Home » in English » Comments about our Editorial » Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #258 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 18:11   |
|
07:31am Mar 12, 2001
Why does there have to be a conflict between digital vs traditional photography. The way I see it: "Whatever floats your boat..." If you as a photographer are satisfied with the end result, despite the process used to get there, then so be it. A little "altering" never hurt anybody.(heeheehee)
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #261 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 18:16 |
|
08:09am Mar 13, 2001
I think that one of the most important things said in this article is "which best suits our needs". An advertising photographer will most likely benefit greatly from a faster and cheaper method of creating great images; where as, a fine art photographer who is doing a yearlong project on trees may not be concerned about faster or cheaper. In my opinion, I still think that any photographer could benefit from digital technology. I feel that the world of photography is moving forward and digital is going to be a large part of that. Those who choose not to accept that may be left behind. Not left behind because their work isn't wonderful, but because others can do the work faster, cheaper, and easier.
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #262 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 18:20 |
|
07:43pm Mar 13, 2001
It's hard to believe this topic is still being argued. I have to admit, at first I was skeptical about intigrating film with computers, but I owe that mainly to ignorance on my part. I just wasn't educated enough on the subject. Maybe this has something to do with the reluctance, maybe not. People need to realize that art is art. No one tells a painter he can't mix his media, and no one tells a sculptor what to mold a figure with. Who is this authority that thinks he can define art? Stop building walls and just let people create.
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #263 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 18:24 |
|
11:53pm Mar 13, 2001
Traditional Photography brought me to a level which I never thought I was capable of achieving. Digital Photography put me on a space ship to another galaxy. When I reach that place. I will be ready to climb aboard the next space ship.
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #266 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 18:30 |
|
11:39am Mar 14, 2001
I agree that digital photography may be faster, easier, and cheaper than creating photographs in the darkroom, but it has taken me some time to get used to. Digital photography certainly offers endless options for alterations that traditional photography cannot do. In my opinion, either manner of creating works as long as the individual artist is pleased with the final outcome of their photograph and it meets the desired expectations.
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #268 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 18:36 |
|
05:00pm Mar 14, 2001
I agree that there should be no fight between traditional and digital photography. They are both too important for us to rule one as a winner. I think there is a definate need to have experience with traditional photography but the world is definately ready and waiting for digital. Why are people so afraid of change? Can't they see the many benefits to having access to both forms?
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #270 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 18:46 |
|
11:41am Mar 15, 2001
Change is something a lot of people don't like and I
think that is where the real problem is. Whenever
something new comes along that will bring change with
it, people want to argue and debate about it. Digital
photography, however, has become too large to be
suppressed; it would be like trying to stop an avalanche
yourself with a piece of cardboard. I agree with Mr.
Meyer: there is not a ring with two opponets.
Traditional and digital photography are one and the
same. It would be like using acrylic paint istead of
oils to create your final picture.
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #272 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 18:49 |
|
04:47pm Mar 15, 2001
I also agree that traditional and digital photography are on the same side. They both eventually get to the same end results. Whether your work is in a museum or in a magazine, it is that end result that is the most important thing. That goes without saying that some portion of those people who see your work won't have a clue about either, or any, of the processes that were used. Things evolve over time, and in order to stay employable as photographers it is important to keep up with the changes.
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #273 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 18:52 |
|
07:42pm Mar 15, 2001
the most important idea that i think exists, for us as photographers, is that there be an idea, however seemingly insignificant or completely universal and revolutionary. to quote a friend, "art is about expression" and i feel that the ideal consumption of art allows the viewer to supply her own meaning to a work that had some level of meaning for the creator. digital can be fun. i like it--sure do.
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #275 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 18:55 |
|
10:34pm Mar 15, 2001
as for myself... in the beginning i was skeptical, but not adverse... i didn't believe the computer was capable of rendering a quality image that would have the same life of that of a wet print...
but after using the digital equipment, i have found excellence in its manisfestations... not to mention its efficiency... in the wet dark room i know i can get the desired appearance of the image by which ever technical means possible... but i know there were many a times i wished i could do 'this or that' and it just wasn't feasible... and if it was, it was ten or more prints later with a one and only copy... a one and only copy, full of character, well worthy of merit for its craftsmanship, but highly susceptible to damage and fatigue...
