Has digital technology shaped the aesthetics of photography

[blockend]

There's an interesting and not entirely flattering anecdote regarding Ansel Adams in the current https://filmphotographyproject.com/podcast/2018/01/film-photography-podcast-181/
From about 52 minutes.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Here's a perspective from one of Adam's former assistants.
https://www.alanrossphotography.com/would-ansel-adams-shoot-digital/

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Look at the positive side of progress. There was no use for hula hoops once that fad ended. At least selfie sticks can be repurposed for growing tomato vines.

Year before last, I found a selfie stick in the woods. I didn't know what it was until a friend described it's use, I was kind of gobsmacked.
When I found the thing I was carrying a '36 Contax II.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Look at the positive side of progress. There was no use for hula hoops once that fad ended. At least selfie sticks can be repurposed for growing tomato vines.

How about this?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

How about this?

That appears to be a telescoping baton...

 

[jim10219]

That appears to be a telescoping baton...

Either way it's great for combating slow moving, unarmed, attackers who can't take a hit and are willing to pause for long periods of time to let you prepare for your next move.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Either way it's great for combating slow moving, unarmed, attackers who can't take a hit and are willing to pause for long periods of time to let you prepare for your next move.

Yootoob is full of...

 

[Ivo]

The overall image quality found on analogue forums is in general dramatically boring. That is because a number of analogue amateurs are only focusing on the perfect negatives and or print. The content of the images is often neglected.

It is not better on digital forums, but for different reason. (Image diarrhea, over processing and lack of photographic knowledge)

In that sense, it didn’t change a thing. A huge pile of boring pictures.




.......

Of coarse digital photography changed the whole photography business and imagery

Just as the celluloid did in glass era, as 35mm did, as the first zoom lens did, etc.

Photography is a technical driven form of expression, technical evolution changes the outcome.

 

[blockend]

The overall image quality found on analogue forums is in general dramatically boring. That is because a number of analogue amateurs are only focusing on the perfect negatives and or print. The content of the images is often neglected.

It is not better on digital forums, but for different reason. (Image diarrhea, over processing and lack of photographic knowledge)

In that sense, it didn’t change a thing. A huge pile of boring pictures.




.......

Of coarse digital photography changed the whole photography business and imagery

Just as the celluloid did in glass era, as 35mm did, as the first zoom lens did, etc.

Photography is a technical driven form of expression, technical evolution changes the outcome.

Hard to disagree with any of that. One of the most difficult things in photography is developing good editing instincts. Digital made that even harder. I took an M43 camera out on snowy moorland this morning and shot 80+ images in about an hour. Maybe a couple of keepers, though all are perfectly exposed (1 1/3 stops over indicated, give or take). None I'd frame. If I'd taken a film camera as I generally do, I'd have shot around 15-20.

If I shot digital exclusively I'd have tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of photographs. The number of keepers is the same, but the fillers and just-in-case stuff increases exponentially with digital.

 

[faberryman]

Hard to disagree with any of that. One of the most difficult things in photography is developing good editing instincts. Digital made that even harder. I took an M43 camera out on snowy moorland this morning and shot 80+ images in about an hour. Maybe a couple of keepers, though all are perfectly exposed (1 1/3 stops over indicated, give or take). None I'd frame. If I'd taken a film camera as I generally do, I'd have shot around 15-20.

If I shot digital exclusively I'd have tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of photographs. The number of keepers is the same, but the fillers and just-in-case stuff increases exponentially with digital.

Why do you take more digital images than film images?

 

[blockend]

Why do you take more digital images than film images?

Good question. Probably because I generally shoot people, and need the coverage. Digital allows for almost infinite shots from which to choose decisive moments - 30fps on the Panasonic.

 

[faberryman]

Good question. Probably because I generally shoot people, and need the coverage. Digital allows for almost infinite shots from which to choose decisive moments - 30fps on the Panasonic.

I was asking in context of your snow shots this morning. You said you shot 80+ digital images, but if you had been shooting film, you would have only shot 15-20. Curious.

 

[moose10101]

I was asking in context of your snow shots this morning. You said you shot 80+ digital images, but if you had been shooting film, you would have only shot 15-20. Curious.

I shoot about 2x using digital vs. film, because of the immediate feedback and opportunity for experimentation. My keeper % also improved.

