert. This particular tool also allows the average snapshot photographer to at least record passable memories.
A few years ago, I would have agreed that large format film might be better than digital. With the increase of megapixals, that may be open to question now. I can take images from my DSLR and send them to an 80" LED screen and see no degradation. I have no clue what the limits are. Anyone with experience here?
A few years ago, I would have agreed that large format film might be better than digital. With the increase of megapixals, that may be open to question now. I can take images from my DSLR and send them to an 80" LED screen and see no degradation. I have no clue what the limits are. Anyone with experience here?
Nov 21, 2013 16:13:06 #
DrPhrogg wrote:
Back to the original question. Yes, technology all... (show quote)
Viewing on a screen is by far not the same as viewing a print. If you would go to I think the first page of comments someone put the resolution factor of file vs. pixels. Will sensors equal film someday? Probably but not right now, at least affordably.
Nov 21, 2013 23:54:46 #
Nov 22, 2013 14:51:35 #
You're probably right, but again, it depends on the desired end product. I also understand that there is technology that can increase the number of pixels in PP and generate appropriate shading to blend the image. I have never seen the results, but it should be theoretically possible.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.