What does digital bring to photography?

I

ianjmatt

Messages
255
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
I have been wondering over the weekend what digital cameras have contributed to the craft of photography. Looking back, every development made a significant contribution to the development of photography.

Perhaps the biggest thing has been the immediacy of the image. Other than that, it seems that much of the effort in digital is spent being as 'good as film' or in recreating film styles in Lightroom or something.

What will be the lasting thing that digital has contributed?
 
IMO what digital has contributed is the sharing of photography.

It's not necessarily from digital cameras as film photographs can be digitised.

But now new photographers can check out the work of others and can ask for instant feedback and critique on the internet. We can all share our images with a much wider audience which would have been unheard of 20 years ago.

In the past, unless you were published in a magazine your images would have been seen by dozens of people tops. Hundreds if you went to college or joined a camera club that held exhibitions. Now even inexperienced photographers can get their images in front of thousands of people.

Oddly, the outcome of this is that most people see more photo's than they used to, but a slightly higher proportion than before are rubbish, whether the general public or serious photographers..
 
Yes sharing was my first thought too, what with phone cams and facebook taking over the world.
 
Low light and high speed photography seems to be two that have changed a lot thanks to digital. Getting to ISO1600, let alone 6400 or 12800 with the detail a digital sensor can capture would have seemed a pipe dream from what I've seen of film photography. Being able to manipulate and combine images to the extent we can now without needing a fully kitted out darkroom is another. In my opinion digital has gotten us closer to the ideal for an artform, where the barrier for access and recognition is talent and ability, not the wallet or connections. The democratisation of photograhy, being able to shoot and share for pennies per shot is a great thing.
 
Immediacy for me too.
This has enabled my wife for instance to instantly see where her major problems is or if the photo is anything like what she expected, she therefore no longer worries about the technical side being complicated or cost prohibitive in terms of wasted film, digital has got her interested in photography whereas film would not have. She's happy to fire a shot, examine it and adjust as required, in film terms she simly would not have done that because she wouldnt have known what to adjust as she wouldnt have seen the picture in printed form for days/weeks and the chance to re-shoot would have been lost.
The other advantage of digital over using film cameras of a while back is automation in terms of exposure and focus, virtually every camera will give you an image (of some sort) that older film cameras may not have without a high degree of technical/scientific knowledge e.g back lighting, F stops etc, manual focusing etc.
In fairness the last generation of film cameras were technically on a par with the digital of the day in terms of AF and exposure, personally I dont think there has been a huge increase in say exposure metering capability or vastly improved AF in recent years that film cameras would not have been able to take advantage of also, so those things havent been something that digital has given us just ordinary progress and had we carried on using film todays cameras would have been every bit as "clever" as todays digitals.
Immediacy is still the major benefit for most.
High FPS and not having to reload film, changing Iso sensitivity easily is also something we didnt really have with film cameras which we take for granted these days.

Matt
 
ianjmatt said:
Perhaps the biggest thing has been the immediacy of the image.
Click to expand...
This is the big thing for me. I got back into film as a way to slow me down and make me think more about the images I wanted to capture. While it's been a useful learning experience, I've become almost frustrated with the slower pace, the need to write notes on everything I photograph in order to know later what lens, aperture and shutter speed I was using at the time. EXIF is a blessing by comparison!

The other thing, as noted by ausemmao, is that with film you have to expose a whole film in a limited ISO range or risk some shots for the sake of others when developing. With digital, a quick button press or twirl of a dial and you can take a shot indoors at 3200 without losing the 100 ISO images you took outside in the sunshine.

ianjmatt said:
What will be the lasting thing that digital has contributed?
Click to expand...
IMO the really lasting thing will be the way that it's opened photography up to people who couldn't be bothered taking more than a few snapshots before. Now it's possible to take usable images on a phone or carry an extremely capable compact in a pocket or bag wherever you go.
 
Good thread this, some interesting responses so far.

I agree with pretty much everything although image sharing has only been possible with the parallel development of the internet. Also, you can share film images if you scan them, but maybe digitisation of film images is digital photography?

Key things for me are the immediacy of the image making, which is great for feedback and learning, although some would argue that we had that with Polaroids back in the day (although Polaroid cameras weren't enthusiast cameras, and neither were Polaroid backs for MF / LF), the ongoing cost of image making is theoretically reduced as you only print the ones you want (although you end up taking more). Clean, high ISO photography is also a huge benefit - you could push fast b&w film to pretty high speeds, but it was noisy as hell.

Biggest thing though is it's made photography more accessible. Everyone has a digital camera now, be it on their phone or an actual camera. In the days of old, there was a family camera, and that was it.
 
for me i have always loved photography but was always held back because i just never really had the room for a dark room, i can now do what i should have been able to do at my pc in the corner out the way

Low light as said & the ability to shoot 500 images before needing to change SD cards, rather than 36 shots then another film, ending up carry loads of rolls of film.

Instant viewing, i know if i have messed up while im doing the shoot, giving me the option to do it again

Digital storage, couple of clicks and i can view photos i took months ago, instead of having to sort through thousands of prints.

