Is digital "dumbing down" photography?

Question

In no way is this intended to provoke another digital vs. film debate.

But.

I subscribe to half a dozen photo magazines (paper ones) which feature both digital and film images.

Right now I'm looking at a photo essay done with a Canon 1Ds Mk2 and L lenses (maybe $15,000 worth of gear).

A couple pages later there's another essay, done with an F100, 24-85 and ISO100 transparency film. A $1000 kit, maybe more if the photog shot a lot of film.

The film images blow the digital into the weeds in terms of detail, colour range, dynamic range (no blown highlights) and the most elusive parameter of all -- realism.

(It's not the technique -- both essays are very well shot.)

As I turn the pages of other mags I see this over and over again.

So here's my question. Has digital lowered the technical standards of photography -- dumbed it down?

Answer 1

absolutely, but dont tell people or I will be out of a job!

also dont start letting people know photography (great stuff) requires knowledge, practice, skill and technique, and a camera, the computer has little to do with great images

i love your questions!

your looking at colour wait till you compare in black and white

watch the dumbed down ones thumb me down, then go back to their macdonalds photography

a

Answer 2

"In no way is this intended to provoke another digital vs. film debate...."

But you feel the need to say that you think film produces better quality images, and digital is lowering photographic standards. So, given that you've asserted that you don't want a debate, it seems your purpose is only to elicit agreement from those individuals on here that share your views. What's the point?

There are countless examples of superb photography in both film and digital format. The format that is "better" has far more to do with the application/subject than any intrinsic standard.

I will say that the proliferation of digital technology has democratized photography: allowing more people to take more photos more often. On the one hand, this means that there are probably more good photographers shooting now than at any time in the medium's history. On the other hand, there are many, many more terrible photographers that are even infiltrating the ranks of so-called professionals. In particular, there are plenty of "wedding photographers" out there that don't have the slightest notion of the elements of composition or the technical aspects of exposure.

But blaming the digital format for "dumbing-down" photography is pretty elitist. The proliferation of mediocre digital photographers isn't negatively impacting your ability to make lovely film images, is it? I'm primarily a digital professional, but I certainly don't lose any sleep over the $500 craigslist wedding photographers stealing my business. There will always be those out there who value quality, talent, and technical proficiency: both as image makers, and customers or viewers.

Answer 3

I don't think this is a film vs digital argument. Over my lifetime as an amateur photographer, a whole array of useful techniques that I once did manually have been automated or improved. The oldest camera I have is a Canon FT QL. It did have through the lens metering, a relatively recent innovation at the time, but required the lens to be stopped down for metering. The sequence focus, then meter was important. You didn't have to check depth of field, but you could.

The FTb had full aperture metering - no longer any need to stop down the lens unless you were checking depth of field. Match needle metering made life easy, or so we thought.

The came the Canon AE1, A1 and AE1 Program - the introduction of automatic exposure metering. Did that take the creative aspects out of the hands of the photographer? Not necessarily, but those of us without it claimed to be on higher moral ground!

The latest manual focus Canon in my collection is the T90. Film loading, transport and rewinding is all motor driven - no need to move your hands, and create multi-shot capability. This introduced program modes for different focal length lens and a bunch of other automated features.

What next? Autofocus. I don't have EOS generation kit, but do have the classic Nikon F4, and both earlier and later Nikon bodies. There are limitations, and sometimes it is still necessary to manually focus, but not often. I can still focus with just a matte screen and still get very close to the distance I would set when I confirm with either a split image or fresnel screen rangefinder.

My view - making photography easier is good for both amateurs and professioals alike. It doesn't mean we should or could abandon the craftwork of capturing good images, whether on film or digital sensor. What it does mean is that ordinary photographers can worry less and less about being expert in that craftwork, and still get good images.

Will that make them other than ordinary photographers? I don't think so, but even as ordinary photographers they should be able to get well focused, well exposed images for themselves. Will it make them artists? Not directly, but freeing them of the need for detailed craftwork gives them more opportunity to address the compositional aspects of their photography, and perhaps take better photographs.

Answer 4

There is no doubt that dumbing down is occurring, and not just in the realm of photography.

I do think digicams have lowered people's perception of what a good image should be. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that, but just take a look at the mediocre and worse snapshots that Yahooers and others post for critique every day. They shouldn't need someone to point out that their photo is bad, often on every level, but they do post and expect to receive only glowing praise. Maybe because they've seen about a million other poorly executed snaps on all those picture sharing sights and now believe such is the pinnacle, or at least a good average. Also, heavy-handed post processing takes its toll on inflicting its mark upon poor, unsuspecting images,

In the past, one was not exposed to very many pictures out of the professional avenue. You saw photos in magazines and coffee table books. Maybe a few art shows. You also saw your family and friends' snapshots or albums, and recognized them as what they were. (Unless your uncle was Ansel Adams or something) But we weren't exposed to thousands of everyday images, and we didn't snap hundreds of images for routine events. Even with weddings, you usually got maybe 40 or 50 prints, and that seemed like a lot. Now, brides expect hundreds.

So, yeah, I think sheer mass is dumbing down what is considered to be good photography. I'm not going to debate film vs. digital, I have seen astounding images produced with both, and I use and enjoy both.

The dumbing down is snaking into every walk of life. If you don't believe it, just look at some posts right here on YA. Many, many people don't use even rudimentary grammar skills, and can't even be bothered to run a spell check. They don't know the difference between there and their, or hear and here, or to, two, and too. I could go on and on, but I will now step down from my soapbox. Thank you for a thought provoking question. I shall look forward to seeing what others have to add.

Answer 5

It very well could be the technique. Did the same person do both shoots?

Given the technology we have, there is no reason that digital should not look just as good as film, or in some cases better.

Technology doesn't dumb people down, people dumb people down. If anything technology should make us all smarter.

Answer 6

Try Trick Photography Special Effects - http://tinyurl.com/mKTrt0t3YN

Answer 7

Technology doesnt make people dumber. People are just dumber if they dont accept the fact that cars ran worse 20 years ago, computers were worse 20 years ago, and cameras were worse 20 years ago.

Answer 8

Nope, it just means people are spending more money on cameras they still have no idea how to use.

Spend 500 on an P&S, shoot it in low light, get dark, blurry pictures.

Spend 800 on another P&S, shoot in low light, get dark blurry pictures.

Money can't fix stupid.