With the influx of available technology, it's easier to make photographs then ever before. However, because of this ease of access, some novice photographers are not as careful as they should be when beginning to learn photography.
What are your thoughts to this question? What are the pros and cons of going digital? Should we hang on to darkroom photography?
Respond to this question as well as the posts made by your classmates. Include at least 2 references from other sources in your response. Your post should be school appropriate, thoughtful, and at least 2 full paragraphs in length. Feel free to include photos, links, etc.
I believe that the old darkroom method should be left in the past, and everyone should just move onto the modern styles of digital photography. Digital photography is easy to use, and very convenient. After each photo taken you are able to view the photo which sets it apart drastically from darkroom photography. Because of its easy to use features, it allows the everyday user to make art. This method, however, replaces the true artistic skill that is needed in darkroom photography which is one of its few cons. Digital photography's pros greatly outweigh its cons so there is not much need to hang onto darkroom photography.
ReplyDeleteEven with the new advancements in photography, the original classic way of taking photography and developing it in a darkroom, seems a beneficial way to learn the workings of the camera. The classic camera creates an easier way to get a better understanding for how a camera functions and the settings to which adjust to get the right combination to have the photos turn out. Although digital photgraphy is easier to fix the mistakes and you can view the photograph after its taken, learning the development process for how the history of pictures began is also interesting.
ReplyDeleteThe standards and settings for digital photography are more complex then they were with the original cameras, yet to get a good, complex picture with the classic camera more work and understanding of how the camera works comes into play. Pros of digital photography are faster pictures, change of settings and the chance to view the pictures after they are taken. And as for sports shots, digital cameras prove to produce better quality shots because the complexity of the digital camera. However, the cons of digital photography come down to the expenses involved with the parts and pieces to get better shots from the camera. Overall, when it comes down to it, digital photography proves to be a better option for successful pictures because of price, flexibility, printing and storage. (http://macmaineiac.com/articles/03a/050903a.html)
Michelle Tarlton per 4
Digital photography has made picture taking fast and easy. New and upcoming cameras have auto-features making taking pictures a breeze, even if you are a novice. This helps people have high quality photos, without needing the necessary skills. I think we should take advantage of the tools we have and use digital cameras.
ReplyDeleteAlthough their are different uses for both film and digital (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm) digital film is the better to use. You can use digital cameras for quick, easy fun activities and can be uploaded to a computer in minutes. Film cameras are helpful when taking serious, professional quality shots. Many times film camera shots turn out better for professionals because they can customize settings, not having to deal with all the auto correcting modes on digital cameras, (http://photography.about.com/od/takingpictures/u/BasicsPath.htm).Darkroom photography will eventually die out as the digital cameras become better quality and cheaper to the general public. In the near future, I think we'll find ourselves using digital photos, as professional quality digital cameras become cheaper to use.
Both digital and film photography should be made kept. Film photography is more complex as it requires the use of film and chemicals to produce photos. Additionally, the consequences when making a mistake are definitely much greater compared to consequences due to mistakes when taking digital photos. Despite all of these complexities, film photography allows photographers to better control the settings on their cameras. As such, film photography would be the choice for those who wish to pursue a profession in photography.
ReplyDeleteDigital photography is not as complex and film photography. Digital cameras provide instant feedback allowing the photographer to determine whether or not to retake a photo. Film photography does not provide this feature, as when the decision about whether or not to retake a photo arises, it would have been already too late to retake photos. Digital photos can also be massively reproduced. Instead of creating single individual prints in film photography, digital photographers will be able to upload their photos on their computers and on the Internet. Finally, digital photography does not require the use of film. Users would need to only purchase a medium to preserve their photo data. Digital photography would be the ideal choice for those who would want to take pictures but do not wish to pursue a profession in photography.
http://www.digicamguides.com/introduction/pros-and-cons.html
An advantage of digital photo is that it is easy to share with other people using computers like email or blogs. It is easier for most people to use rather than darkroom photography . It is also probably less expensive and time consuming as well. Digital is becoming our future, and places to develop film photography are less common. I think we should hang onto darkroom photography because it is an art and should not be completely replaced by digital. Through darkroom photography you really learn to understand the aspects of photography.
