Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

digital photography a cheat?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

New PortraitPro 12 SALE + 10% OFF code EPZROS814
Hazard
Hazard  101192 forum posts United Kingdom
16 Apr 2005 - 9:21 AM

[quote]Digital photography a cheat?
[quote/]
You could say photography is a cheat, Can't you draw ? LOL
or wearing glasses is cheating.
nonsense isn't it.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
16 Apr 2005 - 9:21 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

conrad
conrad  1010874 forum posts116 Constructive Critique Points
16 Apr 2005 - 11:22 AM

Everything a lens records, even on film / analogue cameras, is a distortion of reality (although with some lenses this is more visible than with others). And as soon as you add things like filters etc., it becomes even more obvious that you're not recording exactly what you see, but a manipulated version of it. So why would digital manipulation be cheating, and the other kinds not?

Conrad

P.S. Thinking about it: even everything our eyes record, is a distortion of reality!

StrayCat
StrayCat e2 Member 1014706 forum postsStrayCat vcard Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
16 Apr 2005 - 2:47 PM

Even the pros get their share of c**p from people. Read "You Gotta Love it A and B" and my Photoshop Ethics here

Bernie
Bernie  102201 forum posts
16 Apr 2005 - 2:55 PM

Joe, When staying in Dublin(I know this is way south of you)
we stay in a hotel in Gardiner street. From our hotel we can see a large stadium(not Landsdown) any idea what this is? or what is played there? Going for 10 days in Dublin area(again) from the 18th May and maybe check this place out. Also coming north to my Mums hometown of Armargh and a plod around Belfast.

snapbandit
snapbandit  102205 forum posts Northern Ireland3 Constructive Critique Points
16 Apr 2005 - 3:10 PM

Sorry to jump in Bernie, it's probably, Croke Park, Dublins GAA ground. IIRC very large, grey? stands just to your North?

Joe B

covey
covey  91672 forum posts Ireland
16 Apr 2005 - 3:55 PM

Bernie,

I can confirm what Joe is saying, it's Croke Park and as for whats played there check out the portfolio of Sbphoto.

BTW, just voted to allow soccer and rugby ( foreign games ) there, when Lansdowne is being developed. Momentous occassion Smile.

T.

Bernie
Bernie  102201 forum posts
17 Apr 2005 - 1:13 AM

Thanks guys.

ktcam
ktcam  9457 forum posts Scotland
17 Apr 2005 - 1:13 AM

Digital is not cheating. Neither is using filters on a film camera. I think what gets up the noses of film purists is that nowdays anyone can make an interesting visual image despite their abilities. It makes them see red i guess when an amateur gets more attention than them - especially when they have had to slog away in a darkroom with timers and chemicals etc for sometimes poor results. I've tried processing film in a darkroom and it bugged the ass of me. I'd rather leave the boring bit to the technicians. Digital puts me in control and lets me see immediately what I have done and correct as i go along. Apart from that, I do like manipulated pics (heavy or slight) just like I like abstract paintings and sculpture. Both are an extension and experimentation of a traditional approach and ethic. I often wonder why some people get a fly up their ass over digitally manipulated images. For me their has been some brilliant stuff on EPZ in both traditional and digital formats. It's time to stop being so hardcore and be more flexible and experiment with the new tools at our disposal. Those who adhere to rules carved in concrete may well find themselves fossilised in it someday.
Moving on.........Smile

Kate.

UserHasLeft
17 Apr 2005 - 1:43 AM

And 'digital' is a coded anagram of "git laid". That swings it for me...

wgfarquhar
wgfarquhar  10473 forum posts
17 Apr 2005 - 2:21 AM

sitting in my lowepro is a film slr and a digital slr. The film slr has ilford b/w and the digital slr has sandisk 1gb...
i don't plan to sell my film slr.

Tooth
Tooth  95772 forum posts Ireland227 Constructive Critique Points
17 Apr 2005 - 5:04 AM


Quote: nowdays anyone can make an interesting visual image despite their abilities

I agree with all you've said Kate apart from this bit. there has to be the "eye" for the image in the first place - the act of aesthetic consciousness that causes someone to frame, compose and take a picture. Neither film nor digital can make a boring image interesting. This is why I think , film or digital, photographers should celebrate what they have in common rather than what separates them - ie the ablilty to see an image and bring it to a pleasing version of reality that others can share. Group hug time...
Stephen

tepot
tepot  104416 forum posts United Kingdom
17 Apr 2005 - 5:17 AM

photography is art, how you get your final image is irrelivant, i can't paint or draw my images so i photograph them. as far as manipulation is concerned it doesn't matter if you use a darkroom or a pooter, they are just different ways to get the image you want and you should use the method that gets you the best results according to your ability and experience. when you look at professional photographs, postcards etc, don't think for a moment they havn't been enhanced in some way.

ktcam
ktcam  9457 forum posts Scotland
17 Apr 2005 - 11:05 AM

Tooth? I agree too actually. My statement was rather sweeping and it's true that an artistic eye and the focus to get an image how you want it really helps. Intent and ability make for some stunning resultsSmile

Morpyre
Morpyre e2 Member 91622 forum postsMorpyre vcard Wales8 Constructive Critique Points
17 Apr 2005 - 11:24 AM

i think both film and digital are good for their own reasons - both give you a great final image, both require image manipulation to make everything look right and good. just one has to be done in a traditional darkroom with chemicals and tools and the other requires the same sort of things but is done in a digital darkroom via the likes of photoshop or cheaper programs.

it is still too early to compare film and digital because the quality of film is still better but digital is getting higher and higher quality all the time and too the untrained eye both photographs look as good as each other if the digital image is done on a good photo quality image and camera with reasonable megapixels.

both give good or bad results - there were quite often times on my minolta slr that my film photo's varied as much in how well they turned out as they do with a digital camera. i have thrown away several film photo's because they were too noisy, or blurred, or crap colours and tones.

rounding off my waffle, why is digital manipulation described as cheating - does this not mean then that spending hours in a dark room dodging & burning, masking etc to improve the photo is not also cheating. both require the in camera original shot to be changed in appearence.

peter "morpyre" turner

kemic
kemic  9
17 Apr 2005 - 12:20 PM

I would say - everyone has a valid point. But one thing I know for sure is that if hadn't been for digital I would not be here now.

I have owned a Minolta Saynx 500i for many years and never been able to understand how to use it. By the time I got the prints back I would have forgotten what I did, no matter how many notes I would make, and thus found improving difficult.

Two years ago purchased a Fuji Finepix 602 pro - still learning - but now have the confidence to use the Minolta as well.

Now saving up for a serious DSLR as the fine points of focus and DOF actual mean something to me.

Dave

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.