Photography is dead, long live photography
PC Magazine columnist John C. Dvorak makes a very interesting observation: in digital photography the camera is the film. Photographers must eventually face the fact that the future of photography is digital. But now he finds himself shooting with 4 different digital cameras (big-guns and point-and-shoots) including some low megapixel (MP) oldies-but-goodies, all to achieve a certain quality in his finished images.
At one time I could tell you the differences in Kodachrome, Fuji, Kodak and Illford papers and film (we're talking late 80's/early 90's). What I think Dvorak misses in his article is the quality of chemical processing varied significantly from lab to lab, even from day to day. The ability of a lab to produce consistent, quality, reproducible results was perhaps more important than film or paper choice. Now, in this digital age, photoshop can address many of these issues of achieving a specific contrast, saturation, tone, pop or liveliness in the finished image. The photographer now has much more control over the finished image.
There is something however to the idea of not tossing your old cameras just because the next megapixel bump looms large on the horizon. As Dvorak points out, even 2-3 MP cameras can generate stunning 3x4 foot prints. My old (now in dire need of repair thanks to one of my 3 year olds) Nikon 950 made crisp, bright images that my Canon Rebel cannot match without additional Photoshopping, and frankly I miss that built-in clarity from that old work horse. Food for thought as 12 MP hardware becomes more affordable. Heck, my wife JUST bought me my 6 MP Rebel this last June. I now need to upgrade?
Nope, cameras are not like so many other techno-freaky gadgets. Upgrading is not quite as necessary; photography and it's tools continue maintain a certain longevity...and mystique.
Whether film or digital; long live photography.
Oh, and thanks for the camera, sweetie :-)
The camera is the film-rethinking digital photography
John C. Dvorak
PC Magazine
At one time I could tell you the differences in Kodachrome, Fuji, Kodak and Illford papers and film (we're talking late 80's/early 90's). What I think Dvorak misses in his article is the quality of chemical processing varied significantly from lab to lab, even from day to day. The ability of a lab to produce consistent, quality, reproducible results was perhaps more important than film or paper choice. Now, in this digital age, photoshop can address many of these issues of achieving a specific contrast, saturation, tone, pop or liveliness in the finished image. The photographer now has much more control over the finished image.
There is something however to the idea of not tossing your old cameras just because the next megapixel bump looms large on the horizon. As Dvorak points out, even 2-3 MP cameras can generate stunning 3x4 foot prints. My old (now in dire need of repair thanks to one of my 3 year olds) Nikon 950 made crisp, bright images that my Canon Rebel cannot match without additional Photoshopping, and frankly I miss that built-in clarity from that old work horse. Food for thought as 12 MP hardware becomes more affordable. Heck, my wife JUST bought me my 6 MP Rebel this last June. I now need to upgrade?
Nope, cameras are not like so many other techno-freaky gadgets. Upgrading is not quite as necessary; photography and it's tools continue maintain a certain longevity...and mystique.
Whether film or digital; long live photography.
Oh, and thanks for the camera, sweetie :-)
The camera is the film-rethinking digital photography
John C. Dvorak
PC Magazine
posted by d20 at 6:13 PM
0 comments
