Why Do Anti Israeli Demonstrators Dress...
News0 min ago
Photography these days compared to the past
24 Answers
The ease of taking photographs today, with camera or phone; no need to send off films and having to wait for them to be developed and printed; the simplicity with which they can be edited.
Is there anyone here who was into photography before the digital age who would care to comment on whether the standard of photographs taken by the general public has improved noticeably, or is it that, even though more photos are taken than ever before, the standard of photos shot is about the same as it ever was, simply there are so many pictures being taken that, statistically, there are bound to be more pictures of a better quality than before?
Is there anyone here who was into photography before the digital age who would care to comment on whether the standard of photographs taken by the general public has improved noticeably, or is it that, even though more photos are taken than ever before, the standard of photos shot is about the same as it ever was, simply there are so many pictures being taken that, statistically, there are bound to be more pictures of a better quality than before?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bibblebub. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
who knows? There must be a million times more photos taken as everyone has a mobile at least. But vast numbers are deleted quickly because theyr'e rubbish.
What partly happens I think is that people take more photos of the same thing hoping one will come out right, knowing they can delete the rest. Whether the one survivor is better than the one they might have taken on film 20 years ago, who can say; but the answer is quite possibly yes. Film used to be a lot fuzzier than it later became, and digital is usually sharper still.
What partly happens I think is that people take more photos of the same thing hoping one will come out right, knowing they can delete the rest. Whether the one survivor is better than the one they might have taken on film 20 years ago, who can say; but the answer is quite possibly yes. Film used to be a lot fuzzier than it later became, and digital is usually sharper still.
In the past most people started out with a simple 'point and shoot' camera but then, if they'd got the money, upgraded to a 35mm SLR. That gave them the chance to experiment with different lenses, apertures and shutter settings. In practice, however, over 90% of SLR owners simply left their cameras on the 'Auto' setting and never bothered to learn how to use it properly. (i.e. it was simply used as if it was a 'point and shoot' camera anyway).
Nowadays some people start with very simply 'point and shoot' cameras (possibly built into their phones) but most people have cameras which offer loads of control over focal length, aperture and shutter settings (together with lots of different 'modes'). So what do most people actually do? Yes, they simply switch their highly-advanced camera to 'Auto' and use it as a 'point and shoot' camera!
So, unsurprisingly, the actual quality of the results hasn't really changed much!
Chris
Nowadays some people start with very simply 'point and shoot' cameras (possibly built into their phones) but most people have cameras which offer loads of control over focal length, aperture and shutter settings (together with lots of different 'modes'). So what do most people actually do? Yes, they simply switch their highly-advanced camera to 'Auto' and use it as a 'point and shoot' camera!
So, unsurprisingly, the actual quality of the results hasn't really changed much!
Chris
Well now ... a mish-mash of thoughts will follow as they come to me.
It's easier for people to show off their photographic 'skills' nowaday, resulting in a much larger audience.
The quality of some pictures you see online makes you ashamed to be part of the human race.
EVERYTHING has a camera built into it, some better than others.
In ye olde days, a camera did ONE thing, it took photos, and by definition it was perfect for the job. That said, the 'failure rate' % for a good picture probably wasn't too dissimilar to now, except you didn't automatically share your blurry, badly framed holiday snaps instantly with 30 gazillion people.
There were differing qualities of 'film' cameras, just as there are digital ones. I've seen better photos taken with a 3.2MP Fuji than I have with 12MP iThingy.
Ease of use and sharing has given people, who unfortunately have no interest in photography, the means to share their ''lol, look at my out-of-focus cat'' photos.
Argghhh, I'm on a rant ... need a beer. :-(
It's easier for people to show off their photographic 'skills' nowaday, resulting in a much larger audience.
The quality of some pictures you see online makes you ashamed to be part of the human race.
EVERYTHING has a camera built into it, some better than others.
In ye olde days, a camera did ONE thing, it took photos, and by definition it was perfect for the job. That said, the 'failure rate' % for a good picture probably wasn't too dissimilar to now, except you didn't automatically share your blurry, badly framed holiday snaps instantly with 30 gazillion people.
There were differing qualities of 'film' cameras, just as there are digital ones. I've seen better photos taken with a 3.2MP Fuji than I have with 12MP iThingy.
Ease of use and sharing has given people, who unfortunately have no interest in photography, the means to share their ''lol, look at my out-of-focus cat'' photos.
Argghhh, I'm on a rant ... need a beer. :-(
My lifetime involved the following evolution in pic taking:
When I was about 10 I had a Kodak Instamatic I think it took a 110 cassette and B&W was the way to go (because colour film/processing was too expensive).
My Dad gave me a book he was given as a kid and I read bits of it to get some compositional tips and learn how a camera actually works. When I was in my teens I remember having one of those huge Polaroid instant cameras that had its own built in 'darkroom'. In the 80's I had a Yashica 35mm compact which gave me my first forray into better quality colour photography, then I bought a Pentax SLR but found it a bit bulky and fiddly - still, I got quite a few decent pictures out of it. My first digital was an Olympus with 1.3 m/p - it had awful shutter delay and eventually the CCD died.
I moved onto a Nikon compact digital and this is where I discovered the ABSOLUTE delights of being able to compose/shoot/erase/do it again until perfect.
I now have a Panasonic Lumix FZ-7 - a bit out dated but brilliant nevertheless IMO.
I have no claims to be any sort of 'expert' but I believe the digital age has allowed people to experiment / trial and error more effectively. I'd hate to go back to the old film days.
When I was about 10 I had a Kodak Instamatic I think it took a 110 cassette and B&W was the way to go (because colour film/processing was too expensive).
My Dad gave me a book he was given as a kid and I read bits of it to get some compositional tips and learn how a camera actually works. When I was in my teens I remember having one of those huge Polaroid instant cameras that had its own built in 'darkroom'. In the 80's I had a Yashica 35mm compact which gave me my first forray into better quality colour photography, then I bought a Pentax SLR but found it a bit bulky and fiddly - still, I got quite a few decent pictures out of it. My first digital was an Olympus with 1.3 m/p - it had awful shutter delay and eventually the CCD died.
I moved onto a Nikon compact digital and this is where I discovered the ABSOLUTE delights of being able to compose/shoot/erase/do it again until perfect.
I now have a Panasonic Lumix FZ-7 - a bit out dated but brilliant nevertheless IMO.
I have no claims to be any sort of 'expert' but I believe the digital age has allowed people to experiment / trial and error more effectively. I'd hate to go back to the old film days.
I used to do "snapshots" (with a breath or two taken before) but through time and changes of cameras, I learnt about shutter speed / aperture /depth of field etc. and started composing my photoes more and more with those in mind.
Taking those into account with the 'trial and error' aspect of digital photography has been *the* key element to successful photography for me.
Taking those into account with the 'trial and error' aspect of digital photography has been *the* key element to successful photography for me.
Latest Posts
News5 mins ago
Current Affairs9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Spectator 2653 Last 2 Help Needed
Crosswords15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.