ReplyDeleteHere is a link i used- http://www.digital-photography-school.com/do-you-shoot-with-film
and http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t258270-darkroom-vs-digital.html
The digital camera era is an advancement of photography that changed the world. Now with the digital camera, photographers can now shoot worry free without having to lug around a camera, film, and go through the long dark room process of developing it.Some pros of digital include being able to snap photos at any time and store them to a memory stick instead of being bound by the 24 shot rolls of out dated film. But, with all goods, there are bads. The digital camera opens photography to anyone, so anyone can shoot a picture with little knowledge of how to set it up or even how to focus the original shot.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the digital camera is a modern marvel of photography, it still has its many weaknesses. The original film camera allows the photographer to shoot photos which express their feelings and thoughts, putting great thought into what they are doing instead of quickly snapping a crappy photo. Even though the final developing process of getting a print from a film camera is long but provides amazing results, the digital camera dominates for three main reasons. 1. No more film, pictures stored on a memory stick. 2. Easier to develop, machines that develop photos in less than 2 hours and take no work at all. 3. You aren't bound by film, so you can take as many shots as you desire.
Digital photography has numerous advantages to film/darkroom photography. For one thing, John and Barbara Gerlach pointed out in their Digital Nature Photography guide that digital cameras allowed photographers in the process of learning to review their photos instantly after shooting (there are also some D-SLR cameras like the Canon EOS 5D Mark II that actually allow you to view the histogram WHILE taking the photo), and as the wise man once said, "the time you stop learning is the time to stop playing" (although this quote was aimed at a particular strategy game, it is equally applicable to the field of photography). Furthermore, applications on the computer, such as Photoshop, give the user extreme control over their images and allow them to edit them with flexibility, whereas darkroom procedures only provide a very narrow spectrum of possibilities, such as color burning/dodging, filters, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe one disadvantage, as pointed out, is the possibility that novices might not be as careful as they should be. But with digital photography, "carefulness" is not entirely as big a deal as it is in film photography (darkroom nervous breakdowns, anyone?). The worst that could possibly happen is that the digital photographer novices lack the "moral principle" of going back and carefully analyzing their work (in which case, they are unlikely to be interested in progression anyway). Assuming the same level of wanting to learn between the two photographers, one a digital photographer and another a film photographer, the learning curve for the digital photographer shows a much more progressive and consistent trend.
LET'S TALK ABOUT PHOTOSHOP. AND HDR. AND RESOLUTIONS.
When working with film photography, the product can only be of a specific number of choices, e.g. 3x5, 5x7, 8x10, etc. However, working with digital allows users a much more flexible range. Digital cameras allow users to choose their resolution of liking, which may range from VGA to JPEG all the way to the monster-sized RAW images. You can put many high resolution images together to create majestic panoramas, which would be nearly impossible with film photography - unless someone out there wants to put together a few hundred thousand sheets of photo paper to make an unreproducible panorama. Seriously, try doing this with film photography: http://70gigapixel.cloudapp.net/
Actually, don't.
There is also a spectacular thing that you can do in digital photography that I have become absolutely addicted to: HDR, or High Dynamic Range. Essentially how it works is like this: you take three shots, one underexposed, one normally exposed, and one overexposed. (Again, here, the histogram available on digital cameras can be greatly useful.) The three photos (sometimes 2, sometimes 5; just more than one is the concept) are fused together, creating images that have optimal information (severely overexposed and severely underexposed areas in a single photo have lack of information) and as one of my friends says, "they look like they're straight out of a video game."
And of course, Photoshop. The king of kings of photo editing. The equivalence of this in film photography would be those correction pens/markers with which Mrs. Araneda was demonstrating the other day. Which is better to use... I'll leave that for you to decide.
Digital photography: to be. (Quad Erat Demonstrandum.)
I think that we should still hang on to film photography as much as we can. Students need to be able to learn about that before digital, to get the basic understanding of how a camera works. It's like driving a car. You can drive an automatic your whole life and be fine, but knowing how to drive a manual is important. When you drive a manual, you learn about how the car really works,and you can protect against problems it might have.
