Has photography improved since the early 1900s?

nathanm · « **on:** 7 Apr 2009, 03:45 pm »

As it turns out… NO!!!

After 100 years of technological advances improving every area of human life, what do we get with the invention of the digital camera?

Fucking SHIT!

macrojack · « **Reply #1 on:** 7 Apr 2009, 04:45 pm »

Nathan - You are obviously not ready for solid state. Get you a good tube based camera and watch the pictures take on a palpability and gestalt heretofore unimagined. Just don't leave it on all the time.

thunderbrick · « **Reply #2 on:** 7 Apr 2009, 05:16 pm »

I'm with Nathan. While I have seen some amazing stuff on digital, I think most of what people shoot now on digital is crap. I used to work in a photo shop nearly 40 years ago and people's snapshots were generally better now. They took more care back in those days than people do now.

I work mostly in digital but just got back into the darkroom this week for the first time in a while, and it felt gggooooooooooodddd to get my fingers in the soup again.

funkmonkey · « **Reply #3 on:** 7 Apr 2009, 06:11 pm »

Your question made me wonder what the megapixel equivalent to film was... a quick google turned up some some inconclusive information but I thought this chart was pretty interesting:

Film based photos do have a quality that digital still can't touch, I think that it is related to the fact that all the halide crystals on film do not line up in perfect rows and columns like the pixels of a digital image. There is an organic quality to film, and like macrojack mentioned, tubes.

WerTicus · « **Reply #4 on:** 7 Apr 2009, 06:27 pm »

35mm film cant do 50mp of resolution. Its more like 14-16 if your counting the crystal cells for the highest quality 100iso.

Faster film is less.

Id say we are at a point now with technology that all things weighed up we are better off.

I've no trouble producing 80 megapixel (23,000 x 3,600 ish) landscape panoramas from my 14mp camera for example. (it just required 64bit version of photoshop at about 5gb of ram

)

nathanm · « **Reply #5 on:** 7 Apr 2009, 06:35 pm »

I just find it funny that photography is one area where modern advances actually took a huge step backward in terms of quality before they got better. Speed, convenience, price, color…yes by all means this blows the old fashioned tech out of the water, but as far as beautiful imagery…well, they already HAD it way back then. The Sony Mavica that my snapshot was taken with, it was loaded with technology and stuff they couldn't imagine in 1924, but the fact remains it's a piece of shit picture! I'm not saying that old is by default better, it's just amusing to think that your great grandparents had access to superior photography than what you get with today's gee whiz, do-everything cell phones and digicams.

thunderbrick · « **Reply #6 on:** 7 Apr 2009, 07:29 pm »

Quote from: funkmonkey on 7 Apr 2009, 06:11 pm

Film based photos do have a quality that digital still can't touch, I think that it is related to the fact that all the halide crystals on film do not line up in perfect rows and columns like the pixels of a digital image. There is an organic quality to film, and like macrojack mentioned, tubes.

A very wise Emmy-award-winning cinematographer I know once told me that "Pixels don't sing like silver", and that really sums it up. There IS something magical about film originals done right.

funkmonkey · « **Reply #7 on:** 7 Apr 2009, 07:30 pm »

I also think that lens quality is a huge contributing factor. the mass produced lenses in most modern cameras are not as nice as the finely crafted lenses of yesteryear. With a more simple technology, there was more care given to the individual parts.

BillB · « **Reply #8 on:** 7 Apr 2009, 07:38 pm »

I think it's just like any media:

Are people more stupid today? Possibly but now there are so many ways for us to find out about it and laugh.

Is crime higher? Maybe, or maybe it is just easier to report

Are pictures worse? Maybe or maybe it is too easy to take them

etc etc...

mcullinan · « **Reply #9 on:** 7 Apr 2009, 07:45 pm »

No & Yes.

low.pfile · « **Reply #10 on:** 7 Apr 2009, 09:57 pm »

I am pretty sure if I lived in the early 1900s my photos would be better than what I "try" to shoot today.

Thebiker · « **Reply #11 on:** 8 Apr 2009, 12:31 am »

And keep in mind, because so many have access to multiple ways to take photographs, it is no longer unusual....everyone is snapping away at everything. Don't take a leak in the woods....someone might record it with their cell phone camera

and put it out on the web. Picture quality may suck, but the embarrassment factor could be through the roof.

In the early 1900's, taking a photograph was an EVENT! Folks would stand around to watch a photographer work as he carefully set up each shot. Being photographed was a big deal, yes it was becoming a part of history, even if only to a family.

For some of us who are still passionate about what we do with a camera, it is still a big deal. I don't do photos of people much. I prefer landscape, flower and macro work. Yes, I now work with a digital Nikon SLR. Used to use a Canon AE-1 that I took everywhere. Used a Mamiya 645 for a while....loved it but film costs, chemical costs and paper costs had me shut down my darkroom. I find my Epson printer that will handle prints up to 13 x 19 inches can do all I need and the latest Epson inks are quite good and last for quite a few years....I don't know if the claims are true, time will tell.

