digital photography is ruining our lives

[smittymike19]

ok so i ahve recently really gotten into digital photography. i mean really bad. last week i spent tons of hours looking through books of popular photographers from years past when only film was available. here are notable items.

1. it used to be cool to have noise in your shots. i still think it is, but some of the shots today would be run through noise ninja 10x to make the person look like a barbie doll rtaher than have a little noise in it.
2. Soft focus used to ba an acceptable art form. it seems like now everyone wants to have "tack" sharp shots of everything.
3. color stauration. it is quite ridiculous how oversaturated most of the new digital photos are. its to the point that if your colors arent flourescent, they are unacceptable.

i for one think its ok to have noise and non tack sharp focus and non flourescent pictures. this digital age is ruining our perception of what looks nice in a photo. every response i hear here seems to be the same , not sharp, not bright, too much noise. its ok really, not all shots have to look the same.

[soupdragon]

I've been round this loop a couple of times.
The only points I still hold fast are:

1. I tend to try and turn what I photographed into something different (because I can)

2. I can't get out of holding my finger on the shutter until the buffer is full in the hope that I will get one good shot out of an action sequence.

[aam1234]

Can't agree with you more Mike, and so glad you brought this subject up.

1. it used to be cool to have noise in your shots. i still think it is, but some of the shots today would be run through noise ninja 10x to make the person look like a barbie doll rtaher than have a little noise in it.

Unfortunately, and IMO, the noise of digital is not as pleasing as from film.

2. Soft focus used to ba an acceptable art form. it seems like now everyone wants to have "tack" sharp shots of everything.

I so agree with you on that one that I started a thread about it. What is "tack" anyway?

And a related subject is USM. Some people don't use it... they abuse it!

3. color stauration. it is quite ridiculous how oversaturated most of the new digital photos are. its to the point that if your colors arent flourescent, they are unacceptable.

Ha ha, so true. And some people take it to the extreme, where almost literally it hurts the eyes to look at some of these photos.

This is a great topic for discussion. But in fairness, and just a thought... maybe digital is a new paradigm, where old rules may not apply.

Still a great subject for thoughts and views.

Thanks Mike.

(Edited format of my response).

[BillMarks]

I view photography as a form of art, a form of expression. There are no absolutes when it comes to art and expression. Whatever works to support the artist's vision is acceptable. If he or she needs a tack sharp image to get their vision across then that is appropriate. If soft focus is needed, then that is appropriate.

I always find it amusing to read critiques of photos where the person making the critique has no idea of what the artist was trying to say with their photo because it is the message being expressed that dictates the technique used. Technique for technique's sake is a waste of time and energy.

[The Why Not Guy]

I think part of it is that digital photography is relatively new, and the photography world is still discoving what it can/cannot do in comparison to film photography. It's like when you get a new car and it has a feature your old car didn't have, you use that feature all the time just for the novelty. Then the novelty wears off and you use the feature when it's appropriate.

But, on the other hand, the fact remains that digital photography is different. It has different capabilities and limitations, and so it probably won't ever perfectly align with film photography, even if we wanted it to.

[smittymike19]

I think part of it is that digital photography is relatively new, and the photography world is still discoving what it can/cannot do in comparison to film photography. It's like when you get a new car and it has a feature your old car didn't have, you use that feature all the time just for the novelty. Then the novelty wears off and you use the feature when it's appropriate.

But, on the other hand, the fact remains that digital photography is different. It has different capabilities and limitations, and so it probably won't ever perfectly align with film photography, even if we wanted it to.

good points. i guess it just really made me take a step back this weekend when i was looking at the older photos. i have been so wrapped up in this forum taht it makes you lose touch with the fact that the noise and low saturated colors are not totally unacceptable.

[cosworth]

I totally agree.

Trade your camera with a friend who uses film for a month. Shoot some film and get a feel for old photography again. Better yet, go buy a cheap rebel body and use your lenses and go shoot with some high iso film for a bit.

People used to sail everywhere. Now we fly.

[smittymike19]

I totally agree.

Trade your camera with a friend who uses film for a month. Shoot some film and get a feel for old photography again. Better yet, go buy a cheap rebel body and use your lenses and go shoot with some high iso film for a bit.

People used to sail everywhere. Now we fly.

i still have an old nikon that i break out once in a while. the point is that while flying is faster than sailing, there is a price to pay for the plane ride. you no longer get the smell of salt air, the breeze in your face, the sun, the feeling of being in the open water. etc... the term Visceral comes to mind. ;)

[aam1234]

Good points you have The Why Not Guy

There are things at play here, which The Why Not Guy implied in his post.

1- For many, digital was their only real encounter with photography (relatively speaking).

