| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/09/2004 05:26:36 PM · #26 |
I don't know that it's the point-and-shoot digital, digital, or just cultural changes that are driving a decline in photographic quality, but it can be seen in more places than just this one alumni magazine. I recently looked at a very expensive high school year book where many photos where improperly exposed and/or just plain out of focus. This could have been bad photography or problems in the editing of the publication but in either case it was shocking.
I think that there are two challenges the serious photographers (amateur or pro) will have to contend with:
1) Digital makes photography more accessible and we have many more images making it into the public domain. Digital has made everybody an amateur photography which somehow seems to eat away at those who are serious amateurs.
2) Automation (autoexposure and focus) allows more people to take techncially good pictures. This automation can help a pro get an important image they might have missed before but it also helps the casual user create a technically sound, and uninteresting, picture of their favorite pet. It used to be that you had to know a little bit about photography before you would get any results, now anybody can get technically sound results. While I suppose this is good in general, it does dilute the pool of meaningful photographs that are circulated.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2004 06:23:46 PM · #27 |
I hate to admit it, but the printer could have ruined the job too ... whether traditional offset or even on a digital press.
I do always shoot at maximum resolution (not that much!) for my camera, except one time when I had to take a large number of "mug shots" for a student directory which we knew were only going to be printed tiny. |
|
|
|
07/09/2004 06:43:46 PM · #28 |
This magazine is just an example. It is a very high end magazine, with glossy pages, and nice layout, and the non photo images are very good. It's the photography they were given to work with. Some of it is good. Either high end digital or from film, but most of it is obviously just poor quality from digital cameras. They are not printed large. MAX= 3 inches on the long side. On some photos, you can barely make out the faces on the subject through all the digital noise.
My point I'm trying to make is people are faced with this new technology and are not properly instructed on how to use it. They probably don't read the manuals, beyond the basics. You have to admit, how many people REALLY understand resolution and it's effect on printed images?
Just look at this site. Many times you see questions in the forums about somebody needing help creating printable files. Luckily we have many gifted people here who are willing to share their knowledge. We have tutorials, etc to help us understand the whole complicated technical sides to digital photography.
Most people, though, do not come to this site and just go through life clicking away with their, sometimes even high end, cameras, without having a clue about what they are doing.
In the digital age, you also need to have some clue about the technical side, not just the basic of photography.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2004 06:58:01 PM · #29 |
I think it's really cool that the students at your former high school are embracing digital photography and that you are trying to stand up for photographic quality - both very admirable efforts. It sounds like this is a perfect opportunity for you to send a message to the magazine editor to ask if you can put on a workshop for the magazine and yearbook club members to teach them the basics of digital photography. I bet they'd love to have you!
|
|
|
|
07/09/2004 07:05:04 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
40 years ago,
SYNTHESISERS WILL RUIN MUSIC!!
Discuss... |
Is that REALLY 40 years ago?.. my god I must be old. I can remember the school having a synthesiser that looked like an X-Ray machine but it was fun to play around with, In fact I went on to become a Bass Player / songwriter and quite like the effects of a synth, I now run a semi-pro recording studio here in Japan but on to my point on this issue - I think that if you have a low end P&S digicam and you want to take pics and post them here for comment etc etc do as you wish with it but if it is for a pro/semi-pro magazine of something, especialy a wedding I think the person here has a point (and shoot). I would say the low end images produced by a 1.3 - 2MP camera needs to be set to MAX quality to get reasonable prints out but with a little help from photoshop I have seen them produce nice clear images (I had the Sony DSC-U50(2mp)). If you consider yourself to be a pro-semi-pro outfit then I would expect the person also to have a Camera of similar (if not better) quality to mine.
Bottom line is - Free world, Free choice, don't like the magazine photography??, complain to the editor.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2004 07:09:10 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by mariomel:
In the most recent edition, I observed something very odd. All the photos were VERY grainy. But not grainy in a BW sense. Grainy as in DIGITAL NOISE! It was really horrible. None of the images were sharp, and most people looked blotchy and bad. I thought about it for a while and came to a conclusion. These photos are mostly taken by students and the like, during events and functions at the school. These students are most likely equipped with small, portable 2-3 megapixel cameras, which are probably set at low or medium resolution, at best, in order to maximize the number of pics they can take. When the editors of the magazine prepare an edition they pick from the files they are given by the students. These are very LOW RES images, and in turn make for a very crappy reproduction in the final magazine. |
Have you voiced your opinion or written to the magazine? It's their fault for printing such garble. They should have had a staff or 'know-it-all' student photographer take the shots as a volunteer and used those instead.
Don't blame the cameras. You can take great shots with them, but yeah... not right for printing. Small file sizes are best for the web, and not everyone understands this. So, it's the magazine's fault!
|
|
|
|
07/09/2004 09:32:34 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Lori, did she know she was shooting small? And how small is small on the 10D? |
she knew, they had TONS of CF cards, so there was no real reason, it was just a habit i guess. Not sure how 'small' is small on the 10D but it wasn't good quality...you'd definetly tell when it was blown up, and for weddings, there's a good chance it'll get blown up. |
|
|
|
07/09/2004 09:34:03 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by jamison55:
I shoot grads professionally for the largest Graduation studio in the country, and we use 10D's and D1's at Low Q/High Compression. The files end up being about 650-800k and make just fine 8x10's when printed by our pro studio. Since I just take the pics, I don't know what magic they perform to pull this off, but it seems to work out. (I personally shoot in Large/Medium quality on my DReb and 5050). |
I'd say it's the magic in the pro studio :-) |
|
|
|
07/09/2004 09:35:50 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by JoelHSmith:
My knee-jerk reaction to seeing grainy photos printed is "What a moron!" or "Look at this crap photo!"
Then..... I take a deep breath and realize that if they didn't have a point and shoot digi-cam there prolly would not have been a photo taken.... and then the moment would be forgotten.
A lousy photo is better than no photo at all. A photo does not have to be 6 mega pixil or technically proficiant to conjure up a fond memory or capture an important moment in life.
Try to remember when you bought your first camera. Avoid becoming a D-SLR snob. Not all photography needs to be art.... it just needs to be beautiful to the person who took it. |
I guess it also depends on how much grain you're talkign about, I know professionals using only digital who intentionally add a wee bit of grain to portraits so they look like film and minimizes all the extra [and gross] detail digital picks up, like huge pores and facial hair. |
|
|
|
07/09/2004 09:49:05 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by JoelHSmith:
Avoid becoming a D-SLR snob. |
How refreshing to see that comment coming from someone who has a D-SLR.
I wish I had a background in film so I could say with the same authority "Avoid becoming a film snob." |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/17/2025 03:29:28 PM EDT.
