Has digital improved photography?

[John Voss]

Me, I think an increase in net happiness and personal fulfillment in the world is something to celebrate.

Does that 'improve' photography? I dunno, but it sure does speak to its' democratization.

[DrPablo]

I think your DSLR approach is probably very informed by your view camera experience, as you might agree. Certainly much of it is related to the photographer, but the behavior of the photographer to some degree accomodates the idiosyncracies of the medium.

i think this is related more to the photographer than the equipment. I've had decades of View Camera work, and even when using a DSLR, it's on a tripod, and i walk around looking, checking light, with possible changes in mind. Just as there's nothing from stopping someone with a film camera from just shooting, without regard for film type , speed (auto ISO). When shooting 4x5 chromes and printing, i'd spend more time in the darkroom now working with the image and Cibachrome, color and contrast masks, than i do now with a computer and photoshop.

[sparq]

I understand your points but I am still finding the term "democratization" inappropriate - getting something closer to masses or "lessening exclusivity" has IMHO no connection to democracy. You say democracy but mean a sort of egalitarianism.

I am sorry I am running terribly O/T here, no need to react to this post. I am quiet from now on.

[tim atherton]

Democratic:.. "Representing or appealing to or adapted for the benefit of the people at large; "democratic art forms"; "a democratic or popular movement"..."Websters

(or in the OED - more succinctly "open to anyone")

It's a common use (if not the politically oriented one) of of the term democratic

[Maris Rusis]

Digital has been a boon to photography because spares the investment in time, energy, and precious sensitive materials just to make pictures to show what things look like.

In centuries past oil painting was used to laboriously record appearances because there was no decent alternative. No one would dream of doing that now. A similar liberation is now available to photography. Making a photograph involves using a physical sample of something that was part of the subject matter to cause picture forming marks directly in a sensitive surface. The relationship between a photograph and its subject is very special and profound and has implications that go way beyond mere appearances.

If appearances are all that counts then electronic picture making will get you a result with minimal thought, no waiting, no work, and no cost.

[tim atherton]

you know that's incorrect don't you?:
Photography:first utterance. Sir John Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society. "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..".

"Photography" was used (and even uttered) prior to that

[roteague]

Digital has been a boon to photography because spares the investment in time, energy, and precious sensitive materials just to make pictures to show what things look like.

Nonsense. Where do you think the Franklin River would be today without the work and energy of photography? Namely, through the work of Peter Dumbrovski.

[Marko]

you know that's incorrect don't you?:
Photography:first utterance. Sir John Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society. "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..".

"Photography" was used (and even uttered) prior to that

Tim, you know you are wasting your time, don't you?

They don't want to participate in this discussion, they only want to derail it...

[Brian C. Miller]

In centuries past oil painting was used to laboriously record appearances because there was no decent alternative. No one would dream of doing that now.

Do a quick Google search on "portrait painter" and see what pops up. Look at the books about painting. Guess what? Painting a picture of something to show what it looks like painted is still big. Mr. Bob "Happy Trees" Ross had his own TV show, and by golly he does good stuff with that 3-inch house painting brush!

I bet painting that picture took almost as long as making a toned FB print!

[scrichton]

Digital has improved photography for the good aspects of.. easily accessed; faster for applications where required; transparency in workflow ( there is no pro photographer that can deny a digital camera hasn't helped) Accurate metering.

I'll explain the last two. Before most photographers who were good photographers were terrible darkroom printers and vice versa. Now digital allows photographers to realise their vision in a more manageble way. I personally without digital would never have started large format photography, as printing as I would expect would not be achieveable without it. Therefore workflow of the mind is transparent, expose well and the image should be obtainable in a pre-concieved way. Digital allows this though process to be clearer. ( I consult in arhitectural workflow systems and this is the major area where digital aides creatives).

The other point of accurate metering I have seen being practised by a relatively well known landscape photographer who's name eludes me. His linhof 617 has a cstom hotshoe adapter to mount a canon digital camera and he claims to have dispensed with his meter now. A manually controllable digital compact not only give a viable alternative to polaroid but in the case of 8x10 using polaroid as a test method. A digital camera is very cheap in comparison to burning film. I personally use my D1x less for photography in general but as a verifyable test method as I can see what will normally cost much more to see.

Anyway that's my rant. This thread is about as useless as saying does instant film do anything or does injection systems in cars make them better. Overall film photography is now on an upsurge due to digital converts desiring to use film to "see how it ticks" Thats why I admit I use film again. Thats also why I drive an old car. New technology is for the demands of new concepts and requirments thats all.