2- The freedom to play in PP is a new concept for many people, so they experiment and play around a little, which is a good thing.

[soupdragon]

Good points you have The Why Not Guy

There are things at play here, which The Why Not Guy implied in his post.

1- For many, digital was their only real encounter with photography (relatively speaking).

2- The freedom to play in PP is a new concept for many people, so they experiment and play around a little, which is a good thing.


That's a good point about digital being their only real encounter with photography.
I wonder how many of them sit and contemplate "having a go" with film when they have exhausted all PS options?

[blue_max]

A counter arguement could be:

In the 'old' days, we were not able to do those things and was it right because you couldn't do something?

Was black and white television better than colour because the technology was not there at the time?

If you choose to do a bad shot (if we can agree to call it that), then you really ought to have a reason or effect in mind. However, If people criticise a shot for 'extreme' colour, then the norm would be to tone them down.

People here have a passion for their images. If the majority like their images that way, then there must be something in it.

Like all pioneers, you need to have the courage of your convictions to stand up and be different, or follow the herd.

Graham (moo)

[Curtis N]

When I give or sell prints to people (and I mean people who never studied photography and haven't been influenced by teachers and mentors who taught them how to critique an image) they will always be most impressed by the ones that are sharp, well-saturated, and noise-free, as long as the subject matter is interesting. They rarely ask if said prints were taken with a film or digital camera.

Pros and serious hobbyists have always bought more expensive lenses because they made sharper images than cheap ones. For decades, certain kinds of film have been specially designed for intense saturation.

The general preference for clean, sharp, colorful pictures is certainly not a recent phenomenon, and is unrelated to digital technology.

[aam1234]

Good points Graham (no moo from me :D )

In the 'old' days, we were not able to do those things and was it right because you couldn't do something?

Was black and white television better than colour because the technology was not there at the time?

That's what I meant by "new paradigm". Just because it wasn't done before doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing.

[smittymike19]

i guess what i am trying to say is taht digital photography is to photography what pornography is to sex. there is no way taht your sex life is as good as a portrayed in pornography. same can be said about digital photography. your eye does not see color as sharp and crisp in real life as you do when you look at these exaggerated photos.

[Jon]

i guess what i am trying to say is taht digital photography is to photography what pornography is to sex. there is no way taht your sex life is as good as a portrayed in pornography. same can be said about digital photography. your eye does not see color as sharp and crisp in real life as you do when you look at these exaggerated photos.
You looked at Fuji Velvia vs. some older Ektachrome 200 recently? High saturation's being used into digital because people want the same effects they're used to seeing in film. Namely, high saturation and punchy colours.

[Sean-Mcr]

I spokd of being in an art gallery in Edinburgh not long ago, and huge prints by great artists some of the uk's current leading lights with every means of reducing grain/noise available to them in their work. But thankfully they left it in where it suite, and many more were beautiful because of that grain

I 100% aggree with this article http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-july31-05.shtml which i've posted many times on this and other forums

"But I digress. I was speaking of my ignorance, and I meant to bring up an example of one of the many things I don't understand. It's that everybody always seems to be talking about noise. Every time I log on to a forum somewhere, people are deeply concerned about it. Such-and-such a camera has noise. Noise at ISO 3200. Noisy sensor. Too much noise. I hear more noise about noise than I do about the national debt.

What in the world...? Noise has got to be the biggest non-problem in all of digital photography.

First of all, complaining about noise in pictures is like complaining that you can see brushstrokes in paintings at the museum. It's just a hallmark of the technique; it's not something to decry, it's something to enjoy. Random museum visitor: "My God, all those obtrusive little dots! Who is this Georges Seurat character, anyhow?"

[aam1234]

Good points there Curtis.

I think what's being discussed here is not the merits / de-merits of photo attributes, but rather the over-emphasis on these attributes recently. It's as you said, saturated photos have been around for a long time, nothing new there.


Edit: Do you remember the calenders from Asian companies in the 70's. Boy, were they over-saturated :)

[zacker]

hey, my old zenith tv looked good back then too,At least we THOUGHT so! but youll never take away my new digital system.,.not on your life!

"Beauty is all in the eye of beholder"
remember that?
it still holds true today!
-zacker-

[Hellashot]

ok so i ahve recently really gotten into digital photography. i mean really bad. last week i spent tons of hours looking through books of popular photographers from years past when only film was available. here are notable items.

