Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: Digital is evil.

  1. #1

    Default Digital is evil.

    It seems like moving to digital is not just changing media, changing the camera. There is this underlying, discreet evil that requires digital people to keep up with the megapixel race. Soon, it becomes an obsession over cameras rather than over photography. On what the camera can do, rather than what you can do with the camera. I once was a digital man, on a Canon powershot A40. 2.1mp was seen as pretty ok at that time... now, nobody actually considers it. This race with new technology, is sadly endless... .
    I'm on film now, and there is less distraction other than to worry about photography. No worries about camera body, as lense seems pretty much more important. You get a FM3a, and 10 yrs down the road it still stand up. You dont go around searching the web for new bodies..... dont go around gossiping about new technology. You buy it, u keep it ... and live with that intention.
    On digital, u ask yourself, how long will it actually keep it before the next D-whatever comes around and forces you secretly to change it. This cycle goes on and on.... .
    I was on digital, still is... but ventured into film partly because of this horrid megapixel , CCD , whatever race. I dont blame people to be in this race, more like technology. I'm waiting to get my hands on a DSLR, because .... its just so tempting. The evil inside me , or in the camera is pounding on my head. But I'm waiting for the next model up to come round, just to drive the last DSLR prices down. But.. wait, wont a new model come about within the next year ? Wont prices fall by half next year ? The wait continues...... lets wait and wait, until we grow old and die. At least for the less fortunate people like me, students who dont have money to spare. DIgital is Evil , downright evil.

  2. #2

    Default

    If u have the $$$$, its ok using EVIL stuff.

  3. #3
    tranze
    Guests

    Default

    Tru... Tru....

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    602

    Default

    If you have the correct mentality of taking photos, i don't quite understand why would people in the digital world will want to keep upgrading.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,741

    Default

    Originally posted by Wryer
    If you have the correct mentality of taking photos, i don't quite understand why would people in the digital world will want to keep upgrading.
    Not true always - newer technology promise useful improvements such as lower noise at higher sensitivities, faster AF, etc. Improvements like these do aid in getting a better shot.

    E.g. you might know how to compose a picture but you might miss it b'coz of slow AF.

    edit : corrected a typo
    Last edited by imaginary_number; 22nd April 2003 at 09:11 PM.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    602

    Default

    Yeah, i agree. Thats why its a big IF. So..its more of growing on to the camera's limitation? Of course, better techies like faster AF will always be there, just like faster lens, i guess.

    Above all, thats just my view. I don't feel strongly against ppl who keep upgrading their digital gear ba. Afterall, they have the dough to do so. I can only admire and grow with my camera.

    No offence to anyone!

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    near e4
    Posts
    375

    Default

    one question to ask may be how much of the improved software and new features you would use.

    i am on film, but i only shoot in M, A, S or P mode. i do not even use the custom modes.

  8. #8

    Default

    There are some features very much the essentials of photography. Like it was said, AF and noise issue. And If the need for these improvements are true and needed. There's no harm getting a newer camera.

  9. #9

    Default

    Oh, absolutely. Just say No.

  10. #10

    Default

    I'm new here, but I guess both digital and film has it's own advantages and disadvantages. I often bring along my coolpix995 along with my FM2 and other lenses. Sometimes shooting the same element with both digital and film, you'll find impressive stuff.

    anyways, what I'm trying to say is. it's the photographer thats taking those photo, not the camera.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,741

    Default

    Originally posted by ynot
    ...it's the photographer thats taking those photo, not the camera.
    Correct, but it's the camera that produces the output image, not the photographer.

  12. #12

    Default

    All that being said, digital still has distinct advantages. Things like instant image preview, reduced cost os usage (although the extreme high cost has to be taken into account), etc.

    I believe those who take slides are the most skillful and possess the most 'kang hu'. But by going digital, it really makes it much easier for the average photographer to produce good pictures.

    As for the gear chase, I guess there is a marked difference between 3 MP and 6 MP. In any case, the chase has always been on in the film arena. Many people still go from prosumer models to full professional models. Anyway just my 2 cents...

  13. #13
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default

    I think it's ok to upgrade, if you've outgrown your system that you own.

    Like if you've already reached your limit with the system that you have, and you're looking for new ways to take pictures, probably new lenses would do, because you've outgrown your equipment, like clothes.

    However I do not condone upgrades for just 3mp to 5mp or A40 to DSLR just because you can afford it, then it makes no point. You're just chasing after technology, getting your hands on every lens and equipment you think will help you in taking better pictures.

