Has digital devalued photography?

Photography has been fairly easy for coming up on 125 years now. It was the introduction of roll film and send-out processing and printing that made it so anyone who wanted to could become a photographer. In my opinion print film is still the most goof-proof photographic method out there: get the exposure right within a few stops, and drop it off at the lab. They return decent prints. How does it get any easier?

Digital requires more exposure accuracy than print film, and probably some understanding of processing. The thing about digital is that the instant feedback makes it a lot more fun. A lot of folks who were perfectly capable of learning photography never did because having to wait for photos kept them from getting into it. Fun is inspirational. People see their pics right away, and keep on working, practicing, and learning. There are more folks studying photography than ever, and in some photography markets that means there is more supply than demand.

When I worked in a photo lab in the 1990s we'd get the national stats on how much film people were buying, how many pics they were taking, etc... The national average in the USA was less than 24 exposures a year. Most people weren't even shooting one roll of film a year. I don't know what the numbers are today, but I assume it's risen significantly.

Can we count cell phone pics?

MLKstudios wrote: Can we count cell phone pics?

Sure, that's today's point-n-shoot. Many do a better job than the hollow plastic point-n-shoots of the 80s and 90s. I notice that the local newspaper has a lot less staff photogs these days. For most of their needs a journalist with a cell phone cam is all they send.

Henry Peach wrote:

MLKstudios wrote: Can we count cell phone pics?

Sure, that's today's point-n-shoot. Many do a better job than the hollow plastic point-n-shoots of the 80s and 90s. I notice that the local newspaper has a lot less staff photogs these days. For most of their needs a journalist with a cell phone cam is all they send.

Speaking of which, how many MP's are they up to these days? 8MP?

Henry Peach wrote: Photography has been fairly easy for coming up on 125 years now. It was the introduction of roll film and send-out processing and printing that made it so anyone who wanted to could become a photographer. In my opinion print film is still the most goof-proof photographic method out there: get the exposure right within a few stops, and drop it off at the lab. They return decent prints. How does it get any easier?

Digital requires more exposure accuracy than print film, and probably some understanding of processing. The thing about digital is that the instant feedback makes it a lot more fun. A lot of folks who were perfectly capable of learning photography never did because having to wait for photos kept them from getting into it. Fun is inspirational. People see their pics right away, and keep on working, practicing, and learning. There are more folks studying photography than ever, and in some photography markets that means there is more supply than demand.

When I worked in a photo lab in the 1990s we'd get the national stats on how much film people were buying, how many pics they were taking, etc... The national average in the USA was less than 24 exposures a year. Most people weren't even shooting one roll of film a year. I don't know what the numbers are today, but I assume it's risen significantly.

I agree with most of what you say, apart from that one thing I highlighted bold. Digital these days gets just as much DR as film at a given ISO/ASA number. So long as you shoot RAW that is. So the accuracy needed is even less in some ways. Especially if you're underexposing for the highlights.

Slightly off topic, but related to that. It does seem to me that Canon cameras do highlights better than Nikon and the darks worse. So with Canon it's a good idea to overexpose slightly and bring it down (to reduce noise) and with a nikon it's better to expose for the highlights (underexpose if necessary) and bring it up if need be.

Kid Prodigy wrote: Speaking of which, how many MP's are they up to these days? 8MP?

Mine's 12 mp

I think digital has flooded the market with photos. I think digital medium and digital darkroom tools have expanded the creativity as well as the number of good photographs.
I think the internet has pretty much diluted the value of a printed photograph to a huge degree.
I think the market price for a photograph has dropped drastically due to the mass volume of photographs being taken, posted, sold at a very low price (microstock images being magazine covers now, marketing directors who can point and click to get a 5 dollar image for a marketing piece in second vs having to call a group of photographers and commission or request from stock a perfect image, they find one that will fit.

What it has also done is raise the bar very high for a high value image. Its increased competition into many markets that did not have much before and its driven down the going rate that people can afford (family portraits, weddings in general) or will pay for those services (Hey Walmart only charges $2.50 for an 8x10, who do you think you are changing me $50?)

