Is digital dead now?

Nod said:
But his "straight" printed prints are (sometimes) hugely different from the dodged and burned final results.
Click to expand...
.... And so is the captured image file very different from the fully edited final output.

Whatever camera equipment is used and however the images are captured and however the final output is edited etc etc etc, it is the human photographer who takes credit or criticism for the result.
 
snerkler said:
... if this was the case we'd all be shooting with an iphone.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of images are recorded with cameras built into other tools. such as 'phones, drones or even satellites, so far as I can see.
 
Phil V said:
But importantly for the distinction here; his finished work is a considered image created from his inner vision created by the application of light to a light sensitive material.
Click to expand...
.... Exactly! It is that simple and I am somewhat surprised that some photographers here are replying as if they don't understand that.
 
The camera captures what we would see if we didn’t have a brain. (That’s a pretty basic statement - no depth of field stuff, focal length, and so on)

We then process what the camera has taken, sometimes to make it look more like what our brains processed, sometimes to be more artistic, sometimes more fantastic.

(and of course, some people manage to make the final image even less interesting than the unprocessed capture :D )
 
RedRobin said:
.... Exactly! It is that simple and I am somewhat surprised that some photographers here are replying as if they don't understand that.
Click to expand...

I do understand that. However, the production of a finished image does have distinct stages - planning, taking and processing. Adams was a master of all 3.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
The vast majority of images are recorded with cameras built into other tools. such as 'phones, drones or even satellites, so far as I can see.
Click to expand...
.... Regardless of differing percentages of images recorded by different tools, the fact remains that it's down to the originator to firstly have a vision and secondly communicate that vision in their resulting work. That is what Ansel Adams quote means to me.
 
Nod said:
I do understand that. However, the production of a finished image does have distinct stages - planning, taking and processing. Adams was a master of all 3.
Click to expand...
.... Indeed. And that illustrates Ansel Adams statement, and my point in this thread, that it's the photographer and not their equipment which makes a great photograph. The equipment helps of course but it far from guarantees great results.
 
redsnappa said:
The steady rise in sales figures of ILC (Interchangeable Lens Camera) cameras often serves as a testament to the continuing popularity of photography as a past-time and as a career. However, beneath these promising sales statistics lies a critical question: What proportion of these ILC camera purchases are primarily geared towards users whose ILC camera will be primarily used for videography?

The soaring popularity of social media platforms, coupled with the burgeoning trend of "Content Creator" emerging as a coveted career path among younger demographics, stands as the chief catalyst propelling the sales of ILC cameras. It's worth noting that without the widespread influence of platforms like YouTube and various social media channels, the market for traditional "proper cameras" would undoubtedly be witnessing a precipitous decline.

Fortunately, the surge in demand for ILC cameras among social media content creators is bolstering the industry, as content creators harness the capabilities of such cameras to produce high-quality video content for their audience's enjoyment.
Click to expand...
You have a point; albeit hung on a false premise.

There is no rise in ILC sales, they’re suffering a decline.

But you’re correct in that the decline would be greater without video purchasers.

However the decline is also part of the cycle. The boom (that we recently saw) in ILC sales was driven by the idea (maybe true) that digital photography was somewhat easier* than film photography. And whilst part of the decline is due to that boom ending, there’s probably a number of semi serious photographers who figure that a good digital compact is ‘good enough’ and more convenient than an ILC as well as the majority of ‘consumers’ who would have previously owned a compact** (maybe a cheap SLR) for whom the phone camera is good enough.

*I’d maintain that half the reason it’s easier to learn nowadays is due to the internet and the democratisation of knowledge.

** it’s worthy of note that whilst the compact market is decimated, the only remaining strong sales are in the high end sector. So if the phone cam isn’t ’good enough’ a £200 compact isn’t good enough either.
 
Pound Coin said:
The camera captures what we would see if we didn’t have a brain. (That’s a pretty basic statement - no depth of field stuff, focal length, and so on)

We then process what the camera has taken, sometimes to make it look more like what our brains processed, sometimes to be more artistic, sometimes more fantastic.

