Is digital photography considered "real" photography?

[Deja Q]

Poll question: Is digital photography considered "real" photography?

Jus' curious.

[terrya]

1. You have a camera. You point it at something. You click. You get a picture

That sounds like photography to me. :-)

[exJW]

5. See above.

Also; why wouldn't it be?

Believe me, kodachrome is almost-as-different a recording device compared to ecktachrome or negative film as it is compared to a ccd or cmos chip.

[Don_G]

2. It Is

I still prefer a medium-format or a good 35mm SLR though.

[rumguy]

3. almost all journalist photographers use digital now

however, for those super serious artistic shots film is still superior if you plan on making large gallery sized prints...

however, on a small scale it is hard to tell the difference...

[4_Legs_Good]

4. Digital picture taking is picture taking, but not photography...

but I just like to be elitist!

In fact, unless you develop your film and prints yourself, it might not be photography.

:)

david

[pnorman]

14. In the early days of photography,

they use to say that photography wasn't art. That was plain snobbishness (unless they were talking about passport photos).

I have a few nice digital cameras, but for many occasions, I use my APT (film) camera. For that, I specify: "NO prints, put it on a CD". Mainly, the shutter lag is a problem, and the LCD screen is almost invisible in bright daylight. I haven't used my Minolta SLR conventional film camera in ages.

But my lifelong dream was to use a large view camera, with swings & tilts ... a la Ansel Adams ... spend more time in setting up and composing, than in the darkroom. Alas, never happen!

pnorman

[htuttle]

Even AP photographers use digital cameras nowdays

Sure, they are $12,000 Hasselblad digital cameras, but they are digital nonetheless.

[joeybee12]

6. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

I only use a digital camera now, BUT, if you want to talk about the ART of photography, digital does not cut it.

[Deja Q]

7. Why is digital not an art?

I've seen pics showing that digital can do what film can do.

What's the difference? :shrug:

[joeybee12]

8. It's not art because it can do MORE....

...the human element is involved in traditional photography--you can manipulate piuctures with digital photography and fix mistakes.

[democracyindanger]

9. Umm...

...ever hear of airbrushing?

[joeybee12]

10. Don't think Ansel Adams did airbrushing--your Sears portrait studio does..

...don't call that art.

[MercutioATC]

21. Ansel Adams did PLENTY of burn and dodge...

Granted, he didn't use a computer, but it's still image manipulation.

I'll agree that film photography is its own unique medium and won't be replaced by digital photagraphy as art, but digital is definitely a credible medium (and an artform of its own).

[exJW]

23. Digital will replace film

For the simple fact that in 5 years, you won't be able to find film to purchase. If I'm wrong, I'm only wrong about how long it will take.

As I pointed out in another post, film, digital, same thing.

And Ansel Adams in 2004? He wouldn't set foot in a dark room in my guestimation. We all may be in love with the percieved *romance* of the dark room, but I can guarantee Ansel Adams wasn't. He used the best tools available to him at the time. Better tools are available now, and I'd bet my afterlife that he'd use them ;-)

Few people realize how many of Ansel's great pictures were originated on Polaroid type 55 print/neg film (he actually was involved in the product development of this film). It's great film, but *polaroid* hardly conjures up the *darkroom voodoo zone system* image that most people imagine.

[MercutioATC]

24. I think film will be around forever...

I own a digital SLR and I love it. I think digital will replace film in many applications (such as photojournalism), but I do think film is an artform that'll be around forever.

People didn't stop painting when film came along...

[exJW]

29. Nope, but I'm not suggesting....

that anyone will stop taking/making pictures. I'm suggesting people won't use film to do so, even if they would like to, because there won't be any companies making it.

I just don't use film anymore (for the most part) because it is impractical and doesn't offer me anything artistically (for commercial photography).

Are there times when film is more appropriate? Could be, but it's a rare, specialty effect that you would be after.

I know professional photographers who have said for the last 5 years, "oh, digital just *isn't there* yet". They said this of course, because the couldn't imagine having to spend the 50K on a system that *was there*, and they also couldn't imagine learning something new.

Now, some of them STILL say "digital isn't *there yet*, because, lol, they don't even want to think that non-professionals can spend 1500.00 and have a camera that *is there*, and they are still paralyzed at the idea of learning something new. Who knew we would ever get another chance to photograph dinosours?

[MercutioATC]

31. I agree that digital will replace film in most applications,

but I still think they'll be companies making film and photographers using it for a loooooooong time.

If there's a market, the film will be made and I'm convinced here will be a market.

[exJW]

39. Well, I only disagree because...

I can't see who will be the market.

The public will of course all go digital. The commercial world will all go digital (pretty much has).

I suppose film is cheap to make, the processes are in place, and for now the motion picture film lines will continue in place.. but eventually... why?

Part of the problem is who will process it? Labs actually need a certain volume to keep their processes in balance.

