How has digital photography changed photography

What were the biggest changes?

 

A vast increase in the number of images being produced, and a decline in
the care taken over each one.

A lot more automation of the image-producing processes.

Previous ages have passed leaving few or no pictorial records; now, hardly
anything happens in urban areas without several people taking still and
moving pictures of it (not to mention the fully automated surveillance
cameras).

Those wishing to preserve the knowledge and skills of chemical photography
and printing are finding it harder to get the variety of materials and
chemicals they want.

 

On Sun, 5 May 2013 13:45:16 -0400 Pabro wrote:-

No value left in my fine Nikon film cameras! :-(

 

: > What were the biggest changes?
:
: A vast increase in the number of images being produced, and a decline in
: the care taken over each one.

I agree, though I'd phrase it a bit differently:
The fact that it costs no more to take 100 pictures than it does to take one.
IOW, the freedom of everyone to shoot like a professional.

: A lot more automation of the image-producing processes.
:
: Previous ages have passed leaving few or no pictorial records; now, hardly
: anything happens in urban areas without several people taking still and
: moving pictures of it (not to mention the fully automated surveillance
: cameras).

That too. Which is why Tamburlane is dead and Joker is in the clink.

: Those wishing to preserve the knowledge and skills of chemical photography
: and printing are finding it harder to get the variety of materials and
: chemicals they want.

And also that, alas. But that's mitigated somewhat by the fact that each year,
fewer and fewer people care.

Bob

 

Volume of photos shot.

Without a per image cost barrier (film+processing, prints, waiting time)
photographers, esp. amateurs, became free to experiment a lot more.

Most importantly they received instant feedback via that tiny viewer in
the digital camera. That alone was enough for folks to re-take a shot
that would have been badly exposed or out of focus on film - or simply
not well composed - but then, by the time the film was developed,
impossible to retake because the moment (or location) was long past.

And it was enough to allow a lot of experimentation that rapidly
improved the new photographer's skills, confidence and desire to
experiment more and more and take more and more photos.

As an aside it also reduced the extra step of scanning film or prints
(another step that resulted in loss of quality...).

While the percentage of lost images will probably be far higher than
ever in the film age, I believe the *quantity* of images from the
"digital" era that survive will be many fold higher than from the film age.

1. Many images are posted to web sites and photos sites and cloud sites.
They may never expire and will tend to pop up over time.

2. Photographers who care will see that their production is stored on
durable media. So called "gold" DVD's have storage lifetimes in excess
of 100 years. Under benign conditions (cool, dry, dark) these media are
predicted to last 200+ years. Other technology in development talks of
1000 to >> 1,000,000 years. A huge mass of digital photography will
survive (and yes, there will be the means to recover it even if it has
to be invented on the spot).

That said, most of the crap that people post online (Facebook, Twitter
and the like) is probably best left to digital entropy. Even so much of
that will survive as to make the 2513 May edition of National Geographic
a "fascinating look at society 500 years ago".

 

Instead of boring one's friends with bad quality food and pet shots, we
now bore a multitude of folks - friendly or not - with 10000 times more
bad quality shots of food and pets, online. Preferably in Facebook,
although that is flexible as long as it is online.
Smallest resolution possible and preferably with lots of shake.
Ah yes, and we now take lots of "selfies" - as if any1 could care...

And of course, if done with a "in" camera like a Canon or Nikon, we now
get lots of fawning and groupie comments. Which instantly turn anyone
into a famous photographer.

 

Easier to transmit the images (Farcebook, MMS, web galeries,
email, via airwaves/mobile phone technology -> weather
satellites, web cams).

Oh, and much more sensitive sensors than film at much higher
image quality.

.... under ideal circumstances.
M-Discs for example can sustain environmental strain with no
problems where "gold" DVDs (BTW, an apostrope doesn't mean
"Warning! Here comes an 's'!") become 100% unreadable.

That's about as likely as shooting from the hip giving you
a world class photo. At least use dvdisaster to create some
ECC data!

M-Disc talks about 1000 years (not due to the reflection layer
fading --- which is the problem with e.g. "gold" DVDs ---
but due to the plastic carrier failing with age).

To keep these alife some care is needed. There are few
carrier media that don't fade in 500 years, so copying will
be needed.


-Wolfgang

[1] not common in pictorial photography, obviously