1. it used to be cool to have noise in your shots. i still think it is, but some of the shots today would be run through noise ninja 10x to make the person look like a barbie doll rtaher than have a little noise in it.
2. Soft focus used to ba an acceptable art form. it seems like now everyone wants to have "tack" sharp shots of everything.
3. color stauration. it is quite ridiculous how oversaturated most of the new digital photos are. its to the point that if your colors arent flourescent, they are unacceptable.

i for one think its ok to have noise and non tack sharp focus and non flourescent pictures. this digital age is ruining our perception of what looks nice in a photo. every response i hear here seems to be the same , not sharp, not bright, too much noise. its ok really, not all shots have to look the same.

Now do you have a point to all this? Put it this way, if you had a choice between a house that had only one layout to choose from and one where you could customize the rooms, wall colors, framing type you'd choose the latter, right? The same with digital photography - you're not stuck with what is recorded on the film. You can get a better result with post processing - exposure, shadows, sharpening, color balance, etc.

Stay with your film if you want and take it to photo places that don't deal in digital.

Everything gets better with time. Just like how now fairways on the PGA tour are cut 0.1 inches shorter than 30 years ago, and green are more smooth and cut shorter. All things progress!

[soupdragon]

I spokd of being in an art gallery in Edinburgh not long ago, and huge prints by great artists some of the uk's current leading lights with every means of reducing grain/noise available to them in their work. But thankfully they left it in where it suite, and many more were beautiful because of that grain

I 100% aggree with this article http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-july31-05.shtml which i've posted many times on this and other forums

"But I digress. I was speaking of my ignorance, and I meant to bring up an example of one of the many things I don't understand. It's that everybody always seems to be talking about noise. Every time I log on to a forum somewhere, people are deeply concerned about it. Such-and-such a camera has noise. Noise at ISO 3200. Noisy sensor. Too much noise. I hear more noise about noise than I do about the national debt.

What in the world...? Noise has got to be the biggest non-problem in all of digital photography.

First of all, complaining about noise in pictures is like complaining that you can see brushstrokes in paintings at the museum. It's just a hallmark of the technique; it's not something to decry, it's something to enjoy. Random museum visitor: "My God, all those obtrusive little dots! Who is this Georges Seurat character, anyhow?"

Well I think there will always be exceptions in all cases, one place where noise appears to be unwelcome is in macro where loss of detail in things like fly hair or beetle legs makes the images un-acceptable.
It's probably down to macro being more clinical than artistic and that macro, in it's own right, is to enable the study of fine detail normally invisible to the human eye.

[aam1234]

Hello Hellashot, how are you today.

I think, and hope I'm wrong, that you didn't get what Mike was trying to say. He wasn't saying that digital is bad and film is good, not near that actually. What I understood from him is that many people are putting too much emphasis on certain things since digital became mainstream and more common.

Hope that makes sense.

[S Taylor]

I think, and hope I'm wrong, that you didn't get what Mike was trying to say. He wasn't saying that digital is bad and film is good, not near that actually.

Perhaps... but the title of the post is the first thing one sees before reading his thoughts, so the spin is digital = negative before you read any of the content.

William

[smittymike19]

Now do you have a point to all this? Put it this way, if you had a choice between a house that had only one layout to choose from and one where you could customize the rooms, wall colors, framing type you'd choose the latter, right? The same with digital photography - you're not stuck with what is recorded on the film. You can get a better result with post processing - exposure, shadows, sharpening, color balance, etc.

Stay with your film if you want and take it to photo places that don't deal in digital.

Everything gets better with time. Just like how now fairways on the PGA tour are cut 0.1 inches shorter than 30 years ago, and green are more smooth and cut shorter. All things progress!

i think the point is being missed. i think its wondeful that we have every opputunity to get our pictures adjusted so that they meet the expectations we had for it when it was shot. the problem is that the trend seems to be to process it to the nth degree, so that it is WAY exagerated and then people seem to think that is the only way a photo looks good.

ill put it this way. i have 2 cars at home a bmw and an old mustang. garnted the bmw blows the doors off the mustang performance wise and feature wise, but there is soemthing spectacular about driving the mustang with no shoes on, going to the beach. :cool:

dont look here: http://www.toycamera.com/about.cfm if you are a huge digital perfectionist. you may fall over. GO NOISE NINJA!!

ps i say some of this with tongue in cheek as i do use noise ninja and other tools available to me, its just that they dont need to be utilized EVERY SINGLE TIME and to the degree taht they are being pushed in order to have a great shot.

[Scottes]

If National Geographic released an issue with only Daugerrotypes would it be accepted today?

[aam1234]

Perhaps... but the title of the post is the first thing one sees before reading his thoughts, so the spin is digital = negative before you read any of the content.

William

True about the title, William

But he choose it as a catch title, he doesn't mean it literally, he was being creative with it.

[smittymike19]

True about the title, William

But he choose it as a catch title, he doesn't mean it literally, he was being creative with it.

obviously i dont think its ruining my life, I OWN ONE! :) just something to get your attention.

