Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 83

Thread: Photography?

  1. #1
    langzi
    Guests

    Default Photography?

    dear all,
    after a few weeks at clubsnap, this is my humble opinion about the photographers here.
    IMHO, the photographers here are mainly digital cam users. IMHO, i think that going digital is one of the worst mistakes made in photography. with digital, you can forget about the settings and such, and anyhow take your pics. then preview it on the LCD screen. no good? trash it, then take it again. what is the meaning of photography then? i think that all that 90% of photographers who used digital to shoot and won prizes, that is luck. give them the same scenerio and a manual SLR, and maybe you'll get to see a over/under exposed pic. they have relyed too far on the P mode on most digital cam. this only applies to 90% of digital cam users, ok?
    in fact, most SLR users now, holding on to the auto SLR, like EOS 33 or otherwise, still uses the P mode. i think they would fare better with a compact cam.
    the advance of tech also made photographers nowadays care less bout the exposure. they think that with PhotoShop, they can alter the brightness and contrast easily. but still,we need photoshop for effects for commercial, but as for personal use, it is a privilege.
    gone have the days when photographers would care about the exposure.
    gone are the days when photographers would carefully plan ther shots, fearing that they would run outta film.
    digital killed photography.

    cheers,
    leonard

  2. #2

    Default

    Again, it's all about preferences, budget, fun and so on.....


    To me, what's the difference to know the result between immediately or later? just the matter of time.

    The action is still the same, i.e. both digital and non-digital will retake the picture again if they know it's not good.

    I don't really concern about how good I will be as a photographer. All i do is just take picture, as long it makes me happy. I'm alright.

    Cheers.

    On top of that..... digital camera user also has fear... running out of memory.... especially travelling..
    Last edited by sonix; 6th February 2002 at 07:38 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    To a certain extent I agree with Leonard. I do find digital has made me more lazy. However I had the advantage of being brought up on manual cameras and hence I learnt from the ground up. I have no problem doing things manually if need be, but I don't do so on a regular basis because there's no need. For me, I use the faster more efficient way of doing things, whether it be digital or not. My evolution chain as 35mm, 120, digital, 5x4. So for me digital wasn't the end of the line.

    I also agree with Sonix. Ultimately, the goal of photography should be about being happy with yourself and the pictures you take. For those who don't know how to use a camera, but because digital made it possible, then good on you and good on digital.

    However, I disagree with Sonix's rebuttal of Leonard's points because I do agree digital makes things easier. Does than make it any less credible if the resultant image is as good? It shouldn't. Does it make it more annoying for people such as myself who used to have to do it the hard way, and still could if necessary? Yes, but it shouldn't. Ultimately, these digital photographers are missing out on their own experiences... the joy of the darkroom and the wait for getting your pics back.

    Sonix the point is not the fear of running out of film, but the planning of the shot. If you think, you'll naturally get a better shot. That's why some people get better shots when they slow down and use a tripod. That's why the hit rate for LF is generally better for MF, than it is for 35mm, than it is for dig.

    But digital has its pros as well Leonard. It means I can offer a lot more, and shoot a lot more for clients. It means after I nail the normal shots, I can afford to get massively creative without fear of bumping my own, or my client's, expenses upwards. I can try things that are otherwise too hit and miss to warrant trying. And because I can shoot a huge amount my chances of hitting go upwards as well.

    At the end of the day, I don't think photography has been killed by digital. Let's face it, how many of those photographers that Leonard describes would be taking pictures anyway? It's created a new class of enthusiast but the old class hasn't died and are still continuing to plug away. Do I enjoy the work from this new class? Maybe. Do I think that it has great technical and artistic merit? Rarely. But if it's a personally goal they're after than fair play to them.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Bedok
    Posts
    1,417

    Default Re: Photography?

    Originally posted by langzi
    dear all,
    after a few weeks at clubsnap, this is my humble opinion about the photographers here.
    IMHO, the photographers here are mainly digital cam users. IMHO, i think that going digital is one of the worst mistakes made in photography. with digital, you can forget about the settings and such, and anyhow take your pics. then preview it on the LCD screen. no good? trash it, then take it again. what is the meaning of photography then? i think that all that 90% of photographers who used digital to shoot and won prizes, that is luck. give them the same scenerio and a manual SLR, and maybe you'll get to see a over/under exposed pic. they have relyed too far on the P mode on most digital cam. this only applies to 90% of digital cam users, ok?
    in fact, most SLR users now, holding on to the auto SLR, like EOS 33 or otherwise, still uses the P mode. i think they would fare better with a compact cam.
    the advance of tech also made photographers nowadays care less bout the exposure. they think that with PhotoShop, they can alter the brightness and contrast easily. but still,we need photoshop for effects for commercial, but as for personal use, it is a privilege.
    gone have the days when photographers would care about the exposure.
    gone are the days when photographers would carefully plan ther shots, fearing that they would run outta film.
    digital killed photography.

    cheers,
    leonard
    Actually I don't agree with what you said.... Although I love to migrate to SLR once I've got the money(I am using digital now), I still think Digital is a good way to learn.
    Canon Lover :)

  5. #5

    Default

    I believe digicams are more for convienience and saving costs.