ReplyDeleteOne photographer on http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm makes a good point that I agree with. He says that, "If any broad area like a forehead is overexposed your image looks like **** on digital." I'm sure we've all experienced what he means, when some part of our digital photo is washed out. That is a pro with film, since film doesn't do that. It more accurately represents what our eyes see than digital.
On the flip side, as I found on http://photography.about.com/od/filmvsdigital/a/FilmVsDigital.htm, digital cameras allow much easier editing and printing, so that you don't have to rely on anyone else to take and print pictures. It is also more cost efficient in the long run, as after you buy the camera you can take as many pictures as you want for free.
Niki: it seems like you're neglecting the fact that like film cameras, digital cameras also allow the photographer to express their thoughts. Some digital cameras allow users to manually adjust shutter speed and aperture. This means that digital photographers are not bounded to regular ordinary photos as many seem to think. By being able to adjust these settings, people are able to take many styles of photos, such as blurred motion and light painting. All in all, digital cameras, like film cameras, DO allow people to express themselves and that is another reason why digital cameras are a favorable choice.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the digital camaras are better. The allow you to to do things faster. In the way that you can just tale a photo and there you can see it, you can also send them to friends ans family members that are far away from you via email. You can delete them if you don't like the way they came.
ReplyDeleteWhile for the film camaras require you to but rool ,the prints and to have a dark room which can cost you a lot of money. Even so the digital camera s can cost you a lot of money, but the can save yiou a lot of time.
My mom prefers digital camaras because the are so easy to use, you can just take the picture and there it is, easy to see and eassy to print.
I agree with CArson, they should be left in the past ,the new thing is digital. Like M too, we can learn the way that the camara has been evolving thought time. Michael and Dennis have something interesting . Be cause of the way that they are part of our past, people have the oppotunity to choose, they can use which everone they want.
http://www.digicamguides.com/introduction/pros-and-cons.html
"It is also probably less expensive..." -Audrey
ReplyDeleteI will admit a drawback of digital photography. If it is anything......... it is NOT less expensive.
Photoshop: $600
Camera: $6,000 http://www.amazon.com/Canon-1Ds-Mark-III-Digital/dp/B000V5LX00/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1287681642&sr=8-1
(Yes, that is consumer-available.)
Computer to do editing on: $1,000 (approx)
I agree with Dennis. Although in my opinion, beginner photographers should not be taught film photography first. The complex process of darkroom photography is much more confusing compared to that of the easy and straightforward ways of digital photography.
ReplyDeleteThe pros of digital photography greatly outweigh those of film photography. With these new cameras out on the market, taking pictures have never been easier. It is more than possible to do an instant redo of a picture and even more immediate review of that photo. Not only this but the digital photography process is much faster. And like Michael said, with a digital camera, anyone could take pictures without the necessary skills and/or knowledge needed for film cameras. Both digital photography and film photography should definitely be used and remembered.
-Wendy Wu. Period 4.
Sources:
http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0105/dw0105-1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_photography
Dennis is absolutely right. Both digital and film photography are great. However, I do not feel that beginners should be introduced to film until they have learned the basics. If you make a mistake with a digital camera, you aren't wasting 25 cents on a shot. All you have to do is delete the file and try again. And Michael makes a good point about the quality of film being better than digital. With film, you are physically capturing the image, not sending it through a bunch of electronic equipment. Even if you have a super high megapixel camera (like the *cough* Nikon D3x - 24.5 MP[http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D3x-24-5MP-Digital-Body/dp/B001MJ03U0/ref=sr_1_8?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1287681386&sr=1-8]), you still will have a pixelated image if you zoom into it far enough. When using an enlarger, you just take the same exact thing you saw through the viewfinder and blow it up. And seriously, Carson. There's something much more special about printing a photo in the darkroom. The quality, as I just explained, is better. And just like anything else, making the print by hand makes it more personal. It's the little imperfections you get from the process that makes each picture unique, and (I hate to sound repetitive) special.
