Actually, what I was saying had nothing to do with digital, per se. What I said was that over the past few years, with the advent of media needing more pictures faster, the spread of images on the web which can be posted by anyone with any type of equipment at any level of skill, the overall quality of photographs has dropped. It's not JUST with digital cameras, but, since their use is expanding exponentially, and we perhaps get to see more digitally created images, the use of digital cameras has to be considered a contributing factor. Since I can now place my photos on the web for anyone to see, their presence also contributes to the overall quality of photography, good or bad. It didn't used to do that outside of a small local area where I may have had a show. Now more people can see my work - your work - in a matter of minutes than might have seen it in weeks of an exhibition. And the damned photos are viewed at a 600 x 400 pixel size that does nothing to show their true quality, good or bad.
Now, since most people have never seen exhibition quality prints, B&W or color, film or digital, their points of reference becomes the overall lower quality of images that flood the world today. Those lower quality images become the standard by which other images are judged by most average people. That's the standard that they strive for because they know no better. Their exposure to photography has been through lower quality images - those posted to the web, printed in magazines and books, on television and in newspapers. In a way it's like food: most people in the US today have never eaten absolutely fresh fruit, fruit picked that morning and eaten within hours. So, for most people, fresh strawberries are judged by older, chemically treated berries, maybe even berries from another country. Until those people eat a truly fresh berry, grown in rich, fertile soil, they will never know what they are missing. Recently I had a brief discussion with a picture editor. He said, quite candidly, that he doesn't have time to really look at a picture ... he makes his assessment on an immediate impression. And while that's understandable, some photos that have a lot of content, that are designed to have some emotional impact and to tell a story, get overlooked and passed by because they are, in the editor's words, "too subtle to make an impact." We live in a fast world, a world of supersaturated images (just look at the prevalence of highly saturated films that are so frequently used), loud movies, lots of background noise ... all of that must be somehow overcome if one is to be heard. Bigger, brasher, louder is not better. Details are lost in the fury. This list has about 600 members. We are all photographers to some degree. However, I'm willing to bet lunch that the majority of the list members have NEVER seen the kinds of photographs I'm describing ... of course, how many of the 600 will step forward to admit that. What I read on this list a lot is that the photos the members make are "good enough" or "acceptable" for their needs. There's nothing wrong with that ... it's just a shame that so few people today have the desire or the time to produce something great. To work, perhaps, a week or more on a photograph until it's perfect, until it sings and leaps off the paper. Good enough is, obviously, good enough. And every person that has said their work is "good enough" makes my point. Not that it's wrong to make average quality prints for viewing in average situations, but because average has become something for many people to aspire to because they don't know any better. Now, if you digital divas want to say that I'm condemning digital, go ahead. Enjoy your little fantasy that I'm a blowhard and am down on digital cameras. I'm down on mediocrity ... and if your digital work is mediocre, and you don't aspire to making better quality images or photos, if all you want to do is talk about the technical stuff that goes on inside a camera or resides hidden in software instead of talking about and trying to make great photographs, so be it. Ciao 4 now graywolf wrote: > > Shel, does not say you can not take good photos with a digital camera, > he says the percentage of those who do is going down. That is true on the face > of it. "I like my digital camera", is far different from, "You should throw away > your film and go digital like I did", which is what you some others seem to be > preaching.
