Has digital devalued photography?

What has changed drastically (you can blame Scott Kelby for this), is we no longer believe what we see if presented as a photo.

Even journalist have been caught manipulating images. That brought in a "shadow of doubt" to all photo-journalism.

i don't think it has devalued photography. If anythinh it has grouped some activities in to less steps.
When I was using my Contax 139, I would have to
1) take a handheld meter reading or rely on the sunny 16 rule , which usually caused everything to be double checked.
2) Adjust the camera to the settings from 1)
3) manually focus the shot
4) Take the shot
5) bracket to be safe

Now with the digital camera I can
1) Meter through the camera
2) Let the camera auto focus, in most cases
3) take the shot
4) Bracket to be safe

It is only the difference of one step but the time overall can become shorter with the Digital camera.

Also with my current camera i can play point and shoot if I feel like it where as my film camera need to be set for each shot.

Like many things it's devalued it and enhanced it. There are techniques people can use to edit photos digitally that they couldn't do w/film (or it was difficult and time consuming). I think it's been the internet more than digital cameras that has devalued photography, where everybody can put their photos 'out there' so easily and sell them for next to nothing. But in time I think the novelty will wear off and people will get tired of bad photos and want to get back to hiring a pro w/some talent (we've seen enough stories on here where people found a photographer online, went cheap, and all they had to show for their wedding were a lot of bad pictures.)

I think there have been pro photographers in journalism who were fired for essentially 'lying' by editing something in or out of an image; now if a photo is altered a responsible journalist would cite it as a photo illustration. With there being so much online I think you need to look at the source of the information to determine if it's reliable or not.

There's really no need most of the time to digitally remove something from your image - move your feet and you can reframe your shot. Changing the vantage point can get the shot you want (although there are times that isn't feasible). It does seem like people tend to rely on editing later rather than composing a shot well to start with, and digital makes that easier than film.

I haven't done much digital photography yet and am still learning and using more auto than manual settings, but I do very little in Photoshop besides maybe a little cropping - I compose the shot I want in the first place. I do that when I'm using a film camera or a digital camera (or a pinhole camera!). It's not so much which technology you use or if you combine both, it's developing the skills to get good photos. That's what I think we're seeing, the internet makes it easier for people to put bad photos out there in cyberspace.

icepics wrote: Like many things it's devalued it and enhanced it. There are techniques people can use to edit photos digitally that they couldn't do w/film (or it was difficult and time consuming). I think it's been the internet more than digital cameras that has devalued photography, where everybody can put their photos 'out there' so easily and sell them for next to nothing. But in time I think the novelty will wear off and people will get tired of bad photos and want to get back to hiring a pro w/some talent (we've seen enough stories on here where people found a photographer online, went cheap, and all they had to show for their wedding were a lot of bad pictures.)

I think there have been pro photographers in journalism who were fired for essentially 'lying' by editing something in or out of an image; now if a photo is altered a responsible journalist would cite it as a photo illustration. With there being so much online I think you need to look at the source of the information to determine if it's reliable or not.

There's really no need most of the time to digitally remove something from your image - move your feet and you can reframe your shot. Changing the vantage point can get the shot you want (although there are times that isn't feasible). It does seem like people tend to rely on editing later rather than composing a shot well to start with, and digital makes that easier than film.

I haven't done much digital photography yet and am still learning and using more auto than manual settings, but I do very little in Photoshop besides maybe a little cropping - I compose the shot I want in the first place. I do that when I'm using a film camera or a digital camera (or a pinhole camera!). It's not so much which technology you use or if you combine both, it's developing the skills to get good photos. That's what I think we're seeing, the internet makes it easier for people to put bad photos out there in cyberspace.

heck of a post and well said

The Digital world has only ruined photography with the introduction of Photoshop. Too many " Photographers" cannot produce good Photos without spending hours repairing their work on their computer. When do we see an honest picture these days.

