Why I love digital...

[Mike Buckley]

I am not sure if I will change my photos much, even when I get more skilled with the software.

With very rare exceptions, my photos requiring the least amount of change during post-processing are my best photos. I typically spend less than 5 minutes post-processing a color photo and about ten minutes post-processing a monochrome photo. For whatever reason, I get caught up in the tonal nuances of monochrome photos more than color photos.

One distinct difference has to do with photos captured in my makeshift studio. It is so makeshift that it is strongly inadequate. That translates into having to spend a lot more time during post-processing (often more than an hour on one image) than I would otherwise have to spend.

[dragon76]

What about sharing yours, Dean...perhaps others will follow...just a thought...

Izzie

Mine is no way near as interesting as Trev's and it would only bore everyone here and could cause major reduction of forum's membership

[B.B.]

Trev.I am old School as they come. But when it came to film I just did not get the results that I do with Dig. Now with the extra cost of film and developing to most it just makes sense to go digital,unless you have a dark room. Oh I like vinyl I have at least 5 players. Gary B.

[rachel]

If it weren't for digital, 95% of my landscapes would be ruined by wonky horizons.

[Tronhard]

If it weren't for digital, 95% of my landscapes would be ruined by wonky horizons.

Hi Rachel. I know what you mean about adjusting horizontals, but I must admit I would think it is hard to find many truly flat in Nepal (outside built-up areas), with so many amazing peaks! You live in a truly stunning environment.
LOL

[rachel]

I have joked before that I think my head must be on wonky, but last week I was taking pictures of a lake (yes, they're all wonky of course) and I had the line showing on the screen of the camera to help me level it and I actually found myself thinking "that line's wonky" - really! There must be something about the way my eyes or my brain works that just makes it impossible for me to see straight.

[jcuknz]

In theory I learnt photography in film days, went to a photo school, worked as a professional but I wasn't really interested in photography except that I thought it was what you use to make films, how naive can a youngster be
I had the basics which remained dormant for the 26 years I worked for TV and eventually digital photography came to me along with the internet and photo groups like CiC and I believe that I started to learn, much more than I ever did earlier.
I had a fume room and had worked in several before but with digital came the editing programme and at first it was mind boggling and I nearly gave up but I stuck with it and now I edit every photo I take because it is the companion to my camera[s]. I excuse this with my life spent as an editor in TV , so I can vaguely understand the SOOC folk, but it is not me.
I think photography is wonderful and I am very grateful to digital for opening my eyes to the potential though sadly perhaps I no longer have the enthusiasm and fitness to pursue it with my 84th next month.

[jcuknz]

In theory

[Manfred M]

Why I love digital over film?

The cost of making and processing a shot is ZERO!. No film cost, no processing cost and no printing cost (unless I want to make a paper print, of course).

[Tronhard]

Hi John:

Well, in your 84th year I am totally impressed that you are still so engaged with the art. My hope is that when I reach your esteemed age that I too will have the ability and enthusiasm to match yours! I think that photography is brilliant as it reaches both our technical and artistic sides, and that helps to keep our minds (and bodies to a degree) active.

Go the AB's. SO glad we got the RWC back again...

[Tronhard]

Why I love digital over film?

The cost of making and processing a shot is ZERO!. No film cost, no processing cost and no printing cost (unless I want to make a paper print, of course).

Well I would certainly say that it is almost zero, and certainly much cheaper than film (as I have said in my original post). There is no doubt that there is still some cost in printing but I think we both agree one does not have to do that now.

Why I quibble is that there is a cost in getting the storage devices - I just forked out almost $100 for two fast 32GB CF cards, and one has to buy the software for post processing and a computer good enough to support it. In that respect Adobe CC has a monthly cost, and to actually a buy Photoshop license is not cheap. I got Photoshop and Lightroom elements relatively cheaply with my latest computer and since then - about a year - there have been two updates to Photoshop Elements alone, each at around $100US. Granted, one does not have to buy the latest version, as others have mentioned.

Ironically one of the rising costs is that of storage of images. I am a frugal taker of photos because I was used to paying for film and its processing, however the digital generation of photographers tend to take a lot more shots than me - which is fine, but some keep EVERY shot! I weed through my photos fairly stringently, reducing the ones I keep to only those I think merit it. This vast increase in digital image and video storage is obviously having an impact on cloud storage providers, as per the enclosed link to an article about the very subject...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...online-storage

[James G]

There is no doubt that there is still some cost in printing but I think we both agree one does not have to do that now.

