Professional Web Applications Themes

Digital Discourages Editing - Photography

Is is my perception, or does it seem like digital photographers have fewer editing skills? Maybe they still only select 10% of their photos to display, but because of the sheer volume of pictures they take, maybe that number should be reduced to 2%. I think that digital is being abused by some because it allows a drastic increase in volume for no extra cost. I see collections on the binary newsgroups from people that I know have some skill, but they will include 30 shots of the same pose, stuff that isn't focused or has blurred motion, stuff poorly ...

  1. #1

    Default Digital Discourages Editing

    Is is my perception, or does it seem like digital photographers have fewer
    editing skills? Maybe they still only select 10% of their photos to
    display, but because of the sheer volume of pictures they take, maybe that
    number should be reduced to 2%. I think that digital is being abused by
    some because it allows a drastic increase in volume for no extra cost. I
    see collections on the binary newsgroups from people that I know have some
    skill, but they will include 30 shots of the same pose, stuff that isn't
    focused or has blurred motion, stuff poorly exposed, shots with inexcusable
    amounts of flash, and, unbelievably, RED-EYE. My friends with digital
    cameras seem to do the same thing when they put their collections on the
    web. I take pictures like this too, with film, but I throw them out.
    Seeing as pictures are more expensive for me, I'm less apt to risk a poor
    shot, which can be argued as an advantage or disadvantage. And perhaps
    since scanning is a pain, og photographers are less likely to scan their
    lame stuff to put on the web. I plead with digital photographers to be more
    discriminating and to only upload and email the good stuff. If you take a
    hundred pics and display just one, you'll look like a genius. If you
    display 80, you'll look like a hack.

    -Kevin


    Kevin Neilson Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Digital Discourages Editing


    "Kevin Neilson" <kevin_neilsonremovethistextcomcast.net> wrote in message
    news:bMFRa.85177$H17.26258sccrnsc02...
    > Is is my perception, or does it seem like digital photographers have fewer
    > editing skills? Maybe they still only select 10% of their photos to
    > display, but because of the sheer volume of pictures they take, maybe that
    > number should be reduced to 2%. I think that digital is being abused by
    > some because it allows a drastic increase in volume for no extra cost. I
    > see collections on the binary newsgroups from people that I know have some
    > skill, but they will include 30 shots of the same pose, stuff that isn't
    > focused or has blurred motion, stuff poorly exposed, shots with
    inexcusable
    > amounts of flash, and, unbelievably, RED-EYE. My friends with digital
    > cameras seem to do the same thing when they put their collections on the
    > web. I take pictures like this too, with film, but I throw them out.
    > Seeing as pictures are more expensive for me, I'm less apt to risk a poor
    > shot, which can be argued as an advantage or disadvantage. And perhaps
    > since scanning is a pain, og photographers are less likely to scan
    their
    > lame stuff to put on the web. I plead with digital photographers to be
    more
    > discriminating and to only upload and email the good stuff. If you take a
    > hundred pics and display just one, you'll look like a genius. If you
    > display 80, you'll look like a hack.
    Well, I dunno. I think maybe you're confusing good photographers with *some*
    digital photographers. Digital photography makes it really easy for people
    to post stuff on the web - recently, there has been a massive increase in
    the number of people posting their digital images, and maybe some of them
    have no clue at all about what a good picture looks like. But, instead of
    complaining about it, why not try to point out the obvious mistakes that are
    being made, hopefully so that these guys will learn to take a good picture.
    Whether you like it or not, some of those hopeless individuals might
    eventually turn into competent photographers. If you have the knowledge to
    help them, then put it to good use and give these guys an idea about what
    they are doing.

    Chris.


    Chris Barnard Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Digital Discourages Editing


    "Chris Barnard" <lord_waymaster> wrote in message
    news:P8HRa.2022$%n7.16321562news-text.cableinet.net...
    >
    > Well, I dunno. I think maybe you're confusing good photographers with
    *some*
    > digital photographers. Digital photography makes it really easy for people
    > to post stuff on the web - recently, there has been a massive increase in
    > the number of people posting their digital images, and maybe some of them
    > have no clue at all about what a good picture looks like. But, instead of
    > complaining about it, why not try to point out the obvious mistakes that
    are
    > being made, hopefully so that these guys will learn to take a good
    picture.
    > Whether you like it or not, some of those hopeless individuals might
    > eventually turn into competent photographers. If you have the knowledge to
    > help them, then put it to good use and give these guys an idea about what
    > they are doing.
    >
    > Chris.
    >
    My observation is a generalization. Most of the people I'm speaking up
    aren't hopeless or imcompetent; like I said, many have some nice work. They
    just overwhelm the good stuff with the bad.


