Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
As part of a group research project, i am looking for peoples opinions and preferces to either traditional or digital photography. Please give genuine reason for you choice and also include whether photography is a proffession or hobby and also include your nationality. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I think there are a lot of people who would say photography of any sort is not really art in the true sense of the word. As for the difference, if a set a scene and take an image with digital or another type of camera the image will be the same; so how can one detract from the other. So I can manipulate the digital image; but so can negatives be manipulated in a darkroom. For me it is digital every time. I like the freedom it gives. The complete control over the image I have taken.
Barry
My father (a historian) was horrified when I showed him what was possible with a quite low spec PC and a decent printer. His point was, how will historians in the future know what they can or can't believe ?
My reply was twofold: first, you need to think of photography as an art form, not just a means of recording facts. Secondly, trick photography has been around for 150 years, so it's not new, just the tools are.
I think as ART, both traditional and digital photography are valid. I use both. Photography is a hobby, although my job entails designing and writing software for digital image manipulation, storage and management, and output.
And I'm English.
Most now agree that the method of capture (film or dig) is immaterial. Both have strong advantages, so it comes down to preference at the moment (may change in the future). Negs and trannies can always be scanned easily so manipulation is not a question of camera type. Me, I prefer film, it's an issue of cost (of a digital SLR) and battery life (I sometimes go out and about) and the fact that most libraries still want trannies. I am also more comfortable knowing where my images are in a filing cabinet rather than on a CD that may never open again. It's a subsidised hobby at the moment but I hope to be semi-pro in a year. I am British by birth but live in New Zealand
Having worked in the canadian photolab business for years, I appreciate the fact that with digital, I retain total control of the image from taking the image, to the final print.I no longer have to rely on someone elses exposure judgment or color correcting. The cost associated with digital, (other than initial equipment purchase) is a fraction of what film photography is. I can now go to a job, take 100s of shots, view them, transfer to cd or dvd, and have them on the customers desk usually the same day. I still have my film cameras, but use them for backup only.
Cheers
Craig www.island-imaging.com
I am British by decent, a frustrated portrait artist. For the past fifty years I have used photography as mearly a tool to produce what I consider a good rendition of my thoughts on any given subject, using any photographic meduim.
I still use the traditional methods of photograpy
from the setting up, taking, to the final print.
Although I now use a scanner for prints, negs and trans. up to 5X4 for distribution webwise, I am still of the opinion that the old traditional methods of photography cannot be beaten as far as final results are concerned. Any form of 'skill' can be regarded as an 'art' form, for me, this can only be obtained by hours of planning and work over many years. I would find it very difficult to get any such satisfaction from just digital imagery alone, which after all is just another tool in a production process. However, I have to say, that in skilled hands digital imagery could well be considered a form of art, but hardly pure.
Another can or worms. Oh dear!
I am British by decent, a frustrated portrait artist. For the past fifty years I have used photography as mearly a tool to produce what I consider a good rendition of my thoughts on any given subject, using any photographic meduim.
I still use the traditional methods of photograpy
from the setting up, taking, to the final print.
Although I now use a scanner for prints, negs and trans. up to 5X4 for distribution webwise, I am still of the opinion that the old traditional methods of photography cannot be beaten as far as final results are concerned. Any form of 'skill' can be regarded as an 'art' form, for me, this can only be obtained by hours of planning and work over many years. I would find it very difficult to get any such satisfaction from just digital imagery alone, which after all is just another tool in a production process. However, I have to say, that in skilled hands digital imagery could well be considered a form of art, but hardly pure.
Another can or worms. Oh dear!
I have recently taken up Digital Imaging for several reasons. I got fed up with the apalling results from D&P - my wife and I now use a 3 Megapixel Digital Compact Camera for all our snaps which I print out on an Epson 1290 - brilliant. I also got fed up with wet processing colour prints - so much wasted paper trying to get the colour balance right and so time consuming. I still have a darkroom and am not yet convinced on the quality of inkjet Monochrome printing. I find it very difficult to shade and burn on a PC whereas in the darkroom it's just a few deft waves of a card or my hands. I find inkjet colour prints very comarable to wet prints but my traditional darkroom prints are far superior to inkjets although I haven't given serious thought to something like the Lyson and other black ink sets. It will come.
this is to estoric.
Photography.........painting with light......the medium is unimportant.
photographers went fron glass plates to negs, 10x8 to 35mm via 6x6. photographers learnt to scan negs and deal with the complexities of photoshop(well I'm sure some of you did!)
And then photojournalists got digital cameras but we still just take photographs. The question you should ask is "whats the best tool for the job?" the only question worth answering
Paul
Professional, UK(ex-pat living in Lebanon)
I am a commercial photographer and I am very curious about digital as I believe it is inevitably the future of the visual medium.I still work with film which is then edited and scanned for reproduction.in my line of work quality is of utmost importance but already certain limitations and headaches of the past have been resolved by the scanning process and use of photoshop.I always leave postproduction to the ad agencies.in my personal work I show direct prints as I am still in love with the games we play with the choice of film and exposures.do we still have the quality of film or is digital still in its early stages?
I have taken a few good photos with my Mum's(Mavis)old camera's...just point and shoot stuff...never really understood what I was doing...since I have become the owner of a digital camera and can manipulate my photographs using PS7, I have never had so much fun. If digital hadn't been invented then I wouldn't be enjoying photography, so for me it is a good thing. I am British and obviously photography is a hobby .
The effects of digitalisation on Photography mmmm..I believe that it has enabled more people to get into Photography .. which is a good thing Also because with the push of a button and soooo many available manafactured "filters" I believe it"forces" individual artists to the limit of their creative abiliies to achieve more unique works...also a good thing!
Photography CAN be used as a fine art also as a ulitarian tool .
As a consequence of the digital revolution I have been able to explore photograhy something that has been not as assesible ..through my lack of formal training and costly equipment.
To my horror I have found that to become a proficient photographer who wants to photograph everything from the ant crawling into its nest to the winning expression on the face of a Wimbelton finalist It STILL requires lots of knowledge and money !
For those fortunate professionals (which I am NOT)
For those lucky people that can afford and justify a professionl digital slr kit along with all the nessessary bits and bobs I believe it "allows"them to be more experimental and therefore redefine the creative standards that are long overdue in the photographic world.
I would suggest that the digital darkroom is what has revolutionized the craft ...and as stated before digital or traditional(when shooting certain subjects ) the camera is "almost"of no importance in the hands of a gifted photographer and someone highly skilled in computer photo editing technique!
PLUS ...a digital dark room may be more ecologically friendly ...well maybe ...if you DON'T take into account the polution emminating from old fashioned monitors and the pollution that is caused as a result of a computer manafacture!
What has nationality got to do with it any way ???
Cheryl
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top