 

[Ivo]

Good question. Probably because I generally shoot people, and need the coverage. Digital allows for almost infinite shots from which to choose decisive moments - 30fps on the Panasonic.

The only analogue technique I use is 8x10” on positive direct paper. Typically I make 2 portraits on one day.
For my commissioned (real estate) work I use Canon FF and TS lenses. Max 40 shots per assignment.
My family shots are on Instax Wide, 3 shots per family party.
For the rest I use a Fujifilm x100f and xpro2. Someday I carry around the camera and take no pictures.
Over time I became very picky on what I shoot. If not everything looks good in my mind, I rather don’t shoot. (This does not mean I don’t have a collection of unbelievable boring shots on my HD)
Of coars, photography is a bit like football, you don’t have to score each time you touch the ball. The game on such is fun to play.

 

[blockend]

The only analogue technique I use is 8x10” on positive direct paper. Typically I make 2 portraits on one day.
For my commissioned (real estate) work I use Canon FF and TS lenses. Max 40 shots per assignment.
My family shots are on Instax Wide, 3 shots per family party.
For the rest I use a Fujifilm x100f and xpro2. Someday I carry around the camera and take no pictures.
Over time I became very picky on what I shoot. If not everything looks good in my mind, I rather don’t shoot. (This does not mean I don’t have a collection of unbelievable boring shots on my HD)
Of coars, photography is a bit like football, you don’t have to score each time you touch the ball. The game on such is fun to play.

It's a fair point. I spent many years taking highly composed shots with a tight rein on the shutter. Looking back, while I like many of those shots and have them framed around the house, some of the most interesting stuff was shot casually, finishing a film or whatever. So for me it's important to make a place where happy accidents can take place, and that means not being too prescriptive regarding subject or technique.

Like any creative pursuit, photography demands technical proficiency and an understanding of its rules, but to move on means throwing them away or at least putting them in context. One example: last week I got a shot of my wife and the dog. We were out walking, she was on the phone and the dog walked ahead, unremarkable stuff. It was dull, drizzling and wooded I had 100 ASA film and was shooting at f2.8. The dog had climbed a hillock and towers over us, out of focus looking like a stag. It's a timeless shot, a keeper made so because I didn't have time to mess with the settings. A digital camera would have nailed focus and exposure somewhere, but the Kiev grabbed what it could.

 

[Ivo]

It's a fair point. I spent many years taking highly composed shots with a tight rein on the shutter. Looking back, while I like many of those shots and have them framed around the house, some of the most interesting stuff was shot casually, finishing a film or whatever. So for me it's important to make a place where happy accidents can take place, and that means not being too prescriptive regarding subject or technique.

Like any creative pursuit, photography demands technical proficiency and an understanding of its rules, but to move on means throwing them away or at least putting them in context. One example: last week I got a shot of my wife and the dog. We were out walking, she was on the phone and the dog walked ahead, unremarkable stuff. It was dull, drizzling and wooded I had 100 ASA film and was shooting at f2.8. The dog had climbed a hillock and towers over us, out of focus looking like a stag. It's a timeless shot, a keeper made so because I didn't have time to mess with the settings. A digital camera would have nailed focus and exposure somewhere, but the Kiev grabbed what it could.

+1

 

[guangong]

I am not even sure that question can even be answered. What aesthetic is being referenced?

If I had to guess I would say that digital has had an impact on photography as it would seem that most changes in technology over the years have affected the craft.

Changes in black and white sensitivity to color.

Changes from black and white to color.

Changes in the format size of film and the cameras used for each format.

Changes from a chemical process to a digital process.

Changes to using software presets to interpet the analog signal being recorded by the sensor.

All of these have certainly impacted the aesthetics of photography. But to make a real change people have to accept those changes. With the rapid success of digital technology I don't think anyone can realistically argue that public tastes have not changed.

Software engineers are now influencing everyone's aesthetics. Aren't you impressed?

After reading all responses, this is probably the most accurate reply.

 

[alanrockwood]

I think that the typical Joe an the street does not particularly like grainy photos. In that respect digital photos, which are more or less grainless, have probably altered the aesthetics of photography. Of course, digital photos taken at high ISO settings have a different sort of noise, and that type of noise is probably more objectionable than grain to a lot of folks.

Maybe another things is that high dynamic range photos are becoming more popular.