Good points, but I believe Photoshop is just another tool to be used by photographers

In many cases digital has spoiled the photography profession. In few cases helping to improve the damaged images or missed moments, document restoration became very lucrative skilled profession. To miss use the digital technology is related to morality and discipline of an individual. In my Photoshop class the second day after teaching the lasso tools, cut, copy paste the students made 200 objectionable images, causing fights among them and damaging the ID of few fellow girl students. In my case I started in 1990 to restore the defective images, correcting color balance and restoring damaged documents. These are some samples.


A man brought this image of his diseased father


Damaged print


Diseased father, B/W image is from ID card


This print was corrected for a Book


Old frame was brought to have new frame in the living room.

AndyCap wrote: The Digital world has only ruined photography with the introduction of Photoshop. Too many " Photographers" cannot produce good Photos without spending hours repairing their work on their computer. When do we see an honest picture these days.

Photoshop is the dark room digitally. All it has done is make the dark room easier and more EFFICIENT. There has never been such thing as an "honest picture".

This has really been an interesting thread to read

LOL I agree. Good opinions here. I do find it interesting how people view this topic.

vapskill wrote: In many cases digital has spoiled the photography profession. In few cases helping to improve the damaged images or missed moments, document restoration became very lucrative skilled profession. To miss use the digital technology is related to morality and discipline of an individual. In my Photoshop class the second day after teaching the lasso tools, cut, copy paste the students made 200 objectionable images, causing fights among them and damaging the ID of few fellow girl students. In my case I started in 1990 to restore the defective images, correcting color balance and restoring damaged documents. These are some samples.

That's some good work there. Just be careful not to "advertise" on here without vendor status.

While the misuse of photoshop you were talking about is related to the morality of the individual (making objectionable images of females). I don't think faking porn is what most people here are talking about when they mention the misuse of photoshop. I think crappy/cartoony HDR is more what they're getting at.

AndyCap wrote: The Digital world has only ruined photography with the introduction of Photoshop. Too many " Photographers" cannot produce good Photos without spending hours repairing their work on their computer. When do we see an honest picture these days.

Repairing or enhancing? Nothing wrong with making a picture better in PS (or another editing program). Like Scotty said above it's just the digital equivalent of the darkroom which has been used since photography begun.

Sometimes too you take a shot knowingly or not that needs to be "repaired" in PS. What's wrong with this? I often take shots of people in a studio and include some of the background that's obviously not intended to get in the shot (light stands etc.) knowing that the angle and the subject are more important than not getting something in the background. Of course I make sure the background object is easy to remove (in the corner or something, not sticking out of their head). This frees me up to be MORE creative and get better angles etc. Photoshop is another tool for the photographer and ultimately the image maker.

In my opinion the difference between a good and a standard photographer is their ability to create images. Seeing the potential in the shot, even if that means taking it knowing they can fix it in post (if the only way to get the shot is to do it this way).

The caveat is that (and I do agree) you should always (where possible) get it right in camera. Just don't let this restrict you to mediocrity.

To answer your question. We see plenty of "honest" pictures (by your definition). They're just really boring.

Thanks Ninja, you appreciated it

Good examples are at the advertising companies, studio artist, without paying any one, miss-using the ideas and images of others, even hiring a photographer, asking to submit prints, then scanning those prints and bluntly returning the prints with comments the client did not 'approve' the prints, shamelessly using the same copied prints in the AD next day and in many other places, creating the stock shots for further use.

I have put these images to prove my point, I love to respect the ethics, never ever any intention to "advertise" my skills.

vapskill wrote: Thanks Ninja, you appreciated it

Good examples are at the advertising companies, studio artist, without paying any one, miss-using the ideas and images of others, even hiring a photographer, asking to submit prints, then scanning those prints and bluntly returning the prints with comments the client did not 'approve' the prints, shamelessly using the same copied prints in the AD next day and in many other places, creating the stock shots for further use.

I have put these images to prove my point, I love to respect the ethics, never ever any intention to "advertise" my skills.

Yes ethics are important, but it's sort of off topic for this discussion. We're talking more about if/how digital has made photography less important or less valuable somehow. How that's defined is up to the individual I suppose.

I know you weren't advertising, you're fine.

digital imaging has helped me to prove, establish my self as solution provider in the field. The established processing labs gave me hell of a trouble by purposely damaging my films and prints to delay the D dates or discredit my work.