Perhaps it will all level off to about the point the do-it-yourself B/W film user market is at now.

I think one lab in the country still processes Kodachrome; and Kodachrome is to this day the best film made... but it's just too impractical to shoot, and the benifits are small and somewhat subjective.

[Deja Q]

27. Do you know what dark rooms are best for?

O8)

Polaroid... hmmm, the instant picture people. :-) Ansel would have loved digital... and infrared! :9

[jpgray]

40. Yes that's why vinyl has totally disappeared

Wait a minute. :)

[theoceansnerves]

47. you can still buy kodachrome

and you'll still be able to buy film in 30 years.

[DS1]

43. umm, the first picture of the Holy Cross mountain was faked

back in the late 1800s

[Redleg]

46. Just because you can artificially manipulate pics doesn't mean you will.

Sheesh!

[tridim]

11. Only music on Vinyl is "real" music

and music recorded on CDs is fake music. Sounds silly huh? Obviously you can take a "real photographs" with a digital camera.

[m-jean03]

12. Is digital pornography considered "real" pornography?

Jus' curious! :D

[rumguy]

13. yes

[m-jean03]

20. oh yeah?

What're your credentials pal? :P

[NashVegas]

15. Yes - IF - You Are Willing to Spend $$$$

To get a pro digital camera that takes real lenses.

Me, I can only afford a point and shoot. Bought one 3 years ago, when prices were still high. Spent $400 on a 2 megapixel, and about the best it can do is this:



notice how choppy the background (dof) looks.


You CAN get arty with a point and shoot digital, but it's usually by accident as there's almost no real control with the flash, and the manual controls are currently a pain in the ass.

OTOH, here's what I've done with a $150 used Fujica slr and lens (yes, I know it's blurry, I like it that way):

[exJW]

16. It's the same thing

There is no difference.

Light is focused, an image is formed, and said image is "captured" one way or another. It just so happens that now, no one can tell whether you used a high quality ccd/cmos chip or light sensitive film to "capture" that image.

Sure, a few years ago, the chip was only comparable to bad quality film (or not even). That simply isn't the case anymore, and it has nothing to do with art, or even craftsmanship, for that that matter.

The only caveat to the above is, that in photography as in underpants, size matters. But not the way most people imagine. It's doubtful anyone could tell a difference in *grain* or *pixels* between an image captured on a .35mm sized ccd chip vs an image captured on a 4 X 5 inch piece of film, but if you knew what to look for, you could spot some differences in terms of crispness of lines (ability to resolve fine lines) and also in the likely shallower depth of field of the larger recording device.

IOW, it's not the film that makes the difference (a 4 X 5 inch ccd could make an image that would look beautiful blown up to the size of a 10 story building), it's the size the image is originally recorded at that makes large format cameras not *totally* moot.

Anyone want to buy the coolest folding field 4 X 5?

[Xithras]

17. Of course it is

I assume that this was spawned by my other thread? ;)

Any camera capable of capturing an image without loss, in minute detail, is useable for "real" photography. There are a lot of expensive digitals today that fit this description, though point & shoots usually don't (the inexpensive fixed lenses invariably lead to some quality loss).

My reference to real photography was referring to something completely different. There's a big difference between taking a picture, and doing photography. When I grab my Elph and snap a picture of my daughter doing something cute, I'm taking a picture but I'm not really doing photography work. As long as the photo quality is passable, I'm happy with the result.

When I'm in the Yosemite backcountry setting up a shot of a sunset over the Sawtooths with my EOS, or when I'm loading my hypered film for an extended astrophotography session, then I'm doing real photography work. Every detail and color nuance matters, and even the slightest focusing problem or motor whirr induced vibration can ruin the shot. There are plenty of digitals that can do this.

Hence, the difference. I have an Elph for taking pictures, and an EOS for taking real photographs.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

18. Digital is okay for taking snaps...

but I'll take an SLR Nikon and the ability to manipulate the negative/print thousands of ways when I'm doing serious shooting.

Even the best digital camera simply does have the flexibility in depth of field/speed that a photographer wants.

And when it comes time to print the image, the best digital image editor can't hold a candle to the work you can do in the darkroom. Ansel's true genius came not in how he shot an image but what he did with a negative in the darkroom.

[jakefrep]

19. Agreed...

I like to do sports/action photography, and most of the affordable digital point-and-shoots don't cut it, simply because of shutter lag. Hence why I bought a Minolta Maxxum 5 SLR. I will probably take a hard look at Minolta DSLR when it comes out in the fall though.

[Lautremont]

22. They're "photos," sure,

they're just not "ography," if you take my meaning. Just like using a calculator may be "math," but it sure ain't "thematics."

Make sense? No? Hmm.

[Deja Q]

25. I hear you.

But it's a bit glib and generalized.

I want specifics.