and that this is a likely reasoning behind the defense that digital photography could not at all be artistic in creation, regardless of its concept or intent... yet it is probably the same argument that arose when photography, as we know it, was born... "how could a photograph be art... all one does is push a button"... but despite opinions, i just finished and image that took me over four hours to create, and i would proclaim it nothing less than that of art (and would hear no other)... but shall the debate be based on the fact of believability of an image due to its digitized association of guilt for being unmistakably fallacious, regardless of its lack of alteration, then so be it that only a bigoted perception would see it as such... personally, for me the most crucial aspect of my photography is the initial process of capturing a quality image...
what i capture is real, and where i take it is merely told by tomorrow
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #277 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 18:57 |
|
12:01pm Mar 18, 2001
I completely agree with Pedro Meyer. I am astounded as well that the general population becomes so petrified at the word 'digital.' Even though I had a hard time accepting digital photography before I knew what the word really meant. I believed that digital photography meant only manipulation and not necessarily just an image printed out on the computer. I find that this easier process is more relaxing as well as more enjoyable. In the darkroom we spend countless hours producing the perfect color, tonal value, perfect cropped image. In Photoshop you spend at least half the time reaching the point you desired and then the rest of the time "playing" around with the image.
Martina Hjalmeby
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #279 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 18:59 |
 Niamh O'Connell
Messages: 1
Registered: April 2005 |
Junior Member |
|
|
03:36pm Mar 18, 2001
when i think of digital vs. traditional, the first person that comes to mind is Jerry Uelsmann. a person as creative as he, who really broke some boundaries in the darkroom, even impressed Adobe enough to do an ad for them, though the story behind it is even better....he wanted to show that he could do it both digitally and in the darkroom. my first experience with photogrpahy was an elective class and my teacher had us try to replicate a uelsmann, well, as hard as it was in the darkroom, i honestly think it would be equally as difficult on the computer, but the results would be just as rewarding. a good teacher i had once told me that the joy is always in the process, not the final result, if the process isn't good and rewarding the result isn't either. nothing is accomplished without this, and i think the same goes with photography-the element involved...film, camera, light, model, paper, chemicals, computers, printers, inks....its an amazement to me everytime i see a print appear in the developer and come out of the printer!!!!
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #281 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 19:03 |
|
05:45pm Mar 18, 2001
After reading Traditional Photography Vs. Digital Photography, I agree a little more with the digital side of photography. However
I will always love the traditional world. Yes, the digital aspect of things are faster and cheeper. Thats one thing I love. (It's very frustrating standing in the dark room for hours.)
Being that I want to be a studio photographer. One part in the artical fascinated me the most. Pedro was discusing what a studio photographer can do to better satisfy their clients. You can add anything the client wants or take away something they don't. This is good for the client and the photographer.
Digital photography is very time consuming, you have to learn a lot of tools to be good at it.Pedro said he spends 35% of his time working on it. This is probably why it's so hard for me. It's alot to learn. But I'm working on it!!!
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #282 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 19:07 |
|
07:17pm Mar 18, 2001
Only in some cases is photography meant to be
truthful and that would be photojournalism and
documentary style photography. That kind of work is
used to show the unaltered truth. Why should it matter
if you alter anything else? You are the artist and you
are creating art no matter if it be digital or
traditional. If you can alter pictures in the wet lab
then why not in a digital lab? I strongly belive
that when taking a picture it should always be on film
and not a digital camera. Technology is great but still
not concrete and it seems that as soon as you buy a new
computer or a digital camera , something bigger and
better comes out the day after. Sure you can see you
digital pictures faster but can you see them forever?
Film is archival and can last for many, many years where
a file in a computer can be wiped away in a blink of an
eye.
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #284 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 19:11 |
|
07:24pm Mar 18, 2001
I do not think that it is a bad thing that digital
photography came along. It is another tool in making
images/art. No one really accepted photography when it
first arrived. Everyone thought that painting was a
much better way of doing things, and the same thing is
happening between "traditional" photography and digital
photography. Things change and sometimes people need to
accept it. It doesnt mean that "traditional"
photography will vanish, it just has to make room for
digital photography. I think that digital has its own
market and use for things, and I believe that whatever a
person may be intrested in and whatever suits that
person better is what that photographer should do. I
personally enjoy both aspects.
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #285 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 19:42 |
|
07:27pm Mar 18, 2001
After reading and learning more about digital photography I have become more confident in my work. There are many things that are different between digital and traditional photography, the biggest difference is that in digital imaging the only limitation one is dealing with is that of the computer and the computers software, and in the case of traditional photography one is dealing with the limitations of the darkroom. I believe that man kind have only scratched the surface of the possibilities in the art of digital imaging, and that means that we have a very interesting era in photography ahead of us.
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #287 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 19:47 |
|
07:16am Mar 19, 2001
I can see where traditional and digital photography have their respective places in the professional photographer's life. The relative ease of an efficient digital photographer certainly has its place in the picture. The ability to "alter" perhaps an unpleasant aspect of a picture out of the scene to enhance the project is certainly an advantage. I was glad to hear a professional like Pedro Meyer state that digital photography could be very time consuming. (At least it's not just me.) Just the thought process alone, which he stated, takes time as the photographer contemplates the many possibilities of digital manipulation. There is an air of intrique that still surrounds going into a darkroom to produce the print that you envisioned in your head. I have to maintain that the world of photography has room for both the traditional and the digital photographer, and hopefully each photographer can grasp the best of both of those worlds to make their work the best that it can be.
Jenni Turbeville
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #290 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 19:54 |
|
03:07am Mar 21, 2001
When I read about "Traditional" versus "Digital" I
wonder if we are talking about daguerreotypes versus
digital. Just what do folks mean when they (proudly)
say "I print in the traditional manner"?
What is experimental today is old hat (traditional)
tomorrow. Personally, I want to learn it all. Why
would I want to limit myself.
Perhaps there is a safety,a sense of contium, of
following in the path ofthe masters that is comfortable,
even respectable in being traditional.
I did find interesting the two points in Mr. Meyers'
article as to the audience/purpose of the publication
and then the further assertion that the publication
provides the intent of the photograph.
For me as a photographer, I have a relationship to my
photograph and it is hard to accept my photograph going
"out on its own" and affecting people outside of my
intent. But maybe producing a photograph is like
creating a child, and at a certain point, a good point,
it has a life of its own. I don't know.
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #291 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 19:57 |
|
05:49pm Mar 21, 2001
Having experienced both Digital photography and Traditional photography leads me to agree with Pedro in saying the two are on the same side. I must say that I enjoy both. My preference is to shoot film and then scan into a computer. I believe they are both great tools, but are suited for two different types of photographers. In photojournalism digital is here, but in professional studio and weddings digital still has to come a little bit farther.
|
|
|
| I agree with the words of Pedro Meyer... yet [message #294 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 20:02 |
|
04:29pm Mar 22, 2001
I agree with the words of Pedro Meyer....yet, I feel that those photographers who have become successful in the relm of traditional photography shoud by no means feel the pressures of the digital world but retain the perfection and beauty of the Ansel Adams darkroom!
|
|
|
| I agree with Pedro, photography is still photography [message #297 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Fri, 15 April 2005 20:12 |
|
05:21pm Mar 30, 2001
I agree with Pedro, photography is still photography, film is an anlog medium and digital is digital. The positive thing about digital is that cropping and color correction are much easier. I find that I keep something out of almost every d05:21pm Mar 30, 2001 PST (21.1)
I agree with Pedro, photography is still photography, film is an anlog medium and digital is digital. The positive thing about digital is that cropping and color correction are much easier. I find that I keep something out of almost every digital photo I take and do not eraser after a quick review. I use my own software for photo editing available from www.AuntAbigail.com igital photo I take and do not eraser after a quick review. I use my own software for photo editing available from www.AuntAbigail.com
|
|
|
| Manipulation happens [message #315 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Mon, 18 April 2005 11:53 |
|
Tue Mar 27, 2001 10:10
I'm not sure who "they" are that are so threatened by
digital photography. Most photographers I know are at
least curious about all the hoopla surrounding digital
if not actually venturing into the digital waters. Many
times we fear that which we do not understand. If one
was properly introduced and could make an educated
choice about digital or traditional it would be
interesting to see how the attitudes would change. We
begin to manipulate an image by our first choice of what
film to use even in the traditional world. Color slide
or negative, black and white, infrared. 35 mm or medium
format. The choices in manipulating the way we want our
final image to look begin before we ever put film in our
cameras. Photographers have always manipulated their
images. Get real.
|
|
| |
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #319 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Mon, 18 April 2005 11:56 |
|
09:30am May 1, 2001
Respectfully, since the color gamut of digital is less than the 'original image', color correction isn't "easier". It still involves often difficult creative tradeoffs. Digital just makes the amount of control you have more precise - not more accurate.
Add to that, the fact that even with a 'corrected and calibrated' monitor/printer pair, you are dealing with a luminous screen and a reflective print, I'd suggest that it really isn't easier. Just different.