    Still we, the slr users in this forum love to share ideas and shots will all photographers no matter they be slr or digicam users.


    Lets all be happy people!
    One-North Explorers
    | Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but photos |

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    66

    Default

    lets just say i'm not into photography, i'm only into taking photos.
    Without digicam, i wun be in this forum, i wun be bringing my dc around whereever i go. My harddisk would be empty and i wun have my online gallery.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default

    Digital cameras might make the users lazier but most of us would want to take the right shots the first time round. And once you know the camera well enough, you'll know the settings to use to get the right picture. Of course this applies mainly to digital cameras which offers manual controls. Point and shoot users might have to retry till they get it right. This will be similar to users of non-manual film cameras.

    Anyway, there're always shots where you could only have one chance to take whether it's digital or film.
    Check out my wildlife pics at www.instagram.com/conrad_nature

  8. #8
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,650

    Default

    It depends on who is holding the camera. If all people were like what you described, "no good, trash it", then they're not learning. But you are not them so you don't know what they do with their cameras. There are people who appreciate the instant feedback and learn from the bad shots. In my opinion, if you don't learn from your past mistakes and keep shooting blindly, you won't be able to produce good results irregardless of how many bad shots you "trash". If people are content with it, then so be it.

    I also agree that different people go into photography for different reasons. Some are not technically inclined and don't bother to be. They just love and are contented with going around shooting pictures. Who cares what mode they shoot in when they're enjoying themselves? Do you think all award winning shots are technically infallible?

    You have your take on photography and so do others. It is unfair on your part to judge others with your own set of values. Who are you to say someone is only worthy of a compact cam and not an EOS 33?

    Digital killed photography? Not for me. I prefer to call it a growing in photography. You worry too much. I think your time is better spent going out making more images.

  9. #9

    Default

    I started 10 over years ago using my Nikon F401...the basic SLR..got the Canon 300 and then G2...I do believe digital helps in taking better photos...it helps me to dare to try different settings and them compare it with my SLR...

    so..I believe they go hand in hand!!


  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Bedok
    Posts
    1,417

    Default

    Originally posted by Paladin
    I started 10 over years ago using my Nikon F401...the basic SLR..got the Canon 300 and then G2...I do believe digital helps in taking better photos...it helps me to dare to try different settings and them compare it with my SLR...

    so..I believe they go hand in hand!!


    Yeah! I see a lot of xperience photographer who owns both a Digital and a SLR. They take the digital shot, compare the settings, think of improvement, and when they are satisfy, they take using their SLR.
    Canon Lover :)

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    66

    Default

    For me, b4 i bought my oly 700, i had a yashica p&s. only time i bring it out was for outings.
    Now with dc, i almost always carry it with me to work. Yes the startup cost is high but at least i never have to hesitate whether to shoot anything now.
    Also i prefer to keep all my photos as bytes in hdd and have them in online galleries.
    I dun care bout analog skills, i just want to take pics and be able to view them immediately.
    I keep fish and i like to take photos of them. With my dc, i can take nice pics and view them immediately. Can never take half decent pics b4 this.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Bedok
    Posts
    1,417

    Default

    Originally posted by yurona
    For me, b4 i bought my oly 700, i had a yashica p&s. only time i bring it out was for outings.
    Now with dc, i almost always carry it with me to work. Yes the startup cost is high but at least i never have to hesitate whether to shoot anything now.
    Also i prefer to keep all my photos as bytes in hdd and have them in online galleries.
    I dun care bout analog skills, i just want to take pics and be able to view them immediately.
    I keep fish and i like to take photos of them. With my dc, i can take nice pics and view them immediately. Can never take half decent pics b4 this.
    Heh I am using the same cam as you =) Welcome to the Olympus Family
    Canon Lover :)

  13. #13

    Default Re: Photography?

    Originally posted by langzi
    in fact, most SLR users now, holding on to the auto SLR, like EOS 33 or otherwise, still uses the P mode. i think they would fare better with a compact cam.
    I also think this is a unfair statement...yes I agree many ppl tend to buy SLR cameras for casual phototaking and I hope you are referring to those..I for one like to try out the different settings and see how it will turn out.

  14. #14

    Default

    Oh yeah, heard this all before. On cycling groups, computer programming groups. What "real" practitioners do. Like real cyclists weld their own bikes and only used fixed gears. Or real programmers only code in assembler. Or real surgeons operate without anaesthetic.

