Comments on: Against Digital Photography

By: retsoced

retsoced — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:54:15 +0000

People will have preferences to the equipment they choose, Hassleblad over Mamiya, Nikon over Canon. There are also those who will degrade and criticize excellent imagery based on the equipment used. What I am referring to here is the quality of the equipment and the quality of the output, not the aesthetic or artistic value within the image itself.

Take a Holga for example. Total garbage camera made of plastic with mediocre lenses that leak light. They have produced some of the most amazing images I have seen. This is equally as true for Linhof field cameras, which epitomize quality. Both cameras are equally capable of producing utter tripe as they are to produce stunning images. Digital cameras simply fall short in all aspects of quality, especially when you consider the price you pay for them.

By: Diane

Diane — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:49:05 +0000

I am a newbie who started dabbling in digital photography 2 years ago. It seems that no matter how good your pictures are, the more experienced photographers will snub their noses at you if you’re not using thier preferred gear (i.e. Nikon, Canon) In my opinion, the gear is just a tool that allows you to reach the ultimate goal, beautiful photographs.

By: retsoced

retsoced — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:11:06 +0000

Kel, while those things are true, and I would not really argue the validity of the tool in itself, the fact remains that the equipment in large is disposable, and the vast majority of images created with these tools are of snapshot quality. While this is great for folks looking to share web-quality images on Flickr, Zoomr, and even sites like Ravelry, it does not lend itself to serious photography without a serious investment in equipment that will not produce film-quality images and has a finite lifespan, ultimately ending up on a garbage heap.

I would argue the cheapness of the digital realm as well, once you start to figure in paper, ink, printers, computers, storage cards, card readers, and the camera itself, one could see how a 35mm camera could easily end up to be cheaper. But for a person who doesn’t print images, yes it would be cheaper and more convenient.

I would not disparage people who are hobbyists, muddlers, (dabblers or whatever moniker one wishes to wear) as everyone has different desires, talents, aspirations, and interests. I simply speak against the tools and the negative effects it can have upon photography in general.

By: Staci Vriese

Staci Vriese — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:05:23 +0000

You are totally right about the value depreciating so quickly and so drastically. I couldn’t sell my RebelXTi that I purchased not long ago. It use to be that you could actually sell older equipment, but now the technology changes so fast, a very expensive camera only 3 years old becomes obsolete. Also- there is something magical about the dark room and it is an art form in itself that most photographers will never experience again.

By: Kel

Kel — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:57:53 +0000

Being one of those digital image dabblers who is contributing to the “mire of mediocrity”, I have to bring up two points in support of digital cameras. One: that they are extremely useful as a learning tool for aspiring photographers, some of whom might someday produce something worthwhile. I personally can take 20 or 30 different images of the same thing with minor variations, and acquire an amazing amount of information without having to worry about film or printing costs. Two: that the digital camera has made it very easy for artistic people in general to share ideas and work online. Work in any medium can easily photographed and the resulting images shared within a couple of minutes, and this is what fuels creative communities like Ravelry. For those of us who are not artists but aspire to an aesthetic life, this is invaluable.