    If the hardware is limiting you, then by all means. I don't see how a 2mp can limit you.

    If you get new hardware and can't put it to good use and want new hardware, then it's not upgrade, it's call chasing technology.

    Just my 2cents.

  14. #14

    Default

    it's not really fair to blame technology for human weaknesses. at the end of the day it still depends on ourselves, whether we are able to overcome temptation. and you have proven the above point by resisting the temptation to dump film and go back to digital.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    In the void.
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    Originally posted by nivlekx

    I believe those who take slides are the most skillful and possess the most 'kang hu'. But by going digital, it really makes it much easier for the average photographer to produce good pictures.
    Actually, there is a danger of all of us interpreting a "good" picture in terms of whether there is noise, correctly-exposured or not etc etc. We may be trying too hard to quantify a pictures in terms of focus, shutter speed, aperture, exposure etc etc. Better technology helps you to take a "technically correct"photo but it is not necessary a "good" photo. The point is, in our chase for better technology, we must not forget that there's an aesthetic side to photography. Photography in itself is both an art and a science.

  16. #16
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    ClubSNAP community
    Posts
    2,775

    Default


    I've been using digicams since my CP950 unitl it broke and had to get a new on last Aug... I guess that makes me an Underling of Evil...


    Hey Munfai has a point, you know. Or maybe we should say that "ALL TECHNOLOGY IS EVIL!" Then I can get rid of my neighbour's pesky alarm clock from waking me at 5am....

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    5,011

    Default

    Originally posted by Prismatic
    Actually, there is a danger of all of us interpreting a "good" picture in terms of whether there is noise, correctly-exposured or not etc etc. We may be trying too hard to quantify a pictures in terms of focus, shutter speed, aperture, exposure etc etc. Better technology helps you to take a "technically correct"photo but it is not necessary a "good" photo. The point is, in our chase for better technology, we must not forget that there's an aesthetic side to photography. Photography in itself is both an art and a science.
    Well said!

    Just like to elaborate:

    - Photography is both an art and a science, and it takes wisdom to know which part is art and which part is science.

    - Owning high-tech-latest equipment is only part of the science in photography. In other words, having the best equipment does not guarantee technically correct photos everytime.

    - Read a nice sentence somewhere sometime before. Could not remember the exact words, but it goes like this:

    Photograhy is probably the only hobby/interest/activity that you can find amateurs who believe that they can become pro simply by owning pro equipment.

    - Roy
    As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning and meaningful statements lose precision.

  18. #18

    Default

    Originally posted by roygoh
    Well said!

    Just like to elaborate:

    - Photography is both an art and a science, and it takes wisdom to know which part is art and which part is science.

    - Owning high-tech-latest equipment is only part of the science in photography. In other words, having the best equipment does not guarantee technically correct photos everytime.

    - Read a nice sentence somewhere sometime before. Could not remember the exact words, but it goes like this:

    Photograhy is probably the only hobby/interest/activity that you can find amateurs who believe that they can become pro simply by owning pro equipment.

    - Roy
    Point 4, pictures without Roy in it are not technically correct.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    5,011

    Default

    Originally posted by djchris
    Point 4, pictures without Roy in it are not technically correct.
    second time caught with this mistake...
    As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning and meaningful statements lose precision.

  20. #20

    Default

    Really, i beg to differ with regards to technology being evil here, as far as photography is concerned.

    Digital camera sales have gone up and is look set to overtake traditional film-based point and shoot cameras for the first time this year, in terms of sales. That does not mean that film is dead, just means more people are buying digital due to all kinds of reasons (usually good marketing).

    However, as with anything, it is the carpenter, not the tools that create works of art. This applies to everything that i can think off.

    In the hands of a monkey, a 1Ds does not mean anything.

    BUT what digital has done, is to open up a whole new arena for never-before photographers to venture into point and shoot simplicity, but is a lot more forgiving than film, in terms of developing costs (but whether the person learns anything about photography is still a big question mark, of course). It has encouraged people put off by film and expensive developing costs (however true that fear is) to try their hand at taking a shot or two.

    So yes, technology is good here as more folks take up this as a hobby, but it really is up to the person using the camera, not technology, that is encouraging the upgrading craze. If that person thinks getting expensive up-to-date equipment means better photographs, then it is that person's misconception, and not technology's fruit.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •