tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post4145591872160630809..comments2024-03-28T18:47:26.619-04:00Comments on Face to Face: Digital creep, even after shooting on film: The decline of printsagnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-55783927709477639932014-09-23T10:03:06.823-04:002014-09-23T10:03:06.823-04:00"Buyers (including businesses) are simply unw..."Buyers (including businesses) are simply unwilling to pay a reasonable price for a photographer to do a shoot."<br /><br />And even when they do get work, it's more and more freelance assignments than having been hired as an in-house photographer (newspaper, magazine), or being on the staff at a photo / visual media firm. Bye-bye to job security in "the gig economy."agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-12454543887156027082014-09-22T09:38:42.783-04:002014-09-22T09:38:42.783-04:00I mostly take pictures of loved ones, but I notice...I mostly take pictures of loved ones, but I notice when I do get my digital pictures developed, something just looks "off" about them, compared to old family photos. Must be a product of digitalization.FWGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-2615487580671809722014-09-22T00:06:34.129-04:002014-09-22T00:06:34.129-04:00As a side note, I have heard through acquaintances...As a side note, I have heard through acquaintances that photography as a profession has been devastated in recent years. Buyers (including businesses) are simply unwilling to pay a reasonable price for a photographer to do a shoot.Udolphohttp://mpcdot.com/forumsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-39277392933480841722014-09-21T23:33:15.467-04:002014-09-21T23:33:15.467-04:00Photography was already in the hands of the masses...Photography was already in the hands of the masses way back in the 1990s, before digital took over. How else do we have so many shoeboxes full of pictures from the Midcentury onward?<br /><br />Only now we have not hundreds but thousands or millions of pictures taken and shared by a family... approximately zero of which are being archived by the family, let alone being re-visisted by the family afterward.<br /><br />How can that be -- shouldn't the top 10 pictures be a far more elite percentile when they're culled from 10,000 than from only 100? Why do they still look so weak and boring?<br /><br />It's because the mindset of people using digital vs. film cameras is different. You're shooting digital primarily to communicate information -- the who, what, when, where, why, and how regarding your lunch today. You're only capturing and sending that info via a visual medium because it's quicker and more convenient than typing out words.<br /><br />Your visual interest and the viewer's will not be engaged because that wasn't the point -- only to let the world know what quirky meal you had, at which quirky restaurant, in which quirky neighborhood, with which of your quirky friends, etc etc etc. It's the visual version of being a blabbermouth.<br /><br />In the film days, you didn't point and shoot every single micro-event of the day. You took it on trips, for events that were more intense than ordinary life, special occasions, and only somewhat to candidly capture daily life. Hence the subjects were of greater interest, and strike a deeper resonance with the viewer.<br /><br />This is not a difference owing to the properties of digital vs. film per se, but to the mindsets that people are in when they adopt digital vs. film. Digital is ultra-convenient, which puts people in a braindead state, while film cost more money and took more time to get the results, so folks were more selective and thoughtful about what they shot.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-9670066984792225792014-09-21T21:25:08.723-04:002014-09-21T21:25:08.723-04:00Digital photography seems to have made photography...Digital photography seems to have made photography more accesible to the masses. Yet a photographer I know thinks it has also promoted mediocrity and made it harder to sift through and find good work. I wonder if this is related to a larger trend you see with cocooning - the Internet comes to mind, and all its bad websites and confusion.Curtisnoreply@blogger.com