DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> digital photography-helping or harming society
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 10 of 10, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/08/2007 07:53:59 PM · #1
I was just wondering what everyone thinks:

Is digital photography helping or harming our society?

Examples: digital camera phones invade privacy but can help record crime; digital cameras are causing film companies to lose business; etc.
06/08/2007 08:03:20 PM · #2
Originally posted by rtscribbs02:

I was just wondering what everyone thinks:

Is digital photography helping or harming our society?

Examples: digital camera phones invade privacy but can help record crime; digital cameras are causing film companies to lose business; etc.


As far as other companies loosing business I would like to quote Danny Devito in Other Peoples Money - "And you know the surest way to go broke? Keep getting an increasing share of a shrinking market. Down the tubes. Slow but sure. You know, at one time there must've been dozens of companies making buggy whips. And I'll bet the last company around was the one that made the best goddamn buggy whip you ever saw. Now how would you have liked to have been a stockholder in that company?"
06/08/2007 08:35:11 PM · #3
I think Kodak and Fuji are fine, Ilford is probably having a rougher time.

No, it's not hurting society. Cameras don't kill privacy, people kill privacy.
06/08/2007 08:44:47 PM · #4
Originally posted by wavelength:

I think Kodak and Fuji are fine, Ilford is probably having a rougher time.

No, it's not hurting society. Cameras don't kill privacy, people kill privacy.


Any company in danger of going out of business just as a trend of technology should already have a 10 to 20 year plan. There is always a change in 20 years more then say what 80% of current "import performance" companys wont even exist and those still around wont be doing what they did when they started". There is a certain point in time when a company needs to cash out or move into something else maybe even related.

Film companies. Film companies are much bigger then consumer 35mm or even pro for that matter or medium format, but it does make them or atleast did make them alot of money. Plenty of other kinds of films and film processes needed for all sorts of applications. I currently have 5 film SLR's and my collection is growing by the week everything from 1973 to 1997 at the moment. I use them all the time. I like digital better but I also like manual camera's.

This isnt a new thing people and organizations have always had to change or cease to exist. If they plan ahead successful companys wont go out of buisness but rather cease to exist.

Message edited by author 2007-06-08 20:45:55.
06/08/2007 09:07:53 PM · #5
Originally posted by rtscribbs02:

I was just wondering what everyone thinks:

Is digital photography helping or harming our society?

Examples: digital camera phones invade privacy but can help record crime; digital cameras are causing film companies to lose business; etc.


wire taps invade privacy too. smile, it's all for "protection."

seriously though, with any advance there will be a little backlash. Just like there was against photography when it first started because it was a low class way to get a portrait done when it all used to be paintings. and the start of the "talkies" kicking out silent films. lol.

its just progress and that's how it goes. out with the old and in with the new. Though the old often sticks around in some obscur or professional form. It's all us middle people that go with the new stuff!
06/08/2007 09:16:19 PM · #6
The film companies have to adapt to current technology, business has always been that way.

But I think generally Digital is a help to society because it's cheap and fast. There are many more family photos taken without the expense of developing and those images are shared easily with distant family in a way that is not possible with film. News and social commentary is now almost immediate, whatever happens in the world someone is there with at least a camera phone to capture the moment and bring it to the world. We can be more informed and often bypass the filters that media companies impose on the news to have a better understanding of what's really going on in the world outside our door.
06/08/2007 09:19:09 PM · #7
on the other had we just collect digital junk and a lot of people (like me!) are not active about printing it.

you can't just plop a bunch of cds in a shoe box for your ancestors.

soo... it's all relative. we may have access to a million times more pictures fast and now but then again we have to make sure we treasure the good ones.
06/08/2007 09:35:43 PM · #8
The more of anything that there is, the more of the possible outcomes will become reality more often.

This YouTube video in Japan or somewhere, kids were video taping each other pull down girls dresses right out in the street in front of anybody. Hope they got punished somehow for that. That could affect the minds of young kids in society who watch it and think it is funny.

Digital is definitely better than film though.

But back to my original statement, More people, More small digital recorders for video or sound = More of both good and bad uses of them.
06/08/2007 09:41:08 PM · #9
Originally posted by ssodell:

The more of anything that there is, the more of the possible outcomes will become reality more often.

This YouTube video in Japan or somewhere, kids were video taping each other pull down girls dresses right out in the street in front of anybody. Hope they got punished somehow for that. That could affect the minds of young kids in society who watch it and think it is funny.

Digital is definitely better than film though.

But back to my original statement, More people, More small digital recorders for video or sound = More of both good and bad uses of them.


that's horrible. and again people will argue it's the people that do it not the technology, but without the technology it wouldn't reach so much of an audience. same thing with guns. sure there will always be killers but it's not as likely to kill as many with a bat or a sword. The huge difference here is cameras have a wide variety of useful purposes where as hand guns, not as much.

sorry... didn't mean to open up a can of worms...
06/08/2007 11:06:27 PM · #10
Originally posted by Wildcard:

... News and social commentary is now almost immediate, whatever happens in the world someone is there with at least a camera phone to capture the moment and bring it to the world. We can be more informed and often bypass the filters that media companies impose on the news to have a better understanding of what's really going on in the world outside our door.


Digital photography has nothing to do with being more informed, and the filters that media companies impose on the news are still in place, and more prevalent then ever, at least in the US. Digital photography allows for manipulation of images, even though at this time, journalists declare their abhorance of it. Problem is that jounalists don't own the main stream media outlets, corporations and businessmen/women do with profit margins to attain and investors to satisfy.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 04:41:22 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 04:41:22 AM EDT.