Lastly, If you are a traditional photographer, you can easily move on to digital photography, but if you are a digital photographer, it will take more time to start with traditional photography. So both have their place, and one cannot take the other neither we can prioritize them. After reading the differences between digital and traditional photography and cameras , we see both have positives and negatives.
However, the knowledge you acquired in the digital cameras helps you understanding the pictures and cameras more. Table of Contents 1 What is Traditional Photography? In contrast, the film would require extra hours and lost film. Film cameras are time and money investment. The cost of film, developing, and scanning adds up over time. The best way to save some money is to develop the images yourself — after investing in the right chemicals and equipment.
You can choose to send your film roll to a company that processes photos for you, but it takes more time than if you do it yourself. There are also extra costs associated to scanning your photos to get them up online. Taking and editing photos if you already have a computer is free. The only real cost you might run into is printing the images with an inkjet printer or having another company print your images. There are increasing privacy concerns about digital cameras.
For example, cell phone cameras embed location data in images and when those images are uploaded to social media sites, people are able to mine the location date.
Digital cameras have an automatic function that controls exposure and focuses for you. This makes it easier to be as precise as possible when taking digital images. Severe under or overexposure can be difficult to fix in editing. A good photo taken via analog is typically higher in quality. Film photography also has a higher dynamic range, better color transitions, and controls highlights better. On the other hand, digital handles shadow better.
When thinking of convenience and time spent on analog vs. For quick and efficient photos, digital is the way to go. If you have the time to invest in analog photography, the photo quality could be well worth it. The same shooting process, processing, scanning, and editing can take up to three or more days. If you send your film to a company to develop the negatives for you, it could take much longer.
If you decide to develop the images yourself, you need to know everything about working with chemicals and the best scanners to digitalize your pictures. You also need a lot of time on your hands. I don't enter a lot of competitions so I am not well informed about is happening with the different venues but I suspect there are different ground rules and different categories that deal with this. Re: Photography vs Digital Image In the spirit of a philosophical discussion let us look at the bigger picture pun intended.
The word "image" has so many definitions that it is safe to say that every photograph sometimes referred to as a "shot" or a "capture" on photo forums is an image and any work of art created on digital media is a digital image. There are some examples of digital images, like a disc ISO image, that have nothing to do with either ISO or image concepts in photography though. Neither can be classified as photographs but both can be digital images. So an X-ray image is technically a photograph, whereas an ultrasound scan is not a photograph but is certainly an image.
So, how much do you need to manipulate a digital photograph for it to stop being a photograph? I do not think there is a clear cut answer to this. Some subtle manipulations are certainly allowed and have been applied by most people who take digital photos the "digital" part just makes it very easy to do. I think it is more a question of perception of the final product rather what has been done to achieve it. An edited photograph can be turned into an arty or cartoony image that most people would struggle to call a photograph because it looks unreal.
Re: Photography vs Digital Image I just have to ask: are painted negatives photos Re: Photography vs Digital Image Descriptions using real or unreal, as a basis for deciding whether an image is a photograph, are certain to put the discussion onto difficult and dodgy ground. How real does it need to be? A sky darkened by a graduated ND filter does not always look real; flowing water smoothed by a slow shutter speed does not look real; very few monochrome images would look real to normal human vision!
But it seems likely that most visitors to CiC would regard such images as photographs. I agree with Mike on the general point. I don't find these sorts of binary distinctions helpful. Every image is modified to some degree, even if you shoot jpeg and do nothing more with it. The choice of picture style in that case determines how it is modified. The modifications are on a continuum.
I don't see why tonality and detail enhancement are different from many other edits in that respect. Is an otherwise realistic portrait with one blemish cloned out less a 'photograph' than a landscape that has endured the extreme tonality adjustments many people do with HDR software? The former is a lot more realistic than the latter.
I find it more useful to think of a continuum of realism. When I do macro shots, my goal is a very high level of realism, and most of my postprocessing is designed with that in mind. For example, I use focus stacking to bring out more of the detail that is actually present. First, the "image" is a photo of a computer keyboard that was altered by a computer. It shows where the bumps on a keyboard are positioned by circling the bumps on the F and J keys.
Next, the "photo" is a photograph of a man setting up photographs at a local market taken by a digital camera.
Finally, the "picture" is of a man holding up a Computer Hope logo that was all created using a computer. If you're following a style guide that prefers one of these words over another, we suggest following your style guidelines.
0コメント