(and of course, some people manage to make the final image even less interesting than the unprocessed capture :D )
Click to expand...
.... I have highlit your quote in bold for the emphasis of my point in posting Ansel Adams statement. Your words hit the nail on the head!
 
RedRobin said:
Whatever camera equipment is used and however the images are captured and however the final output is edited etc etc etc, it is the human photographer who takes credit or criticism for the result.
Click to expand...
This I completely agree with (y)
AndrewFlannigan said:
The vast majority of images are recorded with cameras built into other tools. such as 'phones, drones or even satellites, so far as I can see.
Click to expand...
I think that's true becasue most people take endless images with their phones these days and that number far outweighs the number of people with ILC's. However my point still stands, ILC's not only provide considerably superior image quality in most situations, they also allow a greater control of artistry, and a wider scope of variety of photos (I'm yet to see a phone with a 600mm equivalent lens for example ;))
 
snerkler said:
they also allow a greater control of artistry, and a wider scope of variety of photos
Click to expand...
Artistry is entirely subjective and it's quite clear that many people's use of tools such as the phone camera is much appreciated by multitudes.

As to the limitations of such devices, they are becoming as capable as specialised cameras in many fields, especially as additional lenses and other tools are being made available in great variety.

Personally, I don't use my phone much for photography but I see far more people recording images with their's than with any kind of "ordinary" camera.
 
What people who think of themselves as photographers (who have always take a tiny fraction of all the photographs ever taken) seem to forget is that artistic or aesthetic, let alone technical, perfection isn't what most people are after when they take photos.

All they want from a photo is a clear depiction of what they've pointed their camera/phone at. Digital makes that much easier than film because the result can be seen as soon as it has been (or even as it is being) taken. Phones make it easier still because of all the processing they do to correct 'mistakes'.

Taking photos is easier than it's ever been. But making pictures is just as difficult. Not everyone is interested in the latter, and sadly a lot of those who claim to be get hung up on the intricate details of the process and forget to see the bigger picture (pun intended).

St Ansel said something far more worth remembering than anything about cameras, it was to do with sharp photos and fuzzy concepts. ;)
 
RedRobin said:
.... Of course. And it's the photographer who makes that choice of tool. But someone can have all the gear but no idea.

It's not a question of some "sorts of pictures" being better than others.
Click to expand...
Someone may have all the gear, but I wouldn't like to be the one that gets to decide that they have no idea.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Artistry is entirely subjective and it's quite clear that many people's use of tools such as the phone camera is much appreciated by multitudes.

As to the limitations of such devices, they are becoming as capable as specialised cameras in many fields, especially as additional lenses and other tools are being made available in great variety.

Personally, I don't use my phone much for photography but I see far more people recording images with their's than with any kind of "ordinary" camera.
Click to expand...
I agree to teh bit in bold, and never said otherwise but I think my point is being lost (y)
Ed Sutton said:
What people who think of themselves as photographers (who have always take a tiny fraction of all the photographs ever taken) seem to forget is that artistic or aesthetic, let alone technical, perfection isn't what most people are after when they take photos.

All they want from a photo is a clear depiction of what they've pointed their camera/phone at. Digital makes that much easier than film because the result can be seen as soon as it has been (or even as it is being) taken. Phones make it easier still because of all the processing they do to correct 'mistakes'.

Taking photos is easier than it's ever been. But making pictures is just as difficult. Not everyone is interested in the latter, and sadly a lot of those who claim to be get hung up on the intricate details of the process and forget to see the bigger picture (pun intended).

St Ansel said something far more worth remembering than anything about cameras, it was to do with sharp photos and fuzzy concepts. ;)
Click to expand...
I've certainly got lost in the technical aspects of photography and missed what is important, most people don't look at a photo and say 'wow that's sharp' or, "I love the bokeh in that photo". Most people say something like, "they've got a lovely smile" or "that looks a lovely place" etc.

I've really tried hard over the past 18 months to concentrate more in the bigger picture than technical perfection and I do think my photography has improved since doing this, although I'm nowhere near where I'd want to be in terms of artistic merit/creativity.