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #320 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Mon, 18 April 2005 11:57 |
|
12:54pm Oct 1, 2001
Since I am a graphic designer as well as a photographer, I am definitly in to manipulation and creating images that start out from a photo and idea, and develop into some bizarre idea that has no real end. Though I have spent limited hours in the darkroom, I think the possibilities of what I want to create from mind -to-output are much more attainable in the computer. I have a great respect for those traditional photographers who can capture breathless pictures from a camera, the universe and a darkroom. I live in awe of theose who can take an image and twist it into some bizarre and unreal design in the computer and have the ability to extend beyond what I think is great art. There are no limits, and as fast as technology changes evey day, there is no end in sight to what the future of photograpy will bring our way.
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #323 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Mon, 18 April 2005 12:02 |
|
11:01pm Dec 1, 2001
There are many sides to the digital/film divide
First of all, I think there was more than one photographer who died, at least two if not three. But on the issue of digital vs. film, you spoke of the only images left from Bill's digital camera and film being lost.
There was another photographer who was there that day from one of the New York dailies that shot all digitals too. Her car with her laptop was crushed when the building came down. SO she had to download all the images she had taken into the company computer back at the office. After assurances from her boss that the images were safe. Two weeks later she went back to look at the images and all that was left were 30 images. Everything else, hundreds of images were gone--someone had carelessly deleted them. If she had been shooting film this never would have happened.
FOod for thought.
|
|
|
| Bravo Pedro Meyer [message #324 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Mon, 18 April 2005 12:06 |
|
11:49pm Oct 6, 2002
Bravo Pedro Meyer
I must admit that even I (network administrator and website designer) who has always been technically minded and biased towards new technical methods replacing older, less practical and efficient methods, was sceptical about the creative license and freedom now being given to photographers with the introduction of digital photography. I had truly not even thought of many of the arguments you raised in your editorial and was convincingly swayed by many of them.
It is true, now that you mention it, that digital 'alteration' is nothing new when it is taken into account that images have, almost since the advent of the medium of photography, been able to alter images. The primary method of early image 'alteration' which comes to mind is the simple act of staging, or choreographing the content (people and environment) of the photograph before it is actually taken. The alteration of digital photography is, in theory, exactly the same activity as this in that it alters not only the content, but the meaning of the photograph and moulds it into what the photographer desires. Many may say this is an ethical dilemma in itself, and perhaps they are right, but the point is that it is nothing new over previous traditional methods of photography.
I would, however, like to raise one small aspect of this 'digital versus traditional' photography debate which I believe does tarnish Pedro Meyer's argument slightly, and that is the fact that whereas the power of 'alteration' used to be solely with the photographer, now people are able to manipulate and alter other photographers photographs. This poses a small problem in that now because of programs such as Adobe Photoshop, and Paint Shop Pro, amateur photographers, and even people who know nothing about photography whatsoever are able to manipulate and alter any photograph they get their hands on. This would then pose a problem because such people have no inhibitions as to the changes they make simply because they often did not take the photograph and are not bound by any sense of ethical restraint as (hopefully) most professional photographers would.
Anyway, besides my small speculative concerns with the argument made by Pedro Meyer I now have a new outlook on the alteration of images in this new digital age, and although it was not exactly keeping me up at nights, I can now proceed with a little more faith in the medium of (digital) photography.
|
|
|
| response to your editorial [message #327 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Mon, 18 April 2005 12:10 |
|
05:29am Oct 7, 2002
Your editorial on the person with a black eye is very informative. I had always thought of most digital images as being altered. I did'nt see the traditional analog and unaltered images in the same light as you have. My views towards images is now more rational than before. i also did'nt quite realise that you could move the pixels around to give an image such a dramatic effect . Reading your editorial has made me more enthusiatic about digitally altering image.
|
|
|
| digital altered images [message #329 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Mon, 18 April 2005 12:13 |
|
01:42am Oct 8, 2002
Meyer
This is to congratulate you for making it clear that digitally altered photographs are not something new, but this has been a process that has been applied in the chemically produced photograph a long time ago. For those who doubt the veracity of the digitised photograph, it is important to inform them that, the photograph that lies is from the photographer that is a liar.
The advent of the digital photograph should be looked at as having given the photographers the new opportunity to become more creative and to work at ease using the devises that saves them a lot of money. The photographer does not have to worry anymore about eliminating things that he would not like to be depicted in his photograph, for example. But he merely takes the picture anyhow, because he relies on computer software like adobe Photoshop.
