Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Think back to 1993. The digital revolution had been affecting photography for a couple of decades, but the end products were usually microprocessors to calculate exposure value or ultra-expensive scanners and their accompanying high-end PCs. An average casual picture-taker had a simple 35mm film fixed-focus camera, without zoom or manual controls - the ultimate point and shoot - which she used once in a while to take pictures of the kids and of parties. About a step up - perhaps the analogues of the current or past "luxury digital point and shoot market" - were weekend photographers who played with zoom lenses, autofocus and manual focus, and perhaps even F/values and exposure times. Then I would suspect there were the amateur photographers with their interchangeable-lens 35mm SLRs. Some well-funded ones might have even bought a computer and scanner, although they were few.
Fast forward to the present. The first group - the picture-takers - are served mostly by their mobile phone cameras. Few have zoom, but many phones now capture images on the order of 8 to 13 megapixels, exceeding the practical resolution of the simple film cameras that they had in the past. Not only that, but they have a constant live preview for framing that does not require squinting. After they snap the shot, they can choose from a variety of filters, free of charge, that would take even the most skilled photographer in 1993 hours, days, or months to replicate using physical techniques.
The serious amateur photographers have seemed to increase in number, too. Relatively inexpensive digital SLRs and the groundbreaking convenience of digital have led to a deluge of new users, from telephoto-dragging soccer moms to aspiring Ansel Adams wannabes to those looking to make a little extra on the side shooting graduation and engagement pictures. These cameras, with their interchangeable lenses and precise manual controls, have introduced such concepts as "the rule of thirds", "exposure", "ISO", "aperture", and "bokeh" to untold millions who would not know them if digital was not prevalent.
The common factor that unites users of simple cameraphones and DSLRs is the ability to shoot unlimited pictures without incurring any marginal cost. This, combined with LCD screens that offer superior ease of framing, could mean that the average photo shared today exceeds the quality of those shared ten or twenty years ago.
What do you think? And does the average picture taken, say 20 years ago, fall behind the average picture taken now in quality and photography skill?
From the looks of many of the photographs posted here by many beginners I would say digital has not helped them much.
many asking about how to start up businesses have photos that are well below what they should be.
the lack of dynamic range in digital has created a new problem for beginners ,blow out and crushed shadows .
I do think that people are more readily able to capture a moment they might not have otherwise. And those happen to be better quality only because technology has advanced.
Artistic quality has also been made more prevalent, especially with the rise of things like Instagram, but actual talent and work ethic is still rare. (It is one thing to use a filter, it's another to know how to adjust curves in PS)
So much like YouTube is there to expose (no pun int.) burgeoning artists, easy higher quality camera access does the same. It's more of an opportunity to create good photographers.
Ironically though, pictures taken 20 years ago on average were probably better because you had to know about proper exposure, film speeds and isos even to have your pictures come out at all. And those who had nicer cameras were probably a bit more well off. A lot of vintage pictures I've seen from the 60's and 70's have wonderful bokeh, for what would otherwise be a run of the mill shot today.
So in the end I believe there are more decent pictures today, only by virtue of technology. However actual quality (subjective and otherwise) might favor pictures 20-30 years ago, because it was more of a niche hobby...if that makes any sense.
Personally I've taken some neat photos on my phone, but only because I've (self) studied photography. It's really cool to be able to catch and frame a moment that would have otherwise gone away. My DSLR is admittingly collecting a bit of dust, as I only take it out for big occasions. I'll probably hold on to it until a cheap full frame camera with wi-fi comes out, otherwise my phone/DSLR does ok.
So yeah, the tools are there, but it still takes someone who knows what they're doing to get the full effect from them.
These cameras, with their interchangeable lenses and precise manual controls, have introduced such concepts as "the rule of thirds", "exposure", "ISO", "aperture", and "bokeh" to untold millions who would not know them if digital was not prevalent.