[smittymike19]

If National Geographic released an issue with only Daugerrotypes would it be accepted today?

lmao. prolly not, but it would be pretty cool to see.
:D

[aam1234]

What is "Daugerrotypes". Googled it but didn't get a clear idea. It sounds like a daughter that hate her parents :D

[Scottes]

Daugerrotypes - and I may have the spelling wrong - were a very, very early (first?) form of photography. Yep - correct spelling is "daguerreotype".

A little history: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/daghtml/dagdag.html

Here's an example daguerreotype from 1839: http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/cph/3g00000/3g05000/3g05000/3g05001r.jpg

[blue_max]

and... you can always use digital to make the shot out of focus, drab and with loads of noise until it pleases you.

Damn, all my pics are that way still!

Graham

[aam1234]

and... you can always use digital to make the shot out of focus, drab and with loads of noise until it pleases you.

Damn, all my pics are that way still!

Graham


Ha ha, I love British humor.

[blue_max]

What do you mean 'humour'?


Graham

[aam1234]

What do you mean 'humour'?


Graham

Ha ha, stop it :lol:

[Scottes]

Oh, Graham, you're killing me. :-)

[smittymike19]

ok so i guess how i should have started this post out was to post 3 pictures i have seen recently that have gotten rave reviews, where i think the colors are literally glowing. its irritating to my eyes. i guess we all are entitled to our own opinion on what looks nice.
like i said before i guess im really mad at myself for getting wrapped up in these forums were all of the pictures are picked apart because they are noisy, low color or or soft. whne i look at some old photos i realize that its ok to have these qualities. i really wish i could psot the examples that are irritating me but i wouldnt do that to a fellow photographer.it would really drive my point home.

[jfrancho]

Why don't you just recreate a similar image yourself and post here. Sometimes learning how to do something you don't like or are uncomfortable with can be a learning opportunity.

[blue_max]

ok so i guess how i should have started this post out was to post 3 pictures i have seen recently that have gotten rave reviews, where i think the colors are literally glowing. its irritating to my eyes. i guess we all are entitled to our own opinion on what looks nice.
like i said before i guess im really mad at myself for getting wrapped up in these forums were all of the pictures are picked apart because they are noisy, low color or or soft. whne i look at some old photos i realize that its ok to have these qualities. i really wish i could psot the examples that are irritating me but i wouldnt do that to a fellow photographer.it would really drive my point home.

You do have your opportunity to review the pics yourself (if you didn't). Your point of view is just as valid as anybody else's. If you can't talk about noise or colour etc. you are only left with composition and who says what is right or wrong there?

Graham

[Sean-Mcr]

Well I think there will always be exceptions in all cases, one place where noise appears to be unwelcome is in macro where loss of detail in things like fly hair or beetle legs makes the images un-acceptable.
It's probably down to macro being more clinical than artistic and that macro, in it's own right, is to enable the study of fine detail normally invisible to the human eye.

You're right there Pal

I also think noise lends itself better to black and white then colour. But that's subjective, and depends on the subject. Macro, you need a lot of light so i'd have thought ISO would not be too much an issue, but yes if it had to be for such a subject then it might detract.

But lets face it, if a shot's powerful enough it can over come anything. We've all seen the robert Capa shots of the D day landing http://www.skylighters.org/photos/hedgehog.jpg (http://www.skylighters.org/photos/hedgehog.jpg) now grain in that photo does nothing but add to it

The hard truth i have to admit to myself is my photos are never going to have the impact of Capas, i'm not going to have to worry about documenting genocide, war, famine. Biggest thing i and most of us have to worry about (and I’m getting less worried about it) is adjusting curves in photos that were ok to begin with, removing noise or even worse, deleting them because of it.


Cropping is getting to be a pet hate of mine, I’ve cropped 2 photos, I’m never going to crop another. But that’s another subject for another day:)

[Thornfield]

Instead of all this worrying about contrast, sharpness etc etc lets just concentrate on what we are actualy trying to say with our photographs. Once we have a message, the medium that we use to convey this will be dictated by the content

To photograph something well, you have to know your subject. Otherwise you start using gimmicks.

[jfrancho]

Instead of all this worrying about contrast, sharpness etc etc lets just concentrate on what we are actualy trying to say with our photographs. Once we have a message, the medium that we use to convey this will be dictated by the content

To photograph something well, you have to know your subject. Otherwise you start using gimmicks.That's a case of which came first, the chicken or the egg, or in this case ability and expression. Some will say you need to master the technical side to effectively convey your message, some say the opposite. I think both come with time, practice and experience. And I worry about all aspects of my pictures.