This software allows him to eliminate and or insert anything that embellish or seems important in the picture. He simply edits the picture as if he is editing text.
Traditional photography and digital photography are parallel. In-fact the traditional photography has gave birth to the digital photography. The latter has inherited the features of the former. Furthermore, it has improved on it abilities of producing the exact wanted image(s). In other words the traditional photography made use of props, make ups, retouching, backdrops and lights to construct and convey a particular construction of image according to the photographer. The digital photograph has improved on these skills of traditional photograph, in that, you now can do all these within a single computer and there are much more other things you can do that you could not do before in chemical photography. For instance it is now possible to change the colour of a black and white photography to colour photography.
Digital image is not a deceiver but it is enhanced art.
|
|
|
| Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography [message #370 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Mon, 18 April 2005 14:24 |
|
01:50am Oct 8, 2002
Traditional Photography vs Digital Photography
The debate between traditional photography and digital photography stems from the argument that in traditional photography, the image produced is the most faithful and seductive of witnesses. In other words, the view of many people is that a traditional photograph does not lie, because it cannot be manipulated or as Meyer terms it "altered" in any way after the shutter clicks. What Meyer is telling us is that people do not trust digital photography and hence the debate begins. However as we all know, since photography came into this world, photographers have always altered images according to their context. The only difference today is that it is done in difference ways and at different stages within the process.
I agree with Meyer when he says that it is not a question about which technique a photographer uses but a particular style of photography, which could be done using either technique. Because, today photography is more of commercial product than before, the questions asked by most photographers are: "where and for what purpose is an image displayed or published, and how do we offer it to the target audience?" "How do we make these photographs marketable to the public and how do we sell these photographs to the world?
To answer these questions digital photography has been created. Digital photography offers more options for creativity. It depends on how creative the photographer is and what the context is as well. But whether digital photography is more efficient, faster and cheaper is another issue altogether. In my opinion, photography would certainly be more inventive and efficient as the end product is of a better quality. However, I disagree with Meyer, when he says digital photography is faster and cheaper, because having worked on Photoshop, I know that a lot of time and patience is required in been creative, and the software is extremely expensive.
|
|
|
| Deception through 'traditional' [message #372 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Mon, 18 April 2005 14:27 |
|
05:39am Oct 8, 2002
After reading this editorial I can say that I definitely agree with most of its content. I am a student who has just finished an essay on "the decisions and judgements a photographer has to make when taking a photograph in the 'chemical' age." ( http://www.is.und.ac.za/students2002/201502893/deception.htm)
With in my essay I explained different ways in which chemical photographs can be altered with out any aid of digital technology. This takes place right from the decisions a photographer makes about his subject matter and camera settings before taking the photograph up until the options a photographer has to 'enhance' an image in the dark room.
There are many chemical photographs that are 'manipulated' in such a way that they seem even fantastical (see attachment).This makes them no longer traditional but they are still chemical. I feel the confusion lies in that people who use the term 'traditional' photography are actually referring to traditional styles and genre of photography and not actually whether the photograph was taken with a digital or mechanical camera. As we can see with the two digital photographs in this editorial, one is traditional style photograph although it is digital while one is altered and therefore not traditional.
Being able to manipulate images is great and has an enormous impact on our lives. I feel the problem arises when people manipulate or alter images to deceive in a way harmful to other people or organizations. Little can be done to prevent this therefore every person has to make sure they have a critical eye and viewpoint.
|
|
|
| Electronic manipulation and the digital age [message #373 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Mon, 18 April 2005 14:29 |
|
06:59am Oct 8, 2002
Digital manipulation has taken over from the past method of chemical photography. Today it is easier to digitise an image and manipulate it than it ever was before. This art form has fast become a part of regular part of any industry that uses the visual medium.
Examples of these would be photojournalism, photography, advertising and so on. Even fashion and any magazine that uses pictures have jumped on the band wagon. Think of a photo shoot, any promotional gimmick, in the past, if the photo shoot was not perfect, the photographer would have to insist that as many retakes as necessary be done.