Also, panorama shots, which are easy to do on cell phones, are becoming more popular.

 

[jtk]

Since the effective demise of E6 (virtually no remaining labs) there's no alternative to digital photography. Kodak's "reintroduction" is a sad joke...pros shot most of the E6 and they virtually always counted on same or next day processing from now-defunct labs. Mail order processing may be ok for Grandpa, but makes zero sense for everybody else.

 

[faberryman]

Since the effective demise of E6 (virtually no remaining labs) there's no alternative to digital photography. Kodak's "reintroduction" is a sad joke...pros shot most of the E6 and they virtually always counted on same or next day processing from now-defunct labs. Mail order processing may be ok for Grandpa, but makes zero sense for everybody else.

I never had same day processing of my Kodachrome and Ektachrome slides, and I managed okay. Since pros are shooting digital, lack of same day processing shouldn't be a problem. Don't film shooters always deride the instant gratification of digital, and carry on about how wonderful the anticipation of seeing your images is?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

 

[jtk]

I never had same day processing of my Kodachrome and Ektachrome slides, and I managed okay. Since pros are shooting digital, lack of same day processing shouldn't be a problem. Don't film shooters always deride the instant gratification of digital, and carry on about how wonderful the anticipation of seeing your images is?

Kodachrome and Ektachrome were apples/oranges.

Lack of same or next day processing for the MAJORITY of Ektachrome shooters was the specific reason most pros went digital years ago. The pro labs simply quit.

Kodachrome which was mostly used by amateurs, who had no time urgency, didn't even know that Kodak itself offered next day service in our area.. When E6 replaced E4 the market for Kodachrome got even weaker . With good processing, E6 was at least as good visually as Kodachrome and Fujichrome took a lot of that amateur market (remember Velvia?...another film few pros used because it wasn't accurate and Fuji had processing issues Vs Kodak).

Media Generalists, the chrome lab I ran in San Francisco was ran 60+ rolls E4 daily. Our clients were 100%
professionals...we didn't want to deal with amateurs... we were third from the top volume-wise in San Francisco...at a time when the excellent nearby Kodak lab delivered next day to pharmacies and camera stores et al. The very few amateurs shooting Ektachrome back then were happy with whatever their pharmacy offered.

 

[slackercrurster]

OP, sure, each tech has their own look to it and / or +'s / -'s.

 

[slackercrurster]

Kodachrome and Ektachrome were apples/oranges.

Lack of same or next day processing for the MAJORITY of Ektachrome shooters was the specific reason most pros went digital years ago. The pro labs simply quit.

Kodachrome which was mostly used by amateurs, who had no time urgency, didn't even know that Kodak itself offered next day service in our area.. When E6 replaced E4 the market for Kodachrome got even weaker . With good processing, E6 was at least as good visually as Kodachrome and Fujichrome took a lot of that amateur market (remember Velvia?...another film few pros used because it wasn't accurate and Fuji had processing issues Vs Kodak).

Media Generalists, the chrome lab I ran in San Francisco was ran 60+ rolls E4 daily. Our clients were 100%
professionals...we didn't want to deal with amateurs... we were third from the top volume-wise in San Francisco...at a time when the excellent nearby Kodak lab delivered next day to pharmacies and camera stores et al. The very few amateurs shooting Ektachrome back then were happy with whatever their pharmacy offered.

The old Kodachromes are still around. Much of the Ektachrome has faded.

 

[slackercrurster]

i don't think digital technology has changed our aesthetic appreciation or taste / what is considered beatiful in photography. i too have been doing it since
before digital, back when the vhs was around and you could still buy panatomic x.
like bob said a lot of what is being done now had already been done before now it is just easier or faster ... i think we are in exciting times
not only for photography becasue one can make some sort of 1830s print from a minox negative or a 3d tree but because of the things
that haven't even been done yet. i remember having a conversation with someone in around 1994 when holograms went from being SUPER expensive
to being disposable postage stamps &c and i daydreamed outloud about some sort of 3D marker or illuminated
"thing" that people would put up where historic buildings and sites were, kind of like a diorama but different ... a few weeks ago eric rose posted a link to
people making modern 3d printed lithophanes ...
i think the digital technologies have opened up a new world of possibilities for people with creative minds and in a way reinforced what we already knew.

Digital brought us HDR...it grows on you.