    Lemme see...

    Real photographers only use manual focus on cameras like Leica and Contax rangefinders.

    Real photographers only use black and white film (the grainier the better).

    Real photographers can handhold shots down to 1/10 seconds and still get a sharp image.

    Real photographers carry big bags full of lenses and film and stuff.

    Real photographers don't want to give up control of exposure and aperture settings to some silicon chip.

    Real photographers love to twist dials and poke buttons and fiddle with esoteric features.

    etc etc

    Get real. I think digital has led to a great resurgence in photography. I for one am a beneficiary. Never was interested in photography beyond taking snapshots until I got my Nikon 990.

    I think the quality of pictures we're getting is improving as well, if only because of the "click" factor. What's that? The fact that it's easy and cheap to take more shots. The more shots taken, the more likely you're going to end up with one or two good ones. Just look at what's being posted at photo.net.

    Can you imagine photography before 35mm cameras? You had to make your own photographic plates and develop them. 35mm film made photography so easy and convenient - just pop in a roll of film, then send it for developing (or do it yourself in the darkroom). What a great technological advance! I'm sure that then, as now, you would have had luddites decrying the death of "pure" photography as they knew it.

    I've never experienced the joy of the darkroom (my older brother had one, and I thought he was just being weird - actually he used it for reproducing dirty pictures - this was wayyy before the internet made them widely available), but if it's gonna cost me my corneas when my girlfriend spills chemicals on her eyes, I'd rather stick to Photoshop, thanks. I heard the chemicals are quite stinky as well. Do they also make you high when inhaled, Jed? Is that the joy you refer to? Oh yeah, you don't inhale, right?
    Last edited by StreetShooter; 6th February 2002 at 11:17 PM.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Streetshooter, that was a good point I wanted to make but forgot. 35mm is flimsy compared to MF, compared to LF. Because as Leonard says, we have less to waste with digital, we machine gun and think less and get less impressive pictures. The same holds true with 35mm and MF.

    No, darkroom chemicals don't really smell, and no I don't inhale!

  16. #16

    Default

    Photography is an art. And an artist's tools can be anything he chooses. What matters most is the final output.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    leepublic of singapore
    Posts
    1,783

    Default

    Originally posted by YSLee
    Photography is an art. And an artist's tools can be anything he chooses. What matters most is the final output.
    i agree...doesn't matter which camera u choose...even if you're using de most powerful digicam on earth *err..is there?*and you can't visualise properly....also no good...

    but of course, if you're happy wif wat u shoot...then juz shoot

  18. #18
    langzi
    Guests

    Default my thoughts

    dear all,
    after reading all your replies, these are my thoughts.
    first of all, i would like to say that i am not totally condemming digital. i am curently working as a photographer assistant for a renowned photographer in singapore, and when he's shooting for clients in the studio, he uses a professional digital cam, the brand and make i think i wld rather not say. it saves alot of inconvenience as he can preview the pics on the Mac immediately, but after using digital for bout a year, he too admit that he has the 'no good, trash it' mentality. he has also said that the clour produced by digital, if not gone through PS, will not match the richness as that of film. this is true, and i have personally seen it myself.
    when shooting outdoors, like for coperate jobs, he'll rather use his F100, if not, FM2. still, je uses his digital cam to check the lighting b4 taking it with his manual SLR.

    cheers,
    leonard

  19. #19
    andslm
    Guests

    Default its about technology

    wow, this topic really turn me on...

    well i'm working as programmer for phorography i'm quite new...i used SLR type back in 90-94...now i using digicam..

    for me its all about technology which help human like us to get better standard, easy and quality with small or lesser effort than before.

    if someone like SLR rather than digicam, yet its only taste of someone and also coz he already used to it and find something quite different (in taste and feeling) when using digicam.

    its like u using typing machine...and then suddnely computer came out...which u choose ??? someone may choose typing machine for some condition...but when the technology grows and also time change....people will prefer computer (for word processing) rather than typing machine. why ?? coz its offer alot benefit rather than using analog machine.

    i still believe digicam like other new technology will adapt slowly by human in nature. Than we will find alot of benefit that digicam offer than using SLR. "no good, thrash it" maybe now u find it bad moral.....but then its also help u to preview the result and can get an idea for the next shoot, not just "no good, trash it".

    Again....with the time change...more new technology come out and replace our old method, yet now digicam is not perfect ...but soon when the technology perfect (maybe next 5-10 years) u will find all the pro using the digicam

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Hi again Leonard,

    Nice to hear your personal experiences. Let me share some of mine.