Its a totally new era in the craft, great technology is out there for those who can afford to buy it but having the technology does not make a great photo, great photographers do,, BUT blind squirrels do find acorns too. problem is they are happy to sell it for a dollar when it could be worth hundreds.

That's why the guilds are so important. They help educate and raise the standards for ALL photographers. If you are in this for the $$, then join something!

Hmmm, good question.

Years ago we had a Canon FTB SLR and both a B/W and Color darkroom and did some processing on our own. What we had to do to get one good picture took several hours (we weren't professionals, just hobbists;) ) and often the results were disappointing. The cost got way out of hand in respect to the results and many photos were tossed.

When digital photography came in with all the new graphic techniques (Our first being a Sony DSC-S70 that we still have), and with our new camera (Canon Powershot SX30 IS) I am having the time of my life experimenting like crazy with Picnik and now Photshop. I can take a "poor picture" and make it into a pretty good picture just by cropping and "tweeking" things digitally. Add a little special effects and now it becomes Art. And If I don't like it, a click of the button and its gone at no cost to me.

Its opened up an whole new era for average people to be able to take really good shots with little work envolved. Its also allowed people to share their photos and to have them critiqued by others on social sites like Flickr and Webshots. Plus having cameras in your cell phone has enabled "at the moment, news worthy photos" to be shared worldwide, in almost seconds.

But because its become so easy, and there are so many people out there taking pictures, the few really good people stand out even more. You still have to know your camera and all its features, then put them to use to make a ordinary photo an extraordinary one.

Digital photography has now -really- become "Art" in all its true senses. Its enabled all of us to improve and find new levels with our picture taking. Not all of us are ment to be "Van Goghs or Michaelangelos" of photography but we can still express ourselves visually and be darn proud of it.

If I may, ask a question in response to the original post? How easy was it before digital came along to remove unwanted elements from a photograph? I started in digital so I truly don't know.
My husband is of the opinion that a photograph doesn't represent the truth anymore, because of the extreme amount of manipulation we are now capable of. (Remove entire buildings, trees, people, head swap, etc).
If this wasn't possible before digital, then I would have to say I agree with him to an extent.

Look at this shot on film:

That's Dali floating around.

MLKstudios wrote: Look at this made in film:

That's Dali floating around.

My new screensaver, I'll make sure the origin is explained:)

MeganPearson wrote: If I may, ask a question in response to the original post? How easy was it before digital came along to remove unwanted elements from a photograph? I started in digital so I truly don't know.
My husband is of the opinion that a photograph doesn't represent the truth anymore, because of the extreme amount of manipulation we are now capable of. (Remove entire buildings, trees, people, head swap, etc).
If this wasn't possible before digital, then I would have to say I agree with him to an extent.

it could be done in the darkroom, how easy,, well it was not that easy at all, and it was not fast, and it cost you money for every mistake you made (paper and chemicals not to mention time), You could take a photo, develop it, then another,, you cut out parts of each to ":mask" areas out, move things around and develop another print... at times you may have to expose things 4 or 5 times, taking into consideration the overall exposure times, You could also dodge and burn things with tools, like a wire with a circle of paper on it to wave around an area to change exposure to light... It could be fun,, you could take out things like a telephone pole in the sky or you could use two or three different negtives to merge them together,,, BUT we could be talking many hours setting in the dark to do it. Now, heck its point click, check it, redo it, point click and your investment is all up front for Photo Shop, Plug Ins, quad core processing power and huge hard drives..
To your husband,, if its a news piece, by a reputable agency, you are seeing what was taken. If its just looking at someones photo on the web, who knows. Contests can be very picky too, no cloning or major edits.. but others welcome the creative too. its a new world of photography since digital and Photo Shop

I think the Dali pic was one of Philippe Halsman's JUMP pictures. He did a whole series of famous people jumping. This is my favorite.

In my opinion - yes.

Nowadays, many photographs if not all have been manipulated and enhanced; thereby changing everything that was captured as seen.

As was mentioned in an earlier post, trees, buildings, etc are added or removed; or for that matter even sceneries have been added.