[Sean-Mcr]

Some might think the noise in the photo below is too much, personally i like it. I've got neat image pro, but i'd not alter it a jot, nor would i remove the reflection from the light inside the bar i was sat in at the time. I like it just as it is, actually i love the noise in it

http://i.pbase.com/v3/87/571287/1/48450212.20D046.jpg

[woodb01]

I spokd of being in an art gallery in Edinburgh not long ago, and huge prints by great artists some of the uk's current leading lights with every means of reducing grain/noise available to them in their work. But thankfully they left it in where it suite, and many more were beautiful because of that grain

I 100% aggree with this article http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-july31-05.shtml which i've posted many times on this and other forums

"But I digress. I was speaking of my ignorance, and I meant to bring up an example of one of the many things I don't understand. It's that everybody always seems to be talking about noise. Every time I log on to a forum somewhere, people are deeply concerned about it. Such-and-such a camera has noise. Noise at ISO 3200. Noisy sensor. Too much noise. I hear more noise about noise than I do about the national debt.

What in the world...? Noise has got to be the biggest non-problem in all of digital photography.

First of all, complaining about noise in pictures is like complaining that you can see brushstrokes in paintings at the museum. It's just a hallmark of the technique; it's not something to decry, it's something to enjoy. Random museum visitor: "My God, all those obtrusive little dots! Who is this Georges Seurat character, anyhow?"

Unless you're trying to achieve a particular effect, noise is NOT good. It distracts from the subject matter. As for oversaturated colors, it's up to the individual's taste. I try to capture color and contrast the way the image actually appears.

And frankly, sharp is great unless you're trying to achieve some type of image effect. Sometimes you can create a special ambiance with warm=soft lighting and a soft image and deep shadows. Or an almost 3D like effect with lots of contrast, color, and the right fill light.

Soft, slightly out of focus and grainy images are VERY easy. Getting a really sharp image, dead on, with good bokeh, or alternately, the right stark image elements can be breathtaking.

The really sharp, high color images in less than bright light are very hard to get. The real question is what does noise or softness add to the impression of the image. If you like your images grainy or soft, and that's your preference, then shoot everything that way.

Frankly, I like deep, realistic color, sharp images, good contrast, and almost "surreal" images. I may take 20-30 or even as many as 50 shots until I get the one or two that I keep. The couple of images with just the right composition and effect. And for me, noise is my enemy. Softness is cool sometimes though...

[jfrancho]

Some might think the noise in the photo below is too much, personally i like it. I've got neat image pro, but i'd not alter it a jot, nor would i remove the reflection from the light inside the bar i was sat in at the time. I like it just as it is, actually i love the noise in itThat's awesome. I like taking picks through bar windows. Digital lets us compare notes, quickly and across oceans.

Not exactly the same thing, but similar circumstances, and I can't change a thing:
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/22918650-M.jpg

[Maureen Souza]

Interesting thread. I too have posted that we tend to look at quality really heavily instead of enjoying a less 'perfect' photo. If I am happy with a less than perfect photo, I keep it. Often I print it and it looks great. I often focus more on the memory and the happiness of a photo than all it's technical merit. Life's too short to worry about perfect pictures.

[clipper_from_oz]

ok so i ahve recently really gotten into digital photography. i mean really bad. last week i spent tons of hours looking through books of popular photographers from years past when only film was available. here are notable items.

1. it used to be cool to have noise in your shots. i still think it is, but some of the shots today would be run through noise ninja 10x to make the person look like a barbie doll rtaher than have a little noise in it.
2. Soft focus used to ba an acceptable art form. it seems like now everyone wants to have "tack" sharp shots of everything.
3. color stauration. it is quite ridiculous how oversaturated most of the new digital photos are. its to the point that if your colors arent flourescent, they are unacceptable.

i for one think its ok to have noise and non tack sharp focus and non flourescent pictures. this digital age is ruining our perception of what looks nice in a photo. every response i hear here seems to be the same , not sharp, not bright, too much noise. its ok really, not all shots have to look the same.


So RIGHT!

[Sean-Mcr]

Unless you're trying to achieve a particular effect, noise is NOT good. It distracts from the subject matter. As for oversaturated colors, it's up to the individual's taste. I try to capture color and contrast the way the image actually appears.

And frankly, sharp is great unless you're trying to achieve some type of image effect. Sometimes you can create a special ambiance with warm=soft lighting and a soft image and deep shadows. Or an almost 3D like effect with lots of contrast, color, and the right fill light.

Soft, slightly out of focus and grainy images are VERY easy. Getting a really sharp image, dead on, with good bokeh, or alternately, the right stark image elements can be breathtaking.

