I don’t understand this New York Times article, “Stop Them Before They Shoot Again,” at all. Apparently some people think that digital cameras have resulted in too many photos and they’re suffering from image overload. Is too many photos even possible??
“Some critics warn that a great photograph’s singular power to trigger memory may be at risk. For many people a photograph they have seen a thousand times itself becomes the memory. With digital pictures it is rare for a single photograph to achieve that kind of status.”
I don’t agree. A great photo is still a great photo, digital or not.
“AMERICA’S amateur photographers produced 28 billion digital pictures last year, 6 billion more than they shot on film, even though only half as many own a digital camera, according to the market research firm InfoTrends. That does not count pictures deleted before being printed or transferred for storage.”
And I would argue that more photos are being taken because more people have cameras. Digital cameras have made photography more accessible, because all you have to buy is the camera itself. There’s no constant additional expense of buying film, developing film, and making prints. If I couldn’t shoot digital, I could afford to do photography as a hobby, and I probably would never have gotten close to taking race photos and earning a little side cash, as I’m doing now.
It sounds to me that the real complaint these people have is their non-computer-saavy and non-discerning-photographic-eye friends who send them tons of photos via email instead of 1) weeding out the bad ones or 2) sending a nice link to a gallery. I do both. (Even if “weeding out” only reduces the number from 500 to 250!) And hey, I know I take tons of photos, and I know that I might not look at a bunch of them ever again. But I like having them.
(There may be more discussion going on over at the Photoblogs.org blog.)
You think these people are being tied down and forced to look at Uncle Bob’s vacation photos? The digital revolution is the only thing that cured me from walking around with disposable cameras with no features all the time.
…Is that an agreement or disagreement with the article?
(Seriously, I can’t quite tell. I think you’re agreeing with me though.)
“Tinamarie Fronsdale, who is the keeper of her extended family’s photo albums, shot more than 300 pictures after getting her first digital camera last year. She saved some on CD’s and printed others. But she has not used the camera in months.”
All this says to me is that this person doesn’t stick with things. For every person like that there are dozens that have found a great – and CHEAP – new hobby. Digital photography has brought photography to the masses like you said, through economics. No costs – just lots of pictures.
OK, maybe not dozens. But certainly many people stick with it!
OK, now that I’ve READ the article…
I just got an e-mail from my sister with 15 baby photos in it. I wish I had more. If you don’t want to look, you don’t have to. That’s the beauty of e-mail. The delete key is quick and easy.
I do advocate restraint in e-mail, but if people want to store 15,000 photos on their web gallery who cares?
Though I don’t agree with the premise of the artical (that digital photography is crap), I also don’t agree that its a cheap alternative to film for an amateur.
The actual camera (plus associated lens, etc.) costs are the same for digital and film.
As for printing or sharing — if you have digital you need a computer (not cheap), extra hard drive space, a photo printer (or you can pay to send it away in much the same way you send film), and photo manipulation software to achieve effects similar to those in a dark room (and that software is not cheap if you want to purchase it legally).
Many community centers and universities provide access to dark rooms for a nominal fee. Yes, that still leaves you with buying film. Digital you pay a little more for the camera and have to buy a flash card. So, in the long run, you might save money, but not all that much.
I like digital photography better because I think its easier to share your snapshots, and easier to weed through the crap and only print the good stuff. But, for an amateur photographer doing it as a hobby (not someone like me taking snapshots to remember an event), I don’t think its all that different than film.
The article isn’t about amateur photographers though — it’s about snapshot shooters.
Truth is, you as a snapshot shooter *don’t* need a computer and you *don’t* need Photoshop, just like you as a snapshot shooter don’t need your own darkroom. You can make view digital photos and weed out bad ones and make prints without having a computer in your home; you just go to the store just like you would with film. And it’s cheaper because you don’t pay for developing.
And if you already have a computer, which is fairly normal in homes these days, digital is even cheaper because you don’t even have to go to the store except to pick up prints. The argument that digital requires you to purchase a computer and printer and expensive software doesn’t fly (especially the software & flash card, which are included (and yes, I know that ups the initial price a bit) with most cameras). It makes it nicer if you have them but you don’t have to.
And to counter the reason you say you like digital that aren’t money-related: you can shoot film and still easily share photos by having the store put them on a photo CD. And the ease of weeding through crap and only printing the good stuff does, indeed, save you money.
So: why shoot digital instead of film then? Because it’s easier, because it’s cheaper, and because it’s more accessible!
i haven’t read the article (i didn’t want to take the time to register)… but if you are debating film vs. digital… call me old fashioned but i’d take the film any day, as far as photography is concerned. when it comes to snapshots, then of course digital is easier and probably better.
i will save the rest of my film vs. digital comments for another day. i don’t feel like butting heads today.
Even for snapshot takers, digital can be prohibitive. A digital camera that can take photo quality pictures (2-3 megapixels) well runs over $200. (And I’ve seen the crap a cheap digital camera takes). Whereas you can buy a disposable camera (including film) for less than $15, or a reusable camera for less than $50. Both of which can take great snapshots.
I think it really all depends on the user. If you’re someone that’s going to take a million photos wherever you go and sort them out later, digital is the way to go. If you’re someone that goes through 1 or 2 rolls of film on an entire trip, and a technophobe at that, film is probably a better bet.
Becca,
I am a snapshot shooter. My camera cost $200 two years ago, and it’s great. I love it! These days you can get it for under $150. And I don’t think they even sell 2 MP cameras anymore. Prices have gone down; check out Target or Best Buy.
The vast majority of people have computers these days. What else do you need? I don’t own a printer; I don’t print my pictures. I just e-mail them to friends. No costs!
It cost at the minimum $10 for film and development per role – and that’s bottom of the barrel Walmart processing – so $50 camera + 10 roles = 1 digital camera. If you have a new baby or dog or just like to take pictures, you win financially REAL quick.
As for photo manipulation software, I I do about as much messing around with pictures as any “snapshot” shooter, and I use Picasa – free & legal from Google.
The more pictures I take the better my odds of having a really good one to show for it. I’m an amature. I can’t take 36 shots and expect to have something worth showing of the camping trip. I’m away for a weekend, I shoot a couple hundred photos. I get a dozen decent ones and maybe one or two real gems. Film isn’t practical to shoot that much.