|
|
| *SoulEyes Photography>>>Digital Photography |
Is digital "dumbing down" photography? |
In no way is this intended to provoke another digital vs. film debate. But. I subscribe to half a dozen photo magazines (paper ones) which feature both digital and film images. Right now I'm looking at a photo essay done with a Canon 1Ds Mk2 and L lenses (maybe $15,000 worth of gear). A couple pages later there's another essay, done with an F100, 24-85 and ISO100 transparency film. A $1000 kit, maybe more if the photog shot a lot of film. The film images blow the digital into the weeds in terms of detail, colour range, dynamic range (no blown highlights) and the most elusive parameter of all -- realism. (It's not the technique -- both essays are very well shot.) As I turn the pages of other mags I see this over and over again. So here's my question. Has digital lowered the technical standards of photography -- dumbed it down? absolutely, but dont tell people or I will be out of a job! also dont start letting people know photography (great stuff) requires knowledge, practice, skill and technique, and a camera, the computer has little to do with great images i love your questions! your looking at colour wait till you compare in black and white watch the dumbed down ones thumb me down, then go back to their macdonalds photography a It very well could be the technique. Did the same person do both shoots? Given the technology we have, there is no reason that digital should not look just as good as film, or in some cases better. Technology doesn't dumb people down, people dumb people down. If anything technology should make us all smarter. The "dumbing down" has to do with the experience of the new photo technicians who have never exposed a piece of film. One of the things that has happend is more and more the digital photographer is being expected to do more and more post production (publishing) work on their images. Photographers simply don't have those skills, nor do they want them. Give me a subject and a theme and turn me loose. I will provide you with more images than you need of the editorial piece. I will edit out the out of focus, over/under exposed and miss framed images and give you the rest. My job is done at that point. Expecting the photographer to prepare images for the presses is a bit over the top. ProPhotog There is no doubt that dumbing down is occurring, and not just in the realm of photography. I do think digicams have lowered people's perception of what a good image should be. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that, but just take a look at the mediocre and worse snapshots that Yahooers and others post for critique every day. They shouldn't need someone to point out that their photo is bad, often on every level, but they do post and expect to receive only glowing praise. Maybe because they've seen about a million other poorly executed snaps on all those picture sharing sights and now believe such is the pinnacle, or at least a good average. Also, heavy-handed post processing takes its toll on inflicting its mark upon poor, unsuspecting images, In the past, one was not exposed to very many pictures out of the professional avenue. You saw photos in magazines and coffee table books. Maybe a few art shows. You also saw your family and friends' snapshots or albums, and recognized them as what they were. (Unless your uncle was Ansel Adams or something) But we weren't exposed to thousands of everyday images, and we didn't snap hundreds of images for routine events. Even with weddings, you usually got maybe 40 or 50 prints, and that seemed like a lot. Now, brides expect hundreds. So, yeah, I think sheer mass is dumbing down what is considered to be good photography. I'm not going to debate film vs. digital, I have seen astounding images produced with both, and I use and enjoy both. The dumbing down is snaking into every walk of life. If you don't believe it, just look at some posts right here on YA. Many, many people don't use even rudimentary grammar skills, and can't even be bothered to run a spell check. They don't know the difference between there and their, or hear and here, or to, two, and too. I could go on and on, but I will now step down from my soapbox. Thank you for a thought provoking question. I shall look forward to seeing what others have to add. "In no way is this intended to provoke another digital vs. film debate...." But you feel the need to say that you think film produces better quality images, and digital is lowering photographic standards. So, given that you've asserted that you don't want a debate, it seems your purpose is only to elicit agreement from those individuals on here that share your views. What's the point? There are countless examples of superb photography in both film and digital format. The format that is "better" has far more to do with the application/subject than any intrinsic standard. I will say that the proliferation of digital technology has democratized photography: allowing more people to take more photos more often. On the one hand, this means that there are probably more good photographers shooting now than at any time in the medium's history. On the other hand, there are many, many more terrible photographers that are even infiltrating the ranks of so-called professionals. In particular, there are plenty of "wedding photographers" out there that don't have the slightest notion of the elements of composition or the technical aspects of exposure. But blaming the digital format for "dumbing-down" photography is pretty elitist. The proliferation of mediocre digital photographers isn't negatively impacting your ability to make lovely film images, is it? I'm primarily a digital professional, but I certainly don't lose any sleep over the $500 craigslist wedding photographers stealing my business. There will always be those out there who value quality, talent, and technical proficiency: both as image makers, and customers or viewers. Professional Photographer http://www.evanbaines.com |
Photography Categories--Copyright/IP Policy--Contact Webmaster |