ReplyDeleteAnd as Audrey said, digital is more affordable. You don't need to buy a 7500 dollar camera to take great digital photos. With film, you have to buy the camera, which can be anywhere from 50 dollars to 5000 dollars. And after that, you have to buy the film, which is typically 25 cents or so per shot (about 6 dollars a roll), and then the processing, which is five dollars per roll IF you don't order prints or put the photos on a CD (these can add another five dollars). So you pay anywhere from 15 to 20 dollars for every 24 pictures you take. And you don't even know how they will turn out.
(Source for this paragraph: my own experience. WOOT.)
I asked a college student from England who is studying photography what SHE thinks about digital vs. film photography. (you can find her photos at http://www.katielionheart.com ) It's kind of long, so brace yourselves.
"Alright well, I think that using film is much more interesting, there's something about not knowing how it came out, forgetting about which pictures you took and then getting them back ages afterwards and seeing how they turned out for the first time since you looked through the lens. I like how you get one chance, you can never recreate that exact picture again so if it doesn't work, you have no idea and that's that, the chance has gone. With digital you can shoot practically endlessly until you have the picture you want, you can mess with every setting there is. Which makes film feel a lot more honest and spontaneous. I like using film as a sort of diary, and digital as a failsafe option. Digital photos are so often photoshopped and you never know what's real and what isn’t, which is another reason I think film’s a lot more honest. I use digital when I’ve planned to go out and take photos, I use it for self portraits that are both the most fake and the most honest photos that I take. I use film when I’m with friends or just out and about. So I prefer film, it's less hassle, its more fun, and when I like how a film picture turns out it stops there, it doesn’t carry on into photoshop."
(http://katieoak-.tumblr.com/post/1367705157/heeeyyyy-katie-want-to-help-me-with-my-photography)
So they both have their advantages. It really depends on what kind of photo you are trying to take. The whole process of going into the darkroom and developing prints is quite fun, and I think that some of us would miss it. It almost brings you back in time and sort of helps clear your mind. I don't know. That was cheesy. Just... forget that last sentence.
I disagree with some of the comments here, yet i agree Carson. I believe that we should let darkroom photography stay in the past, and let digital take over today. Digital is the new way to take pictures without using the darkroom. It is faster and easier. Digital has many advantages that the darkroom cant stand up to. We can take as many photos as we want with digital photos, while you can only take a certain amount with the old cameras. It costs a lot of money to buy the film, camera, and chemicals for the type of photography that we are doing in class, while we only have to pay for one camera, and maybe, if you want to , to develop the photos.
ReplyDeletehttp://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-91891/Darkroom-vs-digital-Can-film.html
Not only is the cost cheaper with digital photos, you can also edit the photos that you take too. With digital photography, you can do many tricks with the final print. You can develop it on the computer, so you can edit it with Photoshop and a whole bunch of other tools. The amount of film on the old cameras only allow you to take the photo a few times to get it right. But with the digital camera you can take as many pictures as you want to perfect the picture or the technic.
I really think that Digital should be the only type of camera that we use today because of how many good things that you can do with it, then with the darkroom cameras.
Darkroom photography is a history that cannot be thrown away. Athough I love digital because I am interested in photo editing, I believe that darkroom photography should not die out, contrary to Carson, Cori and Niki. One is a convenience to the general public and somewhat of an art form in its own way, but the latter is more limitedly accessible and that's the beauty of it. Although film has a steep and unforgiving learning curve, the results can overcome that. The feel of a darkroom is just not the same as Adobe Photoshop CS5; film may more expensive but it cannot be replicated with pixels.
ReplyDeleteBut digital has its benefits as near-professional level cameras get cheaper, as Audrey and Amy pointed out. For sports photography digital is preferable to get the best shot and know when you get it. But for a beginner it can be preferable, but they’ll never know what is going on inside the camera or why the mistakes they make are happening. To disagree with Wendy and agree with Kaitlyn, I believe darkroom photography is necessary to teach a beginner photographer the workings behind their art and how to correct their errors more efficiently. It’s also much more available to the modern general public as we start wanting our pictures fast, and cheap, like a point-and-shoot, and become willing to give up the metaphorical second dimension that film gives you with its artistic qualities.