The rules, and the exposure triangle, were already there. Digital era has simply brought in the idea of trial and error, to be used liberally. The rule of thirds can now be composed accurately with frame lines in the LCD or on the view finder, which also show 100% view (most film cameras did not). I will say that I didn't think about diagonal lines in the view finder and LCD (to go with rule of third frame lines) back with film camera but have it on at all times. Or, level-indicator to further help with composition.
A major catalyst, however, has been the public discussion forums where we discuss photography more than ever, and easily accessible.
Quote:
What do you think? And does the average picture taken, say 20 years ago, fall behind the average picture taken now in quality and photography skill?
Not necessarily. The volume is up, so chances are, the quality is proportionately up or down. Now, digital does have the benefit of instant reviews, and practically unlimited shots at an event. For example, I took about 23 frames of a bouquet toss at a family wedding recently with my A55 at 10 fps, but eliminated a few on the spot, a few more during RAW conversion and delivered about 12 to the couple out of it. The rejection was primarily due to duplication of facial expression whereas I wanted to capture unique ones.
I was just a child when I started shooting (I'm 50 now, so do the math) and can categorically say that digital cameras and photo editing software are just tools. If an image is poorly composed, incorrectly exposed, or otherwise technically faulty, all the tools in the world won't help.
Everyone is a photographer these days, but few really consistently produce excellent images. Those who do not only possess a natural ability, but also understand (and apply) the fundamentals - the relationship of aperture, ISO, and shutter speed; the role of light and qualty of that light; an eye for composition. They know their gear intimately including not only its limitations, but how far they can push these limits.
There's a lot more to it than pointing, shooting, auto-correcting in post-processing, and posting said images online.
You ask a couple totally different questions between the thread title and the basic question at the end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdxer
Has digital brought advanced photography techniques and photomanipulation to the masses?
Yes. With a qualifier; there are a lot of looks and photos that back in the film days took some advanced techniques to obtain, while now you can get a plug-in or filter to mimic that. Nobody can deny that PhotoShop has brought photo manipulation to the masses. Proper technique while shooting photographs today will produce better results that a "spray and pray" method of taking pictures. Sometimes you get lucky with crappy technique and zero knowledge of composition; but, to reproduce the good results time and again, you need proper technique.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdxer
What do you think? And does the average picture taken, say 20 years ago, fall behind the average picture taken now in quality and photography skill?
No. Filters and manipulation cannot replace quality and for sure cannot replace skill. 20+ years ago most people didn't have the option of taking 1000+ images a week-end or even 1000+ a day and then get to sift through them to keep the 5 or 6 actual good shots. To see your results you had to process the film and then either mount the slide or make a print to even see what your efforts produced.
One of my favorite writers of photo articles and books is David DuChemin; something he wrote in one of his books has stuck with me: "There is no un-suck filter." As true today as when he wrote it.
One thing, I think I mentioned in another thread, is that with digital you can shoot,recompose, adjust aperture and speed, etc many times. When I used to shoot 20-30 rolls of film on vacation, or at a sporting event, I can now shoot 1000 plus images to find the few that I want.
Our vacation this month was about 990 exposures. Last year was 1500
My keepers are still about the same 2-300. That number has been consistent since I started with digital with my 10D whenever that came out. With film, my keepers were about 30-40% of what I took
There was one IndyCar race I shot years ago with 2 cameras and umteen lenses and paid for film and processing with full media access. Shot over 100 rolls of film and only had 40-50 "money shots". This year shot 1K images under the same conditions at Mid-Ohio Rolex Grand-Am shot about 1500 images with several hundred keepers
The rules, and the exposure triangle, were already there. Digital era has simply brought in the idea of trial and error, to be used liberally. The rule of thirds can now be composed accurately with frame lines in the LCD or on the view finder, which also show 100% view (most film cameras did not). I will say that I didn't think about diagonal lines in the view finder and LCD (to go with rule of third frame lines) back with film camera but have it on at all times. Or, level-indicator to further help with composition.
A major catalyst, however, has been the public discussion forums where we discuss photography more than ever, and easily accessible.
