Since digital (photo) cameras have become quite cheap, everybody’s getting one. Some people even have more than 1 cam (//me whistles innocently). Of course, digital camera’s offer quite a lot of ease over the analog camera’s. But, as shooting pics has become practically free (once you payed for the hardware of course), people seem to be shooting pics like their lives depend on it. As it doesn’t cost anything, lots of ppl don’t take the time to think about what they shoot, but they just keep on clicking. I find this a major downside to affordable digital cameras. On the other hand, there is lots of good stuff too (easier, faster and better workflow, multipurpose devices etc).
What do you think: did the digicams contribute to the world? Didn’t they hurt the fact that photography is (and remains) an art?
I’m into it for a few years now and it’s nice to see the improvements in technology (especially the delay between shooting the pic and actually capturing it was VERY annoying…)
Depening on the convenience and quality needs, I choose between Panasonic FZ5 or FZ20, NikonCoolp 5600 or 8800, NikonD70, or my old Olympus 3030 but I try not to “shoot as much pics as fit on the memory”.
They do make it a lot easier for me to have pics from events you’d not make pics from with analog camera’s, just because the risk of worthless pics is too high (festivals, party,…).
Whilst I love Technology, the digital camera has done some damage. Having a baby a Digital Camera is a must. On the other end of the scope Kodak had a factory here in AU which shut down and left 3000 people out of work. Why? Sales of analogue film dropped so much. On that upside the price of Analogue film has dropped a heap, I can get 3 rols of Konica 200 36exp for $11. Used to be nearly that that per roll.
I’ve got 3 camera’s at the moment - 1. Konica Minolta Dynax, Sony Cybershot en my latest cam is a Canon 350D. I use them for pleisure and ofcourse for my work, and since I’ve got these cam I hardly use my Agfa scanner and that save me a hell lot of time.
I disklike the delay between shooting pics just as Wannez. I’ve also learned not to get stressed by the people around me and just take my time to make a good picture. Usually i look for a right angle and click away.
Having 2 1Gb CF cards for in my Powershot S410 also isn’t bad I can take about 500 pictures in the highsest quality per CF. The camera is as big as a pack of cigarettes so i usually bring it along to every meeting i go to and take lots of pictures.
i’ve had my finepix 602 for 3 years now and i wouldn’t take pix any other way…having to buy the slr then the film then to process it etc…im done w/ that…as for pix as art…i think its still the same as w/ film cameras…its all in the eye…what a person sees and what others see in it…
Well I have a Sony digi cam (Cyber shot 3.1mega pixels) and a older Canon EOS single-lens reflex camera with 3 types of lenses. When i just want to shoot some snaps of me and some friends at a party were quality is not first priority I use my Sony. But when shooting snaps were quality is 1st priority my Sony cant beat the EOS (with manual focus, shutter speed settings etc). Sure nowadays single-lens reflex digital cameras are available but way too expensive when compared with what I had to pay for my EOS including lenses and flash etc.
About photos being art:
I dont think that has changed with digital cameras. A good photograph is a good and a bad one is a bad one. It has nothing to do with the camera used being digital or not. But what has changed is that with the digicam you take much more pictures for fun and pictures you maybe wont be looking at anymore in some years. It became a kind of well I have some more space left so just take a photo and see wether to delete it or save it for later thing (shooting before thinking or shooting without thinking lol). With the digicam you’ll more and more take snaps you would not have taken with your SLR or any film type camera. On the other hand some people did the same kind of not thinking before shooting or shooting before thinking with normal cameras in the past too.
Hey, I have a Sony Cybershot 5.1 MP and i have noticed something. It seems that image quality during the night is very low, especially that the images appear blurred. I think this is due to the fact that the camera takes several snapshots in split seconds then merging them, probably because it’s dark and needs to get more info on the surroundings. Of course the flash doesn’t help when u need to view some relatively faraway objects in the dark. I’m not a photographing guru or anything but i have tried to minimize the blur without any luck.
However, i think digital cams are much more convenient compared with analog ones for the facts mentioned above. But i’d have to agree with koba that the much better digital cams designed for professional users r a lot more expensive than their analog counterparts, at least for now.