http://www.articleonlinedirectory.com/Art/255758/1/film-vs-digital-the-great-camera-debate.html
Although digital photography may be easier to learn, I feel as if learning the darkroom process is important for any photographer. I respect the opinions of my classmates who feel that darkroom photography is ancient history, but I have to disagree. For me, learning how to develop pictures in the darkroom and not knowing whether or not my picture came out the way I wanted it to is really exciting. I have nothing against digital photography. On the contrary, I love it and I go a shoot jobs with my dad and make photo collages with him. Yet, after seeing the darkroom side of photography, it makes me wonder if society has changed so that what we want is easy to get involving less work. With digital photography, it may take the same amount of patience to take the picture, but to print it they are extremely different. For digital, all one has to do is put the memory stick in a computer and print it. Yet, in the darkroom one must have patience and be ok with making mistakes. I personally feel that darkroom photography teaches you more than just developing a picture. It teaches you patience.
ReplyDeleteIt’s a bit upsetting that there are schools that are switching to strictly teach digital photography. Schools are finding it financially better to provide the digital lab because it is cheaper and all the equipment can be stored in a single room. They wouldn’t have to build the darkroom and separate lecture rooms or pay for the supplies necessary. (http://shutterbug.com/pointofview/1105point/) I feel that although it may be cheaper, or not depending on what equipment you buy which Xiang pointed out, darkroom should be taught. Its an experience no one will forget. The nervousness that fills your body as you expose your paper. Then, when you see the picture coming out as you move it along the wet lab. In New York, they used darkroom photography to start an outreach program and they experienced those sensations we all did our first time. (http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2007-11-27/jhee-teenphotography.html) People should be able to experience and realize how great it actually is.
I believe that both methods of photography should continue to be practiced. Both have their pros and cons, and while many may feel that the pros of one outweigh those of the other, I feel that there are enough in each side that neither should be discontinued. The pros of digital photography are clear. Programs such as Photoshop allow capabilities that simply could not be reached with film photography, such as the well-known option of swapping out faces of people for those of others, as well as more complicated features such as converting 2D objects to 3D shapes (see Source #1 at bottom of page). Digital photography also offers a much more convenient developing process. Images can even be stored easily on a computer or other storage devices (see Source #2 at bottom of page). Film photography is not without its pros, however, even though they may be less apparent. This traditional process can produce a photo that often has a look that digital photography cannot achieve, a look that some people prefer. Also, discontinuing film photography would result in generally decreased understanding of how photography works.
ReplyDeleteIn correspondence with what Dennis said, I feel that it is necessary to teach both forms of photography. There are certain key differences between the two that keep them separate enough to teach both. As Wendy and Amy said, however, I do feel that it could be beneficial to not teach film photography first. While it is necessary to learn in order to understand photography, it is often such a new concept to people that it is difficult to take in, and it may be better to introduce a more familiar type of photography first (digital) and then go back to the roots by teaching film photography. Overall, it is my opinion that digital photography is more versatile and thus more useful, but I do not feel this is grounds for getting rid of film photography all together.
Source #1: http://computerszine.com/adobe-photoshop-cs4-3d-capabilities
Source #2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography
In all honesty, it seems as if both digital and traditional types of photography produce entirely different forms of photography. If you look at it this way, you can see that digital photography produces photos where they can be altered simply by using photo shop,in other words, they are edited photos. Where as, dark room photography produces photos that seem more realistic and natural. So in all fairness, it's not really necessary to let go of a practice in photo which is still applicable.To the question related to how some novice photographers are not as careful as they should be when beginning to learn photography.I don't really find this to be true, because digital cameras make it easier to produce solid,well composed pictures,so even if a novice does digital photography, he can still make great photos, just not as good as digital photographers.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of digital photography's pros and cons, it is definitely a pro that you can edit your photos such that you can alter a picture into something you desire, where it is not just limited. To better explain this, you can see that by having digital photography you can set the conditions to what your photo can look like with more variety than that of dark room photography. However a con to digital photography is the price of digital cameras, they are more expensive than that in dark room photography, thus making it harder to gain access to good digital photo making.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_photography
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-5D-Digital-Camera-Body/dp/B0007Y791C