The downside to Digital!
I never seem to print anything anymore, so theres no real photos hanging on my walls

Digital is alot more expensive

100% more uncle bobs lol
 
DannyDMR said:
The downside to Digital!
I never seem to print anything anymore, so theres no real photos hanging on my walls
Click to expand...

or that can be seen as a positive. I have more images on mine gracing various walls than I ever would have had. Before with film, I'd have printed my 24 or 36 shots and accepted them as 6x4's, then consigned them to an album (or more likely a dusty box in the loft).

Now I can edit them the way I want, display them in a variety of ways, and printing is cheap and easily obtainable, with a wide variety of formats/finishes.
 
To some Speed of learning and easy of use (loading). No longer limited to having to buy flims and get them developed so once the outlay of a camera and lens has been spent you've almost an unlimited amount of picture taking at your disposal for next to nothing.

A great bonus is you can adjust the camera according to the type and amount of light with a few settings rather than change a whole roll of film:
colour to B&W, negative to reversal high ISO to low ISO
 
You can instantly review a photo, so you know how the exposure was, how the composition is, etc. It allows you to experiment with new techniques without wasting money and time. One of the biggest leaps for photography, imo.
 
Its made photography far more accessible than film ever was. How many people here would be taking pictures if it was all still film?
 
I've taken more photos with digital in the last year than I have in the previous 20 odd years with film!

I didn't move to a digital slr until last year but had a bridge camera from 2007. Ironically just after buying a film dynax 7 which I have barely used. Run the grand total of 2 films through it!

I was playing with a new lens this morning. With film it would have been a week or so before knowing whether it was ok. With digital it shows up problems instantly.

The best thing about digital is the ability to experiment in real time. I'd have never fiddled about with long exposures, trying panning, wildlife etc. It would have been way too expensive with film.
 
The instant review and the ability to share are the overwhelming positives. I learnt so much just by being able to check out flickr and also to look at the EXIF even on auto shots. And I would never have had a fun couple of years taking sports photos for the local paper if it was still film because as a non-pro burning that amount of film would not have been smart.

The downsides for me are that there becomes too much of a consensus about what makes a good photo and a belief that images should be balanced and technically perfect; sharpness becomes valued more than imagination. The ease of digital also encourages a fire-away approach. Having learnt from digital I went back to film (and would still be there if costs allowed but job change meant that doesn't work) for 'street' shots and found the discipline required for 12 or 36 frames provides a much clearer focus.
 
The main difference for me is the fact that i can afford to take photos , as with film it was so expensive i can now take lots of photos, sort the very bad from the not so bad and have bought a DSLR to learn more, i think its great to be able to edit my own photos , which is also a big learning curve .:lol:
 
Accessibility is the main one I'd choose as well. I would never have gotten started with film I don't think - and to be honest I can't even image how people did get started without all the digital aides and instant feed back. It must have taken some serious organisation, time and patience, not to mention cash.
 
Digital transformed photography for me
I did not really know what I was doing with film (prob still dont:D) but I would go out take some shots use up a roll of film and send it off and was nearly always disapointed with the results
I learned a hell of a lot when I could see the results as soon as I got home
Also the sharing thing, I learned a lot from forums like this and made friends too:)
Photography has now become my main hobby :)
Pete
 
Last edited:
As said, access is the biggie for me. I would never have started taking pictures if it were film. Film isn't cheap, nor is processing. I'd never actually use a camera if I needed to pay a couple bucks per 36 shots.

What about the quality improvements in lenses? Some of the lenses available now have only come about because we can resolve the differences between them (or at least the masses can now do so). With film, how many consumers would actually get out a loupe and check the sharpness or CA of their lenses? They print at 4x6 (maybe 8x10) and be done. Now everyone is looking at 100% levels and more sharpness is required. I believe manufacturers have noted this as if you look at the lenses designed since digital has become popular they are typically sharper than their older counterparts.

I'm not a sports shooter, but I have to think that pitchside transmission is a good thing and only possibile with digital. It certainly benefits the consumers of such images on variouss sport websites.

Thanks
Rick
 
One problem I think with good digital photography is the outlay. I can remember in my late teens and early twenties saving up and buying firstly a Practika and then an OM10 with an excellent 50mm lens (that I still have). I tried to think how much it was then, but I couldn't see how someone in their teens now I could afford a DSLR and a prime lens of similar quality today.
 
Last edited:
Cost, Time, Ease as well

I had film cameras (no not SLRs) when I was a kid and used to take quite a fair bit of (mostly kak) photos and had to wait 2 days or whatever it was for Super Snaps to develop them.

Sure it's no doubt more rewarding but I would have never got into Photography if it were not for Digital.
 
Ease and immediacy are the bonuses from digital. The negatives, as mentioned above, are mainly in how images are now judged. Technical perfection is sought rather than the capturing of a moment. The way everyone whitters on about sharpness is rather silly as it is one part of an image and not a hugely important one for me. Being in focus is more important but again sometimes not even vital!

Then again I still shoot a lot of film as well as digital.
 
Reasurance - that the you have the image !

I take most my photos for work and although they don't need to be technical perfect the closer they are to a true representation of the subject the better.

Too be honest if I had to use film I would be stuffed as I just would never know I had the necessary images and I imagine that on some occations over the last 5 years I wouldn't have (n.b. with no opertunity to get them again).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top