All this being said, my photos are primarily for me and as a result technical details are important to me as are things like DOF and bokeh.
 
snerkler said:
All this being said, my photos are primarily for me and as a result technical details are important to me as are things like DOF and bokeh.
Click to expand...
If you are doing photography 'seriously' it's be expected that you are striving to make photos that satisfy you're technical and aesthetic preferences. It's balancing those with the 'picture making' aspect that is all too often overlooked.

If you can make pictures that satisfy your personal preferences, work as pictures, and appeal to your audience, then you've hit the jackpot. That's the challenge of photography for me.
 
Ed Sutton said:
If you can make pictures that satisfy your personal preferences, work as pictures, and appeal to your audience, then you've hit the jackpot. That's the challenge of photography for me.
Click to expand...
That’s the pipe dream ;)
 
GeeJay57 said:
Someone may have all the gear, but I wouldn't like to be the one that gets to decide that they have no idea.
Click to expand...
I agree, although in my experience, you don't need to decide as people in this situation are well aware of it.
 
TimHughes said:
doesn't have to be a pipe dream! your pictures are top-notch, Toby. Maybe it's just the audience part you need to develop?
Click to expand...
Thanks, that’s very kind. Yeah maybe, I don’t get much of an audience but then I don’t do anything to gain one either and to be honest it’s not really a priority for me.

My main aim is to try and develop a more artistic eye, to work on interesting compositions and make my photography more captivating rather than just “technically good”. (y)
 
snerkler said:
My main aim is to try and develop a more artistic eye, to work on interesting compositions and make my photography more captivating rather than just “technically good”. (y)
Click to expand...
.... Which comes back to "...it's the photographer that makes the photograph". The camera is merely the tool which enables that possibility / potential.
 
I think it's just as dead as film is, so maybe partly but not entirely. Film is pretty popular in itself and film grain effects in Picsart, Snapseed or Photoworks aren't going anywhere, people still use them and shoot film for ~aesthetics~, whatever it meants. Same for digital imo.
 
Catherine Bowlene said:
I think it's just as dead as film is, so maybe partly but not entirely. Film is pretty popular in itself and film grain effects in Picsart, Snapseed or Photoworks aren't going anywhere, people still use them and shoot film for ~aesthetics~, whatever it meants. Same for digital imo.
Click to expand...
I must admit I'm confused by this, as I am but the title of the thread. If digital is dead how are people actually taking photos? Other than film and digital (and really old techniques like wet plate) what other option is there?
 
I
snerkler said:
I must admit I'm confused by this, as I am but the title of the thread. If digital is dead how are people actually taking photos? Other than film and digital (and really old techniques like wet plate) what other option is there?
Click to expand...
the people confused by this thread haven’t grasped the ‘point’ of it.
To summarise:

Film photographer sees the declining sales of digital ILC’s and decides to use the fact to troll ‘digital photographers’.

He doesn’t even care that the premise is flawed so long as he gets a bite.

That some ‘useful idiots’ have tried to support his ‘views’, just adds grist to the mill.

And I appreciate the irony that I’ve replied several times making me a victim of the trolling too.
 
snerkler said:
I must admit I'm confused by this, as I am but the title of the thread. If digital is dead how are people actually taking photos? Other than film and digital (and really old techniques like wet plate) what other option is there?
Click to expand...
Well if digital is dead Im going to have to have a long difficult talk to my DSLRs and my phone cos they dont know yet. Held a funeral for my film gear long ago on ebay.
As both film and digital are supposidly dead I assume flicker snapchat et all are about to close down Im going to have to sharpen my pencils and break out my paint brushes cos I see no alternative. Ooo ooo ooo just remembered chalks and sticks to draw in the sand.
 
Last edited:
luthy said:
...Im going to have to sharpen my pencils and break out my paint brushes cos I see no alternative. Ooo ooo ooo just remembered chalks and sticks to draw in the sand.
Click to expand...

I just knew these would prove useful again, one day.

All I need now is a bit of tuition from Barry Allen on how to draw at 1 million inches per second...