    Kevin Neilson Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Digital Discourages Editing

    Kevin Neilson writes:
    > Is is my perception, or does it seem like digital
    > photographers have fewer editing skills?
    I have the same perception. I think this is because digital photography
    has democratized photography considerably, such that many digital
    photographers are much more the classic rank amateurs than are film
    photographers. And rank amateurs who used to limit their shooting
    because of the cost of film and processing now can shoot any number of
    photos digitally for practically nothing ... and that's exactly what
    many of them end up doing!
    > Maybe they still only select 10% of their photos to
    > display, but because of the sheer volume of pictures
    > they take, maybe that number should be reduced to 2%.
    I agree. With digital I see a lot more pictures being taken, but
    strangely, the number of _good_ pictures doesn't seem to be increasing.
    There are just a lot more junk pictures. Lots of stuff that nobody
    would have ever paid to print or develop. But since it is free, they
    put it up on their Web sites.
    > I think that digital is being abused by some because
    > it allows a drastic increase in volume for no extra cost.
    I wouldn't call it abuse, just misuse. But that is their choice.
    > Seeing as pictures are more expensive for me, I'm
    > less apt to risk a poor shot, which can be argued
    > as an advantage or disadvantage.
    Same here, and I agree. I tend to be frugal in my shooting even with
    digital, anyway.
    > And perhaps since scanning is a pain, og photographers
    > are less likely to scan their lame stuff to put on the web.
    Also very true. I edit my slides pretty severely because a certain
    amount of effort is required to scan them. I keep them all, but I scan
    only the better shots.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Digital Discourages Editing

    Hi Kevin

    I think it's much more useful to consider the
    two sets

    folks who take very careful good photographs
    folks who don't

    than the two sets

    folks who use digital cameras
    folks who don't

    The careful artist will be careful with any tool.
    The casual photographer will be casual with any tool.

    Stan


    Stanley Krute Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Digital Discourages Editing

    On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 05:24:13 GMT, "Stanley Krute" <StanStanKrute.com>
    wrote:
    >I think it's much more useful to consider the
    >two sets
    >
    > folks who take very careful good photographs
    > folks who don't
    >
    >than the two sets
    >
    > folks who use digital cameras
    > folks who don't
    If you're implying a connection here, why don't you
    just come out and say what you mean.

    >The careful artist will be careful with any tool.
    >The casual photographer will be casual with any tool.

    One person (one photographer) might have both
    attributes, at different times and in differing
    cirstances.

    There might be times when she chooses to be careful
    and methodical, and other times when she wants to
    snap up a storm and see what happens.

    I mean: why beat around the bush. Go on, say what
    you really mean. Be done with it.


    rafe b.
    [url]http://www.terrapinphoto.com[/url]
    Rafe B. Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Digital Discourages Editing

    Hi Rafe
    > I mean: why beat around the bush. Go on, say what
    > you really mean. Be done with it.
    That's what I did.

    One is of course free to vehemently disagree.

    Homage

    Stan


    Stanley Krute Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Digital Discourages Editing

