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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 )

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.