So, yes and no. Convenience and commonality breeds carelessness which results in poorer photography. But those of us that still take pride in our work will still manage to produce good quality with the improved tools available. Then, being an old fart, I appreciate the technology rather than take it for granted.

Just my humble opinion, YMMV.

Walt

jon_010101 · « **Reply #12 on:** 8 Apr 2009, 01:28 am »

I think sensor size is a huge factor here - full-frame DSLRs are, IMHO, in a completely different league than most consumer and "prosumer" DSLRS. Excessive depth of field with small sensors is a real pet peeve of mine.

Rasta · « **Reply #13 on:** 8 Apr 2009, 04:05 am »

I still prefer my camera obscura.

SET Man · « **Reply #14 on:** 8 Apr 2009, 05:29 am »

Quote from: thunderbrick on 7 Apr 2009, 07:29 pm

Quote from: funkmonkey on 7 Apr 2009, 06:11 pm

Film based photos do have a quality that digital still can't touch, I think that it is related to the fact that all the halide crystals on film do not line up in perfect rows and columns like the pixels of a digital image. There is an organic quality to film, and like macrojack mentioned, tubes.

A very wise Emmy-award-winning cinematographer I know once told me that "Pixels don't sing like silver", and that really sums it up. There IS something magical about film originals done right.

Hey!

Good point. I agreed

But back to the question.... the answer is yes and no. Depending how you look at it.

But I have to say that digital make photography simpler people... well most of the time.

But also make people more careless about taking photos. Just shoot away and fix it later on computer mentality.

With film people tend to be more careful taking care that it will be good. Especially in it early days of photography of which it was something special.

Also, you could take more pictures with digital so it is sometime become the matter of quality vs. quantity. There are more pictures taken now thanks to digital but sadly most of them are crap . Not to mention seeing heavily retouched photo.

Do I hate digital photography? No, I actually embraced it for certain type of works

When I do use digital I still like to shoot with the film mentality.

But! Personally sometime I like to take a break and go back to basic old film school. Dusting off my film cams, put in a roll of B&W and take it out for a spin. Here are two example....

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=60285.0

BTW... even today it is hard to beat the LF photography. There's something special about it

Take care,
Buddy

JackD201 · « **Reply #15 on:** 8 Apr 2009, 06:36 am »

There's a saying that goes "It's the Archer not the Arrow."

I think that applies to photography as well

denjo · « **Reply #16 on:** 8 Apr 2009, 07:26 am »

The real advantage of digital photography to me is the fact that you can take pictures and almost immediately view them, deciding if they came out okay or not! It is a real bane to use analog films and to be left in the dark until you collect the finished photos from the developers!

In terms of clarity, I still feel that analog film has an edge to how natural and life-like the skin tones and colours look, but the gap is certainly closing! Its a bit like the debate between tube and solid state (or class D) - which sounds better?

navi · « **Reply #17 on:** 9 Apr 2009, 08:26 am »

I don't disagree that film is still much better than digital. I just can't work with film anymore.....
1/ Clients now demand a faster turn around time
2/ I HATE THE DARK ROOM AND THE CHEMICALS
3/ i like to know i've got the shot on critical jobs- and not wait for the film to be processed before i find out.
4/ I HATE CLEANING SPOTS OFF SCANS

nathanm · « **Reply #18 on:** 9 Apr 2009, 02:36 pm »

Just to reiterate, I don't mean to claim that film is superior than digital or anything involving workflows or whatnot. I'm only making note of just what kind of impressive quality was possible ages ago and how when some radically advanced modern day technology FIRST came along, the image quality was laughably inferior. It is an interesting inversion of many other types of technological advances where there WAS a clear linear progression in quality. I merely find it humorous that we had to make things SO much worse before they got better.

BradJudy · « **Reply #19 on:** 9 Apr 2009, 03:03 pm »

Quote from: nathanm on 9 Apr 2009, 02:36 pm

Just to reiterate, I don't mean to claim that film is superior than digital or anything involving workflows or whatnot. I'm only making note of just what kind of impressive quality was possible ages ago and how when some radically advanced modern day technology FIRST came along, the image quality was laughably inferior. It is an interesting inversion of many other types of technological advances where there WAS a clear linear progression in quality. I merely find it humorous that we had to make things SO much worse before they got better.

It's only a step back in one aspect of the process (image quality), where other aspects took a leap forward (mostly convenience). It's not uncommon for an "advance" to take a step backward in some aspect initially. Digital photography (and the mp3/iPod craze, which is an almost identical parallel) created controversy because the feature left behind in the initial advance (image/sound quality) is considered paramount to many, but huge numbers of people were happy to make the trade-off. In both cases, digital versions of extremely poor quality and/or great expense were available before they reached a point where it was worth the trade-off for the majority.

The first digital camera I saw was in college (1994) when my comp sci professor used one to create a photo-roster for his class (an idea way ahead of its time). I'm sure it was expensive and probably only 640x480 (0.3MP).