My digital camera tends to use a shutter speed in between of 1/8s and 1/40s at night making it almost impossible to shoot pictures without a trypod (too slow shutter speed to compensate only a little movement of my hand when shooting making all pix some kind of blurry).
With my SLR I can use ISO 400 or even 800 or more at night making it much easier than with my digicam.
@TheMerovingian: there are several reasons why night shots get blurry. First, there’s the long exposure time that is needed to get a properly exposed photograph. Shutterspeeds of 1/30s and below are sensive to movement while exposing the film/sensor. The longer the exposure time, the worse it becomes. And: digital camera’s generate more noise on long exposures (because of the sensor heating up).
Another reason is that many digicams have a hard time focusing in low-light conditions. Some are equipped with an autofocus illuminator (a little light) and that helps quite a lot. External flashlight often feature such a light (much better than the internal ones) as well.
There are multiple things to do to overcome the problems of slow shutter speeds. First, you can use a tripod (or something else stable to put your cam on). To prevent from micromovements blurring your pictures, you can use a remote control or the self-timer to release the shutter without touching the camera.
Besides that, you can use a higher ISO setting (yes, that generates more noise, but some noise is better than a blurry picture; a good noise filter like NoiseNinja can help in getting enjoyable results after all. And, there’s (somtimes) the option to use a faster lens. If you use a lens that can do F1/1.4, you can take good pictures at low light conditions without too much troubles. The only thing you should take into account is the shallow DOF.
it seems kind of like the saying about 700 monkeys with 700 typewriters… you get a lot of junk but you may get the works of shakespeare. honestly though it is not usually the subjects that suck it is the composition/framing of the pics.
as proof of my true freak heritage even my camera is a cdburner
I have 2 main cameras also, a Sony Dsc-85 4 meg and a old Canon AE1 Program with a medium and long zoom. When I’m doing critical stuff like air Shows and Drag racing and like that I use the old Canon for the nice zoom and fast ISO. When I go to a car show, zoo, party, hoiliday, whatever I use the Sony digital. Easier to use and if I don’t like the shot I can erase it in the camera and try again, plus I can fiddle with settings easily and see imidiate results. And no film to buy or pay to process is nice, too bad their memory is proprietary and a bit more spendy. I want to get a Digital SLR some day soon then I can kinda merge the cameras for the best of both.
For all out visual quality a properly done analog film shot is still probably best depending on film speed and things but digital can be excellent with the semi pro slr’s out now.
I just recently bought the Canon Powershot A510 which is absolutely fine for me, since I just use it for quick pics for family emails, parties, etc. It has some more advanced manual settings, if I felt like trying them out someday. In my opinion, photography for the sake of art is in no danger from the cheap digital craze. 99% of the people who are buying all these cheap cameras aren’t using them to take magazine-worthy shots. They buy for the same reason as me, most likely; it’s so much easier and convenient when you don’t have to take the film in for processing, you can see and delete any bad shots immediately, etc. They mostly want to take a quick picture of a memory. These people are still going to take their family in for holiday photos at Olan Mills, Sears, whatever. They still realize that when you want a quality keepsake photo, you go to a professional with a film camera. As for artistic shots, I belong to a family of photographers. My father was almost religious when it came to his camera, lenses, accessories, etc. He loved photography, but didn’t live long enough to see the new technology that most certainly would have excited him like a little boy. He would have bought the best manual digital camera available, and would have spent hours taking pictures of flowers, insects, and people, just like he did with his old cameras. My aunt and her children are also avid digital photographers. They understand all the technical stuff about aperture, lighting, and shutter speed. Every photo they’ve ever emailed me has blown me away with simple beauty. These people know how to photograph. I think digital cameras are just another tool that real photographers can use to make art, and amateurs can use for dead easy snapshots.
Naw it burns on the 1620, the 40 is still having teething pains
I needed a good film camera for a drag race I was going to and my old Canon had battery problems so I bought that one refurbished for 200. Great optics but auto focus would be nice. I had the 2 lenses so didn’t want to try another brand.