Not necessarily. The volume is up, so chances are, the quality is proportionately up or down. Now, digital does have the benefit of instant reviews, and practically unlimited shots at an event. For example, I took about 23 frames of a bouquet toss at a family wedding recently with my A55 at 10 fps, but eliminated a few on the spot, a few more during RAW conversion and delivered about 12 to the couple out of it. The rejection was primarily due to duplication of facial expression whereas I wanted to capture unique ones.
i would attribute the internet to producing a faster learning curve more than the fact things went to digital.
as a drummer i used to sit and play records at slow speed for days trying to figure out parts. today in a few seconds you can watch a video on line and get it perfect.
i think 80% of what i learned in photography came from the internet.
I think there are some people who start out in photography in the digital age and suck really bad. Without any training, they don't know how to "see" photographs, whether in the field or even when they get back home and load them onto the computer. Here two seperate groups of people seem to be formed. The first, larger, group are the folks who never get passed this point. They are not photographers; they're picture takers. They will likely never improve. Many won't even realize they need to improve. There's nothing really wrong with this type of thinking, but it irritates me when they don't know they're not that good. Some of these folks will upload their shots to the web and seriously think they are pro level. Some will be the ones that get a good camera and within three months will start their "photography" "business." Some of them actually will get customers, which really pisses me off.
The other, smaller group of people might start uploading their stuff and initially not see any problems with it. As they shoot more, they'll share more and get advice. And, somewhat surprisingly in some cases, they will heed that advice. They'll buy books or watch on-line tutorials and maybe even take classes in brick and mortar schools. They'll go from thinking their shots are good to nitpicking every shot they take. This is a good sign. They are becoming their own worst critic. You'll see them transforming from a picture taker to a photographer in front of your eyes.
And, obviously, it is easier in the digital age. I bought my first serious cameras in 1999 and while I had a decent eye for composition, technically, I was subpar. Never wanted to take the camera off of Auto for fear I'd screw it. Somehow, I was OK with the camera screwing up by shooting moving trains at 1/60th of a second or some such horrid setting. I shot print film for the longest time also. It kills me to think of so far once in a lifetime shot oppurtunities that I killed due to Auto and print film. Finally, I went full manual and slides in 2002 and then went digital prettyearly in the digital era when the first DSLR was under $1000. Best money I ever spent as outlined in the first two paragraphs.
I was watching TV and there was an advertisement for a 41mp cell phone. 41mp cell phone camera??? It was a Nokia something.
We have had cell phone photos show up in an annual Photography salon...and they were really good. If the picture-takers hadn't told us they were taken with a cell phone I doubt anyone would have known. I think the person had classes in Photoshop and as far as I was concerned, excelled in it.
I have noticed a few people who teach college photography classes (we sometimes use them as judges) tend to be on the artsy side, that is, they are more attracted to what I call abstract or art and design type photos. You know, for example, they like bubbles in a glass of soda or a rusty nail in a post more than say, landscapes or wildlife photography. I think it rubs off on their students...not that there is anything wrong with that but combine that with an affinity for photo manipulation by their students who grew up with computers and you get a lot of what I have termed "avant garde" photography, these days.
The only thing, I think, digital has done is it has allowed you to make mistakes and afford it. I think people who got into photography with film are a lot more concerned with setting up a perfect shot than people who never used film. They may be good with photo manipulation, too, but they're really good at taking photos. Not being one of those film people, I don't care if I take, for example, 15 burst photos of the same songbird (who is constantly twitching) as long as one of them suits me. I can easily discard the other 14 without any thought of cost. I spend a lot of time on post-processing because I like it.
Let's face it, when photos are judged nobody cares that it took you 5 hours or 5 minutes to get that great photo, whether you hiked 5 miles for that flower photo or took it in the park around the corner, whether you lugged a zillion tons of gear with you or you hand held your camera with one lens. They just judge the photo. So if Joe Novice takes a camera phone into the park around the corner and snaps a butterfly and Jane Semi-Pro flies to Outer Mongolia with a $5,000 camera and snaps a butterfly, the judge is still just looking at the photos. If Joe Novice can make his look better with photo manipulation, so what? Photos are judged not processes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