The really sharp, high color images in less than bright light are very hard to get. The real question is what does noise or softness add to the impression of the image. If you like your images grainy or soft, and that's your preference, then shoot everything that way.

Frankly, I like deep, realistic color, sharp images, good contrast, and almost "surreal" images. I may take 20-30 or even as many as 50 shots until I get the one or two that I keep. The couple of images with just the right composition and effect. And for me, noise is my enemy. Softness is cool sometimes though...


Noise is your enemy, it's sometimes mine, but it doesn't always have to be so

It's not hard to get sharp images, it's hard to get good images that are actually worth seeing regardless of how sharp they are. Noise like grain in a photo if it's the right photo, can add atmosphere, look at Robert capas shots of the D day landing. Every major photographer would be scanning there negs and running them through PS ect like bands remaster albums if they were in the least bit interested. But you don't guild lilies

[aam1234]

Nice shot you have there John, and clever cropping too.

[Sean-Mcr]

John

That's very natural looking shot was it a friend or a stranger?

Look at the below photo, that is one of the most celebrated photographs in history; bokeh? Pah! Sharpness? What does that have to do with such a photo? The context is razor sharp the composition is beyond sharp. Capa took plenty of sharp grain free images, but he'd turn in his grave if that shot was remastered

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=DocThumb_DocZoom&o=&DT=ALB&E=2TYRYDIPAWHO&Pass=&Total=106&Pic=45&SubE=2S5RYDDCAI4

[jfrancho]

aam1234: Thanks. If by crop you mean framing, it was pure luck. Or instinct. Or skill. I can't decide which.

Sean-Mcr: Thanks. He is more of a somewhat annoying aquaintance. He was, at this point, shouting through the glass, begging me to put him on the guest list since he didn't want to pay to see our band. Interesting tactic for a self proclaimed music promotor.

[aam1234]

Opps, I meant framing, thanks for the correction.

[jfrancho]

Opps, I meant framing, thanks for the correction.I just didn't want to give the others the impression I cropped my images...I do have my reputation, you know. (Just Kidding!!)

[aam1234]

:D :D

[rdenney]

i guess what i am trying to say is taht digital photography is to photography what pornography is to sex. there is no way taht your sex life is as good as a portrayed in pornography. same can be said about digital photography. your eye does not see color as sharp and crisp in real life as you do when you look at these exaggerated photos.

Who said the objective, even with film, was realism? Ansel Adams used film, but there's no way in the world a black and white image taken through a deep red filter is going to be realistic in any sense of the word. I once made a color photo of a wrought-iron cross on a burial marker at a church on the high road between Santa Fe and Taos. Adams photographed the same cross 50 or 60 years earlier using black and white film. In his photo, the filtration he used made the black cross appear bright on a dark sky, while my more realistic photo showed a black cross against a bright sky. You tell me which is more realistic. There's no doubt which image is more powerful.

Nature often has a glow and a sparkle and a visual excitement to it. That sparkle is impossible to photograph, but we can convey a feeling of that energy by manipulating the reality of the photo in other ways. Why else shoot Velvia? Why filter down a blue sky with black and white film? Why use black and white film in the first place? We enhance those aspects of the scene that move us while removing others that don't have that effect.

Don't think your preferred manipulation of reality is somehow more valid than someone else's. Painters used oils because the colors were more saturated, and had more depth even than real life. The images I've seen from new digital photographers are not new in art even if they are new in photography (and I don't think they are new in photography).

Rick "who tries to capture a feeling, which almost always requires more than strict realism, and who considers this a traditional approach to art" Denney

[soupdragon]

obviously i dont think its ruining my life, I OWN ONE! :) just something to get your attention.

I'm trying to get rid of one!

[smittymike19]

Who said the objective, even with film, was realism? Ansel Adams used film, but there's no way in the world a black and white image taken through a deep red filter is going to be realistic in any sense of the word. I once made a color photo of a wrought-iron cross on a burial marker at a church on the high road between Santa Fe and Taos. Adams photographed the same cross 50 or 60 years earlier using black and white film. In his photo, the filtration he used made the black cross appear bright on a dark sky, while my more realistic photo showed a black cross against a bright sky. You tell me which is more realistic. There's no doubt which image is more powerful.

Nature often has a glow and a sparkle and a visual excitement to it. That sparkle is impossible to photograph, but we can convey a feeling of that energy by manipulating the reality of the photo in other ways. Why else shoot Velvia? Why filter down a blue sky with black and white film? Why use black and white film in the first place? We enhance those aspects of the scene that move us while removing others that don't have that effect.

Don't think your preferred manipulation of reality is somehow more valid than someone else's. Painters used oils because the colors were more saturated, and had more depth even than real life. The images I've seen from new digital photographers are not new in art even if they are new in photography (and I don't think they are new in photography).

