Lord knows we don't actually want to view an image, its just enough
to know it is there on the tiny slide in a little box.. what a silly
attitude. There is not a use for an image that does not invovled
scanning it to a file for its output.
Ok a few still may get printed and mounted on wall.. but the images
that will be seen by the most people will be in print or on a
monitor...
Ah yes, the thousands upon thousands of images that, back in the days of film where you had to be really good to get your prints into a gallery, wouldn't rate.
This thread typifies some of the issues of digital photography nowadays, one of which is people are able to produce a multitude of unremarkable images and display them for all the world to see.
So what?
It's one thing to display images of personal value for others to share in your life. It's another thing to post dozens of mediocre images on a website and assume that you are offering quality photos. Just look at how many truly dull, unispired shots are posted on these forums.
This has ALWAYS been a problem in photography. (or just about any other creative medium). Simply by accomplishing the basic process, some people assume they have done something that has inherent merit and quality for everyone. That's simply not the case. My friends and family think some of my powwow photos deserve to be printed in magazines or in galleries. I disagree, because I recognize the shortcomings they have in either technical quality or composition.
In short, just because a person can take a technically excellent photo in digital doesn't mean the rest of the world should be impressed, if the photo lacks any true artistic merit.
And therein is the crux of this debate. People crow on about the superior quality of digital, based on specs and pixel peeping, without any apparent concern for aesthetics or artistry. (But, that's to be expected on these forums which are mostly devoted to gear, for gear's sake.)
The fact is, the ease with which digital allows for a great number of technically competent images to be produced and displayed is, aesthetically speaking, digital's own worst enemy. When someone (on another thread) bemoans how they fill up their CF cards in one day (taking what must be 400 to 500 captures) then I have to ask myself "What the heck is he shooting?" Then when people doing that say they have "a couple of really good keepers" my suspicions that they are snapping anything that looks the least bit interesting, and sorting through the images letter for descent shots, is confirmed.
Now, don't get me wrong: if that is how a person prefers to work and is satisfied with the results, great. If he/she happens to also produce images truly worth displaying to others for more than emotional reasons, even better.
But please, don't assume that making 500 captures to come up with half a dozen decent images is evidence of competency in the craft of photgraphy.
Therein is my point: person A takes 500 digital shots and comes up with half a dozen good ones. He claims his digital is superior to film. Person B shoots film: the constraints of that medium force him to take 100 shots for the 500 the dslr shooter takes. Person B has thought through the process more, and as a result comes up with 20 keepers compared to person A's half dozen. (By this I mean images that would be considered pro-calibre, "money shots" or worthy of publication by a third party) Who is the better photographer?
Digital has many advantages over film. Aesthetically, though, it's wrong to make blanket statements or assumptions that digital is inherently superior to film.
Btw the person saying that making a print from a slide involves the same process as making a print from digital must not know how "wet" labs work. Also must not know why there are still a great many pros, many of them in the fine art field, who still prefer shooting medium and large format chromes or negs to digital specifically because they are "merely" going to produce gallery quality prints to display on gallery walls (or on the walls of those who purchase them).
So a couple of responses to my comment indicate two things: first, not reading that I pointed out that film and digital give decidedly different results in certain applications. Second, perhaps not understanding that photography is much bigger than slapping a couple of decent shots on your picasa or pbase page.
Perhaps a little less hubris and competitiveness, and a little more photography for the sake of pure enjoyment is in order for some people?