But today, no matter what goes wrong on a shoot, the digital technology available to almost anyone who wants it, will allow the photographer to make the needed changes on a computer. He would easily be able to fix any problem and substitute any change that is required, he would even be able to enhance the quality of the photo to a greater extent than chemical photography ever could. Photography itself, or rather, the art of producing images has been revolutionised by the advancement of the digital age.
|
|
|
| Digital versus Traditional Photography [message #374 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Mon, 18 April 2005 14:32 |
|
03:44am Oct 15, 2002
Photography has always been awarded a special status for truthfully recording the world. Digital imaging may pose a serious challenge to traditional photographic technology and it may eventually affect how people view the images they see in newspapers and magazines, or even in family albums. However the art of taking a photograph in black and white or colour will never change, good camera and lens skills combined with good lighting and subject composition. The next step to the photographer however has presented a new challenge. There are now two very different methods of producing images with similar results, both with pros and cons. The traditional method requires a darkroom with space, it is smelly and the chemicals are hazardous. It also needs a fair amount of skill to produce top quality negatives and prints. With good technique their quality will easily outstrip anything done digitally at home.With digital manipulation the techniques involved are different. Photographs taken using a digital camera are stored electronically in the camera's memory, you then download these images onto a PC. Modern computers are very user friendly therefore you can attempt very complex techniques and view results without printing. It's clean and dry, everything is faster and you don't need to hide in a darkroom.
These are just some of the numerous aspects revolving around the use of digital photography versus traditional photography. All in all i personally imagine digital photography as just another tool of modernization showing the advancement of photography in an ever changing world.
I suppose at the end of the day its up to the individuals patience and skill but digital photography knocks out traditional for me in this round!
|
|
|
| The Continuum That is Photography [message #375 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Mon, 18 April 2005 14:35 |
|
12:14am Jan 3, 2003
I have to say that I see no difference between digital photography and 'traditional', 'conventional' or 'analog' photography.
Photography, by its nature is a technological art form. Not only has the recording medium constantly evolved: wet plates to film to colour to CCD, but of course the lenses, cameras, degree of automation, etc has all changed. I am amused when I get invited to lecture at, and judge, at a camera club which separates digital images from analog ones. I sometimes ask why they don't have separate categories for auto exposed vs eye guestimated, or for auto focus vs. manual focus.
What is new, revolutionary or confrontational in photography moves over time. I'm sure in 20 years time the issue will be whether holographics 3D VR imagery is photography with 'old-timers' steadfastly sticking by their EOS-1Ds' or DiMAGE 7i's.
At the end of the day what matters is the person behind the camera or computer, what they saw in their head and how successful they were in representing that.
Cheers,
Wayne
|
|
|
| Traditional vs Digital [message #379 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Mon, 18 April 2005 14:41 |
|
03:34pm May 13, 2004
The biggest problem I feel about digital photography is in the recording of the image.A digital camera records a virtual memory
which doesn't have an existence of its own separate from a memory
card or a computer file.Where exactly is my masterpiece?Its in the
computer somewhere.Take for example that famous photo of the Hindenberg disaster from the 1930's I believe.The negative is a kind of souveneir of that event and you can still hold it in your hand today as a kind of proof .Would a digital news photo have the same authority?I think what I am really afraid of is moving into an experience of the world that is less real than something I can touch.
|
|
|
| less real? [message #381 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Mon, 18 April 2005 14:48 |
|
04:35am Dec 8, 2004
I understand that traditional enthusiasts prefer to process the film rather than just printing it off, feeling that this is what makes the difference between a good photo and an art. But Paul suggests that, as memory, it is less real. Doesn't the print itself count as proof that it exists?
|
|
|
| I agree with the editor [message #1361 is a reply to message #88 ] |
Wed, 19 October 2005 19:57 |
|
Linda Powell - 06:49pm Mar 12, 2001
I agree with the editor in that traditional and digital photography do not have to be on opposing sides of each other. In fact, I think they go together nicely. You can alter a photograph in either form, as well as keep it "unaltered" as much as possible. I am excited about learning both ways of making a photograph, because I think they both have advantages over the other--depending on what you want.
|
|
|
| Re: Traditional vs Digital [message #2011 is a reply to message #379 ] |
Tue, 30 December 2008 02:11 |
Best Blogger 101
Messages: 1
Registered: December 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC. |
Junior Member |
|
|
Well, change is the only constant in this world. Do not be afraid of it. You should rather take it as an advantage. When some new methods arrived and we were not aware of it, we also feared it but we took it as an opportunity for improvement. Just like photography, we should not be afraid of the digital world, we should rather use it for our own advantage and for self-improvement.
________________________
Think about the Environment: Vancouver BC, Computer Recycling
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Nov 21 22:24:51 EST 2009
|
Members
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Home
Traditional Photography vs. Digital Photography