Rick "who tries to capture a feeling, which almost always requires more than strict realism, and who considers this a traditional approach to art" Denney
wow rick, that was pretty heavy. i need a beer now. point well taken.
i guess hwta was bothering me was that i was looking at this collection of photos called "love". it features some photo greats like elliot erwitt, bruce davidson, mary ellen mark and leonard freed, and let me tell you those pictures were grainy, oof and had a bunch of other "problems", but hell they are some of the most well known photos of our time. See the thing is i think we are all trying to create this crystal clear superstaurated noise free image, however, i find these types of imgaes to be less moody than ones with the aforementioned items included. i guess what i am trying to say is, stop worrying about all of the qualities and start focusing on capturing a mood. a feeling evoked from a shot is more important than capturing a picture of something. ok this is a ramble and i need sleep .
mike "who loves ricks quotes" smith

[rdenney]

i guess what i am trying to say is, stop worrying about all of the qualities and start focusing on capturing a mood. a feeling evoked from a shot is more important than capturing a picture of something.

I agree with this point.

I once made a picture of a bicycle racer rounding a corner in a criterium. As a straight photo, it was good reportage but did not convey the raw excitement of a cyclist at full lean in a corner. It was too much about the person and not enough about the movement. So, I removed the person by making two generations of contact prints onto Kodalith line film. This turned the continuous tone photograph into line art, and in so doing, it removed the person and displayed only the movement. Reducing images to line film was a popular gimmick in those days (the late 70's), and as with all gimmicks, it was over-used, where the image was asked to serve the gimmick rather than the other way around.

The question we have to ask with any image is this: Does the special effect I'm considering advance the plot of the image or confuse it? Any manipulation of reality, including the decision to photograph something in the first place, requires this question. Of course, to answer the question, we have to know what the plot is.

I find myself lately going for deep saturation, almost to the point of being a cartoon. It is not realistic, but the world has so much more dynamic range that can be displayed on any photo that I feel like I have to compensate using the tools that are available. I learned this from Adams (though obviously not personally). He tells the story of his first photographic decision made on purpose. He was standing before the Half Dome in Yosemite, and had just made an image with a yellow filter. Using a yellow filter to darken sky was the standard gimmick in those days, and was something the young photographers did to visibly rebel against their forebears, whose use of orthochromatic films and plates usually produced white skies. But after making that first picture, Adams thought to himself that the resulting image would not really capture the feel of the place. What moved him at the time was the profoundly stark contrast between the black rock, the white snow, and the deep blue high-altitude sky. He realized that the only way to capture that drama was to use a deep red filter to make the sky go near black. That became his famous 1927 image of the Half Dome, and was his first photograph made with artistic intent. It was a turning point for him, and I keep a reproduction of that image hanging in my house so that I am reminded that artists do things on purpose.

That's not to say that my artistic decisions are always correct, of course, or that my purpose is even coherent in my own mind. Often, I look at my own images and wonder what I could have been thinking when I pressed the shutter.

So, I agree with you that pumping up saturation, enhancing sharpness, and ruthlessly removing noise can be used out of habit and not for a particular artistic purpose. But I also say that the grainy look is also a gimmick that can be used just because it's fashionable to do so and not because it advances the plot of the image.

The older I get, the more important the drama of an image becomes to me. I find myself making huge moves with the tone curves to dramatize the tones, in ways that are far beyond the reality of the image. This image is an example:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/juneau-sunset-2-lores.jpg

There isn't much about this image that is realistic. But guess what? It was shot on film (plain-old Fuji Reala) and scanned using a Minolta medium-format scanner. Everything I did to this image could be done with dodging and burning in, contrast masks, unsharp masking (the real kind, not the software equivelent), and color filtration during printing. It was just lots easier to do in the computer. Does it work? Not for me to say. But it is as clear a statement of my artistic intention as I can muster up with present skills. If it takes exaggerated saturation and maximum noise reduction to be able to say that, then so be it. The point about which we agree is to do things on purpose and not just because we can.

Rick "whose wife looked at the above image and said, 'Wow! I don't remember THAT!'" Denney

[Tancor]

I'm going to throw my $0.02 in for humors sake.

I think Mike and many others here have good and valid points.

Do I think digital photography is ruining our lives? no.

I think images taken by photography, digital or traditional will always end up being good or bad to someone. Some people would love the image, some wouldn't. I think there are some pictures that are absolutely aweful, but some people love them - and that is their choice.

I agree that for many people, their first step into photography is digital and they expect perfection, sharp focus similar to what the eye sees, anything less or different is bad.