Fountain pens and ballpoint HX90 DSC00074.JPG

( for those who don't remember Mr Allen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flash_(comic_book) )
 
I think whenever you get involved in a forum, it's easy to forget that sometimes the specific interest can be quite niche.

Other people simply do not care about photography.

It had always been this way, When I was growing up, almost no one I knew even owned a camera, let alone carried it with them at all times. The difference now is that those people that don't care enough to buy a dedicated camera still have the ability to capture images. Whereas in the past, it was a camera or nothing.

Whenever we go away as a group, I'm always the one with the camera. In a group of five couples (so ten people), the other nine rely entirely on their phones. None of them has owned a dedicated camera of any sort since phones started taking pictures.

I'd also argue that while more photographs/images are taken now than have ever been, their 'value' is also at an all time low.

I could easily believe that my daughter takes more photos of herself in a weekend (maybe even on a single night out) than I have of myself from my entire childhood. I value the ones I have way more than she will value hers when she's my age - even though the quality from those early PAS film cameras is probably worse than a modern phone. They're valuable to me, because they're so rare.

Weirdly, her and all her friends are now 'into' early digital compacts. We recently picked up a couple when clearing out my in-law's house and she 'loves' the Fuji Finepix Z90 that we found. They all want that obvious flash look that's doing the rounds at the mo all over instagram. Again, she's not bothered by the quality.

I'm certainly not in the camp of "I'd rather not take a photo at all than take one on my phone". But I'm also not in the camp of "film is best"

I've recently picked up my old film camera and did some (not very scientific) side-by-side shots comparing a FF DSLR with 35mm film. At a small scale, the differences are negligible. But zoom in even a little and you can clearly see the digital version is far better in terms of IQ.

I'm still enjoying the process of using film again though. Especially with the ability to do post processing in LightRoom rather than dark rooms.

It might actually be an interesting exercise to go back to that spot with every camera I own and see how they all compare. (Maybe that would only be interesting to me though.)

For me, currently, the phone will do when I have no other option and my compacts will do when I don't have my 'big' camera.

By far the biggest restricting factor is probably my own inability. To that end, I'm not sure my photography has got any better simply by upgrading the tech. It has got (a bit) better by going out and taking pictures though.
 
Last edited:
Kell said:
…

I'd also argue that while more photographs/images are taken now than have ever been, their 'value' is also at an all time low.
Click to expand...
Which is quite intriguing in a digital world that has an insatiable appetite for images and video. I agree by the way.
 
GeeJay57 said:
Which is quite intriguing in a digital world that has an insatiable appetite for images and video. I agree by the way.
Click to expand...

I think the appetite is simply for quantity and not quality.

Again, caveated that this applies to 'most' people.
 
I'm not so sure it's dead. I gifted a Nikon D5300 to a friend the other day. His biggest complaint was that his recent Samsung was absolute pants in low light photography (he works in IT, but knows little about photography).

We spent two days walking around taking photos, so he learned how everything worked. Now he is an avid photographer with a DSLR.. knowing him and his tech, he'll soon be buying a MILC...
 
Kell said:
I think the appetite is simply for quantity and not quality.
Click to expand...
Once again this brings us back to the challenge: define "quality" in this context.
 
Kell said:
...

I'd also argue that while more photographs/images are taken now than have ever been, their 'value' is also at an all time low.

...
Click to expand...
I think it depends on how you look at "value" - if you consider the "best" images, such as the winners/finalists in the recent British Wildlife Photography Awards, then there are clearly some fantastic images being created - the issue is that there are also an enormous number of 'mediocre' images being produced/posted on social media by people using smartphones.

You might (for example) see 1 decent picture in every 10, so the perception is that quality / value has dropped - but all that has happened is that you see more poor images, rather than the number of good images having declined.
 
In terms of value, I didn't mean anything about the quality of the images. I just mean in terms of what a particular image means to a particular person.

i.e. If you only have one photo of your grandparents together it may have more value to you than if they were avid photographers and you had hundreds. Or even if you had multiple copies of one photo, you'd worry less about losing one than if it's your only copy.

In my example, I might only have tens of photos of me as a kid so each photo has a higher value to me than any individual photo my daughter has of herself which number in the thousands.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top