Oh dear... I'm afraid I have to disagree with the above Much as I enjoy the ease of presentation of digital images on screen, for me, an image is 'authenticated' and finished only when printed.
Display on monitors has not really caught up with a well crafted print (IMO), so the ability to create high quality giclee prints means I have to factor in costs for paper and ink. (Vastly more expensive than the cost of the printer over it's lifetime.)

If you think that storing digital images is an issue....

[rpcrowe]

I love digital BECAUSE...

Instant feedback on my efforts
No cost shooting after initial equipment acquisition
Ability to share images with others on sites like this
Ability to post process images without needing space consuming and smelly darkroom
I can keep LOADS and LOADS of images without needing space to store negatives or prints

[Tronhard]

[QUOTE=James G;561623]Oh dear... an image is 'authenticated' and finished only when printed.
--------------------------------------------------
I think the critical part in my comment is that one does not HAVE to print, but I never suggested that one could not do so.

I would hate to think that any form of the art would be seen as unacceptable, or "unauthenticated", a term with which I am a bit uncomfortable as it suggests a level of authority to decide what is, and is not acceptable. I believe the question is who decides what is "authentic" or not? My own answer is that it is, like all art, in the eye of the beholder.

One could argue that the most accurate representation of the image is one made directly from the taken image, which would be the transparency. Every other output has other layers of intervention during which the "pure" image can be manipulated and make it something other than what was taken. Is that a bad thing? I would say of course not, but I would say that no medium is better than the other, it's in the eye of the beholder and must be respected as such.

[Rider in the Sky]

I love digital BECAUSE...

Instant feedback on my efforts
No cost shooting after initial equipment acquisition
Ability to share images with others on sites like this........

same here.

[Andrew1]

Trev, been shooting and developing film since the '60's and I too was a late and resistant convert to digital. Still have the F3 and some film in the fridge but it rarely sees the light of day. In fact after going overboard for 4 years the digital hasn't been out much lately either. I must remedy that.

Anyway,, I agree that being able to sort through photographs immediately and use the digital darkroom almost as quickly is a game changer. It has added another fun aspect to the hobby. I must say the biggest benefit digital provided me is being able to quickly vary the ISO more than a stop without the constraints of waiting until the roll was finished or having to reload partly used ones. All three of the basic factors can now be changed major amounts on a whim. On the downside it's so cheap and easy to take a shot and chimp that my average results have degraded a bit. Unfavourable shots happened with new setups and bracketing on film as well but not nearly as much as with the digital camera. The old disciplines seem to have slacked off a bit because it's just too easy to fire away.

Storage and printing can be a bit pricey especially during periods of learning or creativity when multiple attempts are made. After looking at alternatives I decided on letting the local printers outlay some serious cash for equipment I could not even dream to have. The local Costco has people working there who have been doing this a long time and are consistent with the results. Great equipment and I just tell them to not apply any automatic adjustments so there is no influence other than what I applied. As a matter of fact they just upgraded all their printers last week. Another source I've used is Art Box on Douglas. If you want to get into some really advanced printing yourself check out Luz Studio.

[billtils]

the biggest benefit digital provided me is being able to quickly vary the ISO more than a stop without the constraints of waiting until the roll was finished or having to reload partly used ones. .

Good point Andrew.

[george013]

When cleaning up the attic you may find some old pictures from long ago. People always look at them trying to find out who is that on that picture and how was life then.
Will there be anybody finding my digital pictures on that attic over 50 years?

George

[James G]

I would hate to think that any form of the art would be seen as unacceptable, or "unauthenticated", a term with which I am a bit uncomfortable as it suggests a level of authority to decide what is, and is not acceptable

Trev, I should have been clearer. I was reflecting on how my own digital imaging has developed. I used the word 'authentic' in the context of 'as I the artist intended'.
For me, the print is a finished product, whereas the image on my monitor is transient/ephemeral and is never finished. I find it hard to leave the digital image alone and the urge to 'tinker' verges on OCD sometimes .
Printing forces me to commit! and I know that whoever sees the printed version, sees the same thing as me.

[James G]

Will there be anybody finding my digital pictures on that attic over 50 years?

George, it is probably hubris on my part, but I have a nephew who is interested in photography. His wife works for one of our better known fine art auction houses as one of their eastern oriental art experts. So, all my images, electronic and print, along with my photographic gear is 'bequeathed' to them in my will!

I'm optimistic they could survive another generation ..... beyond that I subscribe to Shelley's 'Ozymandius' view of the future. http://holyjoe.org/poetry/shelley.htm