It's rather the difference between an electronic synth keyboard and a 32 piece orchestra... One's better but it doesn't say why.

Besides, am the only DU'er allowed to speak in riddles! :P

[Lautremont]

30. All right: specifics!

Actually, if you're looking for scientific facts, I'm not the guy. But I'm a filmmaker, so this is an issue I think about often. I've yet to see an image that matches the quality of simple 35mm film. It doesn't help that most digital cameras come with the shittiest possible lenses, either.

And here's what I'll miss as much as anything in this digital age of ours: bad photos. Don't like it? Delete it. But those lousy snaps are more truthful history than almost anything, much as we hate them.

[exJW]

33. You can't tell the difference

If I showed you examples of my work, you would have no idea (and no way to get an idea) whether I'd shot it with film or digital.

[Lautremont]

35. Yes, but a proper appreciation of art

(I think, anyway), requires a bit of knowledge about how it was created. It's beside the point whether I could tell if it was digital or not, since presumably your goal in making it wasn't to fool people about the format.

In filmmaking (the only area in which I claim any real knowledge), the format plays a huge part. Film costs at least a fancy dinner and a bottle of wine per foot, so when you set up and take a shot, you consider very carefully what it is you're shooting and whether it's really necessary to tell the story. With video it's cheap like borscht: you shoot whatever you want. Both have their advantages, but there is very definitely a difference in the result.

[exJW]

36. I've shot with a Panavision

nya nya! :P ~

(I was a camera assistant and operator for a while)

Hey, won't it be nice when the guy next door can shoot really badly lit, badly concieved scenes that LOOK as good as badly lit, badly concieved film?

[Lautremont]

38. Me too...

I worked as a camera assistant also. What a horrible job! (I thought so anyway, but I was working with an asshole focus puller.) I've also directed stuff on 35. It looks pretty sweet to me.

[exJW]

42. Aye!

It wasn't for me (single dad, creatively motivated). The longest, hardest hours out of a crew that works long, hard hours, travel all the time, and no creative input.

[Lautremont]

45. Oh yeah.

It took me hours to write out the damn reports sometimes. I wasn't all that good at it. People think it's all glamour when you've got the slate, but they never consider the reports! It's like being a cop, people. After you shoot you fill out paperwork.

[exJW]

48. LOL

I never actually worked a "show", so I only lived in fear of doing reports (the full end of day report, can't think of the name), I think I only had to do them once. Far more stressful than being responsible for the entire shoot!

I sucked at the mag reports too though. Camera Assist is no career for people with ADD.

[Liberal Classic]

26. Until digital resolution can equal

However many angstoms across a silver oxide molecule is, I don't believe professional photographers will abandon film.

However, for everyday use for mere mortals such as you and I digital cameras are useful.

The middle ground here is in the realm of video, where (relatively) inexpensive digital camcorders can record footage for a fraction of the cost of film with almost the same quality.

[Deja Q]

28. Higher grade film is still better...

But even the Nikon D70 DSLR's CCD sensor is about the size of 35mm and creates great images.

But higher film formats can't be touched by digital.

Yet.

[Liberal Classic]

32. I imagine it is just a matter of time

As you say.

Film will probably never go totally away in the consumer market, those little disposable cameras are handy and they don't crunch when you drop them. I guess that you'll always be able to get film at the drug store (chemist to my mates across the pond) but digital certianly seems to be replacing film for tasks that 'instant' film used to do. Insurance claims, real eastate brokers, people who need to take lots of photographs love digital camers and photo album programs.

On Edit:

Now, the question of art is a totally different matter.

I have no problem calling digital painting an artform. I don't think it's quite the same as old-fashioned photography, but it's still art.


http://www.blender3d.com/cms/Images.151.0.html

[MercutioATC]

34. Kodak makes a 14mp digital that's damn close, though...

Give it 5 years...digital resolution will equal or exceed film.

[exJW]

37. It already does.

Just try to find film that could compete in any practical sense with that kodak. You'd have to be up in the 4 X 5 range before you'd see ANY competative benifit with film.

[DS1]

41. arguing over resolution is missing the point completely

Composition, tonal balance, implied motion, depth of field, exposure time etc is what makes photography.

All of these things act the same way with decent SLRs, only you get to see the results immediately, instead of waiting to get film developed. Sure, Digital doesn't have as many "film" options like getting some nice Scala BW, but it'll get there.

[exJW]

44. Yeah, but with the right filter

you can get scaley B/W.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

49. While I enjoy digital photography

and find it convienent, you can't create photography using alternative processes with it, there is no digital Holga (yes, I like shooting with plastic cameras), and sometimes digital is just to damn perfect. Our mind's eye doesn't see images perfect like a camera, especially digital. There is an entire world of photography/art out there that rejects the notion of good photography=perfection. Try taking a pinhole image with a digital camera.