    On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:51:51 GMT, "Kevin Neilson"
    <kevin_neilsonremovethistextcomcast.net> wrote:
    >Is is my perception, or does it seem like digital photographers have fewer
    >editing skills? Maybe they still only select 10% of their photos to
    >display, but because of the sheer volume of pictures they take, maybe that
    >number should be reduced to 2%. I think that digital is being abused by
    >some because it allows a drastic increase in volume for no extra cost. I
    >see collections on the binary newsgroups from people that I know have some
    >skill, but they will include 30 shots of the same pose, stuff that isn't
    >focused or has blurred motion, stuff poorly exposed, shots with inexcusable
    >amounts of flash, and, unbelievably, RED-EYE. My friends with digital
    >cameras seem to do the same thing when they put their collections on the
    >web. I take pictures like this too, with film, but I throw them out.
    >Seeing as pictures are more expensive for me, I'm less apt to risk a poor
    >shot, which can be argued as an advantage or disadvantage. And perhaps
    >since scanning is a pain, og photographers are less likely to scan their
    >lame stuff to put on the web. I plead with digital photographers to be more
    >discriminating and to only upload and email the good stuff. If you take a
    >hundred pics and display just one, you'll look like a genius. If you
    >display 80, you'll look like a hack.
    >
    >-Kevin
    >
    Speaking of too much. My in-laws who have always had a video camera
    decided to get a digital. I think they were jealous of all my baby
    pictures. So now everytime i go there i have to go down to the
    computer room and coment on every picture they have in the computer
    whilst they click here and there. You can just tell that its
    point-and-click with them. But i don't discourage them at all. They
    seem to be having fun, and i haven't seen the video cam lately.
    Ken
    ken@usenet.ca Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Digital Discourages Editing


    "Rafe B." <net> wrote in message
    news:com... 
    >
    > If you're implying a connection here, why don't you
    > just come out and say what you mean.[/ref]

    I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.. or I have?
    I think Stanley was merely saying that, as an indicator to whether you take
    good photographs, you can't really group people in terms of if they use a
    digital camera or not (although perhaps a survey might indicate a trend).
    It's better to judge each photograph on it's merits - thus you can decide
    for yourself if you think a photographer's work is good or bad, without
    having to know if they used a digital camera or not.
    He didn't imply that there is a connection between those that take good
    pictures/those that don't and those that do/don't own digital cameras (which
    is what I think you're suggesting). He said that it's better to consider the
    former idea than the latter - not to compare the two.

    Chris.


    Chris Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Digital Discourages Editing

    Kevin,

    You have to differentiate between people interested in photography and
    people who like to take pictures. The same problem exists with film.
    Most people take 3 rolls of shots at a party and stick 90% of them in
    the album. I'm happy if I like one shot per roll.
    Igor Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Digital Discourages Editing

    Stanley Krute writes:
     

    However, because digital is much easier to use than film, it is much
    more attractive to the casual photographer, so a higher proportion of
    digital photographers are in the casual category.

    The easier it is to use a technology, the more attractive that
    technology will become to people who really should never even go near
    it.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Digital Discourages Editing

    In article <j2KRa.307350$southeast.rr.com>,
    "Tony Spadaro" <rr.com> writes: 

    If you really want to frighten visitors leave a slide projector and screen
    set up in your living room. Make sure that the stack of magazines is
    conspicous...

    --
    co.uk
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk

    Peter Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Digital Discourages Editing

    In article <com>,
    Mxsmanic <com> writes: 

    It is possible to disagree with that. A proportion will want to
    carry on taking snaps and another proportion might well want to improve
    their photos.

    Besides, does it really matter to you whether other people take
    good or bad photos if it does not bother them? At least they are doing
    it?

    --
    co.uk
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk

    Peter Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Digital Discourages Editing

    My last roommate (before I married) and I used to get rid of visitors we
    wanted to leave by digging out his rock climbing slides. Worked every time.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
    "Peter Chant" <co.uk> wrote in message
    news:bfa171$bfd$fire... [/ref]
    is a [/ref]
    copies [/ref]
    through [/ref]
    that 
    >
    > If you really want to frighten visitors leave a slide projector and screen
    > set up in your living room. Make sure that the stack of magazines is
    > conspicous...
    >
    > --
    > co.uk
    > http://www.petezilla.co.uk
    >[/ref]


    Tony Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Digital Discourages Editing

    "Peter Chant" <co.uk> wrote in message
    news:bfa171$bfd$fire... 
    or just have it somewhere convenient to get out and set up when you want
    them to leave


    Tony Guest

Similar Threads

  1. editing text using advance editing feature
    By michael_wayne_hunter@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Acrobat Macintosh
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: November 29th, 02:13 AM
  2. new to digital - ISO
    By Harry Weiss in forum Photography
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 1st, 09:44 PM
  3. Looking for my first digital cam...
    By J-Dawg in forum Photography
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 1st, 03:35 AM
  4. Digital Contest
    By Grant Dixon in forum Adobe Photoshop Elements
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 10th, 10:32 PM
  5. digital
    By Miro in forum Photography
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 28th, 01:26 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139