Now, I think that some images are excellent with a soft focus. They have a bit more power to them with the softness that can be obtained. Soft focus is an excellent tool that not all understand. It was a tool used in many (and still used in many) portraits and senior photos. Not everyone wants it, some do (one girl I took some senior pictures for when she first saw the soft focus image wasn't sure if she liked it and thought she just wanted the super sharp photos, after a night of looking about it and thinking about it, of the 3 she had me make sheets of wallet sized photos from, 2 were soft focus images)

In terms of grain, I personally do not like digital grain with color photos above certain iso's in certain shooting situations. I know it is unavoidable, and I don't berate a photo because it has it since grain function of the camera is out of the photographers hands - to me the grain of film was much more pleasing, much more of a softer grain for lack of a better word. Digital grain to me is more harsh, but it is getting closer to what film would produce with every new camera developed (well, most). Digital grain isn't as bad in B&W IMHO.

Some people love messing with the colors of a photo, changing saturation, making them look almost "neonish", that is the way they want to see the image even if the rest of us hate it.

On certain levels, even with a technically advanced I am with technology in general (long story to give my computer, electronics and programming background), I still like to do certain things more "oldfashioned" with my cameras, even my digital ones. I still use Cokin filters for certain things even tho I know I can do it in photoshop. I prefer to have the image as close to what I want it to be without having to fiddle with it digitally. Does this make me a better photographer? no. Does this make me abnormal? maybe, but hey, I don't care. Perhaps one day I'll start to fiddle and create nice modifications like what rdenny posted above (I really like that image), but I haven't gotten to that point yet.

What you have to ask yourself is - do you like the photo you produce? or in the case of work for hire or work for sale will the client or end customer enjoy and appreciate the work I am presenting to them? It doesn't matter if it is done with film or digital - it's what the end person (whether you or someone you are working for) wants out of the photo. If other people don't like it - so be it, not everyone likes every photo. The medium used to capture the image does not matter as much as what the image itself portrays.

JMHO

-Tony

[elTwitcho]

i think the point is being missed. i think its wondeful that we have every opputunity to get our pictures adjusted so that they meet the expectations we had for it when it was shot. the problem is that the trend seems to be to process it to the nth degree, so that it is WAY exagerated and then people seem to think that is the only way a photo looks good.

No offense to you, but I think it might be you who've missed the point. A bad photography is a bad photograph, people often try and equate vivid contrast, high saturation and sharpness with good photographs, but they are merely techniques within good photos, not what makes a photograph good. To say there are people using these techniques badly equates to these techniques being bad is short sighted. I've seen bad photographs using narrow DOF, it hardly makes narrow DOF a bad technique.

And I think you're also missing out on the possibility that you just aren't "getting" the photographer's intention with the image. I've posted one particular image that was way way oversaturated, and intentionally so. I do so to create the feeling of sensory overload I wanted to convey about a particular urban scene and it was quite intentional that the image was slightly "ugly" although full of meaning. If you had complained that it was too saturated, I would have told you that you're simply missing the point entirely.

It might not be working for you because you just don't understand it. I don't have an interest in bird photos, nor do I understand them really so I wouldn't try and say something like "oh, it conveys no meaning and the color reproduction is boring" because I don't understand the photographer's intentions to start with. It might just be that this is the case with some of the photograph's you've seen. Photographers may be making a bad attempt at recreating some high saturation photos leading you to think down on the method itself, or you might just not understand the purpose of the method itself.

[lmitch6]

This is an interesting subject. Having 20 years of film experience and 3 of digital, I'd like to share a few observations...

There's always a subset of photographers who have obsessed over image quality in terms of sharpness, saturation, etc.. With film, one did it with a light table and loupe. With digital, one does it by viewing 100% crops. I think this business of shooting test charts, ogling MTF graphs, and examining pictures of flat walls comes fom the early digital days, where digital really had something to prove against film. It's held over, and been adopted by the technophile as the only way to judge quality.

I agree with the statement made earlier that a lot of digital shooters never shot film, it would also seem to me that a lot of shooters haven't really taken the time to sit down and learn and master the core basics of photography. This alone, leads to the tendency to "blame the gear" for some perceived wrong in a photo. There are several threads over at the "Measurebating Capital of The World (dprev...do you know the rest? ) regarding lenses being soft wide open. The posters were taking landscape photos. Excuse me????

Noise and Blur are actually tools, not detriments. One uses these tools where appropriate. An area of softness used correctly, draws attention to the area of focus. Noise can be used to bring about a certain mood. If one wants it, crank up the ISO, if not crank it down. Don't rely on a slow lens to give you low noise in low light, unless you like post processing - and I'll admit that I don't. But I didn't enjoy darkroom work either.