Re: Has the way we appreciate photos changed with digital?
- From: "Digital Photography Now" <infoplsremove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 11:31:39 GMT
Hey Frank, that Disc shot isn't too bad, surprisingly. The colour is wrong,
but a bit of Photoshop work would soon fix that. It probably wouldn't
enlarge much, though.
Of course, the printing quality at the time could have been a major issue.
Ian
Digital Photography Now
http://dpnow.com
"Frank ess" <frank@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7ZSdnXdrc8R_6ErZnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Digital Photography Now wrote:
<stauffer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154785455.633273.29550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
john at stafford dot net
We have met the enemy and they are us. Folks in seventies and
eighties worried far more about convenience than image quality. So
Kodak and others pushed convenience at the expense of image quality.
But results were so bad in some cases, such as 110 film that the
format was a flop. Still, folks did accept 126, and that was a big
success. One can see the results today in that the high end
digitals, such as the DSLRs, are available for those who value image
quality, while the low end P&S is the rage for those who don't.
I'd question the 126/110 references. I used to work in a photo store
in the early 80s and 126 film and processing was an occasional sale,
while 110 sold by the box full. Maybe the 126 era was over by 1982,
not really sure, but 110 was in full swing at that time. Granted,
image quality from 110 was very poor, but not as bad as Disc cameras
- remember those?!
In case anyone's forgotten:
http://www.fototime.com/inv/578B6215AD4B332
A single frame from one disc still around, somewhere here.
[...]
My memory is not good in that era, but I think this was from a Kodak disc
camera: flat, convenient, and (apparently) not worth the effort. Seems to
me it broke before I quit using it, but I'm not sure.
I don't think there will be much difference outside the time factor, for
most people, between the way they appreciated photos back then, and the
way they do now, with digital. The world at large is not the same for most
people, compared to the denizens of a rec.photo.* group. My non-photbug
friends, relatives, and acquaintances just plain don't remark on anything
beyond the quickness and the content of photos, including snapshots and
serious stuff. They almost invariably lose track of everything but what is
going on in the image.
If by "we" you mean people who attend these Usenet gatherings, Yup. Lotsa
difference in the way we appreciate photos. It takes relatively little
effort to generate myriad versions of any image. We _know_ that, and it
underlies our apprehension of any photo that falls under our gaze. While a
film photo image is never really the last of the last, as long as
negatives, slides, or scanners exist, the cheap (in terms of time and
effort) chance to change a digital photo lends a different aura to the
experience of viewing. There is always that tickle in the back of our
consciousnesses: "Maybe a slightly different crop? More/less sharpening?
More/less contrast/brightness/vividity?"
All that apart from the "Who does s/he think s/he is kidding; that's not a
photograph, it's a graphic!" factor.
--
Frank ess
.
- Prev by Date: Re: urgent Compact Advice
- Next by Date: Re: WiFi CF cards?
- Previous by thread: Nikon D80 Hands-on Preview
- Next by thread: Re: what's the best lens for my purposes???
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
