1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Has technology made photography better??

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Damien_Demolder, Jan 13, 2008.

  1. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    There are ways of dealing with that issue. Still, you should be mighty pleased that sensor chips are made rigid and flat...

    ... as I've pointed out before, this is technically unnecessary, indeed undesirable - it would be better to make the sensor concave, with its centre at the nodal point of the lens - that way distortion would disappear, vignetting and lateral chromatic aberrations would be much easier to control; the lens could be wider aperture and/or contain a lot less elements (therefore cheaper and lighter). The only major downside is loss of compatibility with lenses designed for film.
  2. Brendan

    Brendan Well-Known Member

    Sorry REALLY disagree with you on this one!
    No it doesn't do everything (though more is coming with each firmware update), but what it does it does very well.
    Calendar and contacts work as well as my old Palm T3, sync with exchange and the e- mail works fine (I don't want it being pushed at me all through meetings!)
    The screen is gorgeous and allows proper web surfing, unlike any other device on the market. As for the touch screen keyboard - like any interface it takes some getting used to, and learning the tactile shortcuts etc.
    I wouldn't give up my iPhone for anything, its made using a smartphone a pleasure again.
    And I can bore people with all the top ranked images from my Aperture library that are synced automatically :)
    its a phone, an ipod, a pocket web browser, a PDA and a pocket image bank all in one...... Sure the camera's c**p, but I wouldn't use a cameraphone anyway.
  3. parisian

    parisian Well-Known Member

    Now THAT is a genuine photographic comment - I do wonder how many of our newer members actually understand that particular concern.
    That post has actually lifted my current photographic gloom and made me feel quite happy for some reason :D
  4. john_g

    john_g Well-Known Member

    I don't understand it - all my plates are, well, plate shaped and not flat at all. I assume a film plane is some kind of tool but why would you want to shave bits off film? :D
  5. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    for cropping purposes of course :D
  6. Garry McNamara

    Garry McNamara Well-Known Member

    I do apologise, posting late in the day is never a good idea. I of course meant flat at the 'image forming plane' - 'film plane' suggesting film is the actual medium being exposed.

    As for methods of ensuring film flatness - it's all very well in the studio but using a vacum pump in a public place can attract the wrong sort of attention.

    Now where did I put that collodion?
  7. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    I voted before reading the thread, expecting to be alone. I went with no impact. Obviously I'm quite pleased to see I'm not alone.

    Some of the aesthetically best pictures I have seen were made and printed in the 19th century. Some were done in the 21st. Some (regardless of the century) were made with film, some without. Some were made with lenses, some without. I can't see any great change in how good pictures look.

    Great images will always be great, and poor ones poor, how they were made is neither here nor there.
  8. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Are you sure about that? ;)

    I never had a camera 10 years ago so am not too sure overall. Digital compacts getting smaller and faster is definately a good thing IMO....Them I like :D
  9. Per

    Per Well-Known Member

    My view is that there are 3 technological developments that have had a beneficial impact on photography. In no particular order then:

    1. The Internet. A huge resource for anyone looking for images, or for commercial usage of images
    2. Image banks. Likewise an easy way for editors and publishers to get better images more easily
    3. Digital SLRs. Appear to have attracted a lot of new photographers and reinvigorated a lot of 'old' [no offence!] photographers who had lost interest

    There really is no excuse for a magazine or book editor, or advertiser, to use poor images any more. The end result is an apparent uplift in the quality of commercial photography. There is no probably no difference in the quality of images made, but the ability to select the best ones has made photography 'better' imho.
  10. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    I certainly agree, but was this ever a real issue? The reproduction quality of images in magazines or books is generally speaking very ropey indeed in comparison with the original image as captured by the camera and after processing in the darkroom (whether wet or electronic).
  11. Per

    Per Well-Known Member

    My limited experience in magazines suggests that it was - you pretty much took whatever you could get (or the contributor/advertiser provided).

    Since we are talking about aesthetic quality, the fact that there is so much readily available choice is the main thing - there should be no reason to use something rubbish.

    The last magazine cover I did used a decent image from an image bank...
  12. AlanW

    AlanW Well-Known Member

    In my mind it has, its expanded the possibilities and has lead to artists working in other media deciding to use photography as a means of expression, though it goes back more than 10 years - have a look at Jeff Wall's A Sudden Gust of Wind (after Hokusai) 1993 to see what I mean.
  13. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    teknoly wot is that
    it seem to hav a mined of itz oun sumtimesx and i carnt controlll it
    in fakt i fink it controlllls mi
  14. Photocracy

    Photocracy Well-Known Member

    A great picture captured on film and produced in a darkroom will always have more kudos than the same produced digitally, simply because it is harder to achieve. Now, more than ever, photographers need to be different to get noticed and making the process harder for yourself while still achieveing success puts clear blue water between yourself and the next person.
  15. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    Rubbish. :eek:

    How can there be a difference between two identical images just because one was achieved at the click of a finger whilst the other sweated over in some arcane ritual. That's the argument of the luddite, surely.

    An image is judged on its own merits (whether that be technical or aesthetic) not by how it was acheived.

    That's not to say that technology (or 'the easy way') makes the image any better than it would be by another means. The artist creates the art, not the tools. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
  16. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    Which is why photography has less kudos than painting I presume?...
  17. Photocracy

    Photocracy Well-Known Member

    Artistically, the images would be identical, I agree. But the more difficult medium would tend to be given more kudos. Like two sculptures, one in bronze and one in injection-moulded plastic which looked like bronze, you know which one people would value more.

    It's not the argument of the luddite. I am a digital worker who intends to learn dark room skills.
  18. Fen

    Fen Well-Known Member

    But to a darkroom worker, the digital image is a lot harder to produce!

    You argument is a load of *people who make shoes*
  19. Photocracy

    Photocracy Well-Known Member

    The digital image is not difficult for me. Dark room work is more of a challenge with a century and half pedigree associated with it. I love digital photography, but for a fine art print, people will view the more difficult medium with more kudos, whatever their profession, even shoe repairers! ;)
  20. Fen

    Fen Well-Known Member

    Knew I should've typed "a pile of foetid dingo's kidneys"

    ;) ;) :D

Share This Page