    > a renowned photographer in singapore,

    Fair play to him. What I am about to say just reflects my own opinions as a fellow professional, renown or not I don't know. In no way am I making any comment about his knowledge or opinions, just expressing mine in relation and with regard to his opinions. Neither am I casting doubt on his professional ability.

    > and when he's shooting for clients in the studio, he uses a professional digital cam, the brand and make i think i wld rather not say.

    If he's working in a commercial studio, I take it he's using at least a medium format digital rig. Personally, I think that the quality MF digital produces far outstrips 35mm. For me this is a no-brainer and there is no argument.

    > but after using digital for bout a year, he too admit that he has the 'no good, trash it' mentality.

    As above, I have come to this at times as well.

    > he has also said that the clour produced by digital, if not gone through PS, will not match the richness as that of film. this is true, and i have personally seen it myself.

    My own personal opinion is that this is wrong. I assume by "richness" you mean saturation. Leaving PS aside first, digital cameras at the low end are usually criticised for being too saturated, with good reason. At the high end (MF) digital cameras capture extremely accurate colours, in a colourspace that tends to understate colours so as to preserve the full range of the scene. This can then later be bumped up as you mention in PS. Furthermore, these MF cameras capture in CMYK because that is the output process. However, if you wish, you can also shoot in a more vivid colour space. In this Velvia skewed world, we unfortunately are led towards punchy and contrasty colours. Fair enough, but then I could criticise film as being unrealistic to true colours as well.

    Also, on what basis are you making these claims? Using Velvia, Kodachrome, Astia? The whole bundle of palettes available by these films renders comparison in a sweeping statement so implausible as to be ridiculous.

    Now as to vivid colours. Digital cameras can capture in the RGB colour space and can regularly hit the extremes. All these bits will not fall within the gamut range of the CMYK printing process. So all this extra richness is possibly excess. At the end of the day, the printing press is the end product of most of the commercial photography today. Take this into account.

    As to needing to process in Photoshop, fair play. That's why professionals are always striving for better colours out of camera. But for every Photoshop action necessary, there is a white balance setting on the camera (or custom preset) that removes the need for colour correction filters. And do not forget that trannies need to be scanned, and colour corrected in the scanning software or Photoshop as well (again on the premise that the majority of commercial work is destined for the print press). Or alternatively if straight prints are made, correction has to be made as well. Same thing, different process.

    Processing the colours in Photoshop should be part of EVERY professional's workflow whether digital or film. There is not point zapping off an uncalibrated file through to the printing press, because the publishing house will just mutilate all your colours again. If you're doing this colour correcting and calibrating, and conversion to CMYK, which you should be for digital or film, then there is little issue about the Photoshop necessity of digital files to be a hassle.

    > when shooting outdoors, like for coperate jobs, he'll rather use his F100, if not, FM2. still, je uses his digital cam to check the lighting b4 taking it with his manual SLR.

    Well, all power to him. For corporate jobs, I'd be using medium format. In all honesty, I prefer quality digital to 35mm anyday. If you had said digital loses to 120 film then that would be more of an argument. In fact, I'm also shocked that he uses his digital cam to check lighting. A pro that knows what he's doing and what he's talking about (regarding colour richness for instance) really shouldn't need to depend on a digital cam to check lighting. What if the colours aren't rich enough because it's only a digital camera?

    Now, the reason why I didn't disagree with you in the first place is because I sort of agreed with you. It has been my own personal bug bear that Singaporeans in particular suffer too much distraction from technology and hence spend less effort on improving the aesthetic side of their pictures (in comparison to the work of the amateurs I see first hand in Australia and the UK). This was evident even in the period of automatic focus and exposure cameras, before the advent of digital. Digital has just compounded this problem several-fold. After all, this website for instance has about 50 times the traffic than at AsiaPhoto.com ever had. But if somebody chooses to buy a brain-replacing camera, that's their choice. If they choose to take brainless pictures, it's their choice. If they make pictures they are happy with, then that is the whole point. They are happy, and I am happy for them. And it doesn't mean nobody can take pictures anymore. There are some very good photographers on this website. Without meaning to step on anyone's toes, they may be less common than say, among a pool of 35mm manual SLR users, but they do exist.

    The reason I have come out now to say something is that I feel you are wrong to condemn this technology and the 90% of its users who don't know "proper" photography. And also because the basis of your comments seem to be questionable (not necessarily wrong mind you), and based seemingly on the one professional whom you are assisting. I know that in this position is seems difficult to look beyond everything that he is saying, and to accept it as gospel truth, but just because he's a professional photographer doesn't necessarily mean he knows all there is to know about photography, although he might well do. It doesn't mean his ways of doing things are necessarily the best, although they might well be. For every eminent professional condemning digital, I'll find you one who has converted and is finding it a revelation.
    Last edited by Jed; 7th February 2002 at 12:48 PM.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •