tangible images
- Started
- Last post
- 31 Responses
- betelgeuse0
Have you heard of ZINK printing technology?
Doesn't require ink cartridges, all the dyes are in the paper and are activated by heat. Small and easy to use I can see these being installed in numerous devices in the next few years (tv's, computers cameras, ect.). If printers like this become widely used I could see people doing more printing.
- never heard of it,thanks for the heads up, this looks promisingepigraph
- epigraph0
Like Hombre_Lobo was saying, I just wonder if people are going to get tired of taking photos just to store them on the hard drive, and want to start having physical prints made, for albums and such.
This has turned into a "who is a real photographer?" discussion, which is cool too, just not what I was getting at.
- yeh many misinterpreted it, myself included, but thankfully i ramble on enough to get back on point!Hombre_Lobo
- bigtrick0
chilamont, get fucked, with your irrelevant stock image posts in every thread
- animatedgif0
ITT pretentious photography nerds who are upset that some hot girl whos daddy bought her a fancy camera gets more attention doing the same hobby than they ever will.
- jaylarson0
i always wonder what kind of photographer i could/would be if there wasn't electricity.
- You'd be a waterfall photographer. Just like now! :DHombre_Lobo
- how would you print photos without electricity?epigraph
- contact printing I guess, assuming you have some darkroom backgroundbetelgeuse
- yeah, i'd probably go back to drawing.jaylarson
- Hombre_Lobo0
I really should print more photos.
I hate this mentality of taking lots of photos and post processing them only to be stored on a hard drive, rarely seen again. What's the point. Flickr is ok though, at least the world/friends can see them.
- +1ali
- Thanks Hombre, this is what I was getting at, and you put it better.epigraph
- lol np, i totally got what you were saying :P
its no fun is it, leaving them to rot on a HDD. get printing!Hombre_Lobo
- Hombre_Lobo0
I do think the trigger happy unconsidered photography approach is a plague though*. I'm so guilty of it.
Instead of taking 30 crap pics I should take my time, use my eyes and take 1 decent pic.
I suspect others on these boards are guilty of it too. Maybe not those guys in the 'show your recent pics' thread :)
*but if it makes the shooter happy, I approve.
- Hombre_Lobo0
@vaxorcist
love the cello joke. So true. Agree with you're post.
*The good photographers will always stand out in the sea of mediocrity.
*the abundance of camera tech just make it more a accessible to the masses, that doesn't make them any more skilled, just accessible.
*the fundament studies of photography will always be the important stuff. I doubt that the average joe who picks up a new cam will be interested in 'undertsanding exposure' or 'a guide to photographic composition'
*The technology is more accessble, but more accessible to everyone including the pros, kinda making it more of a level playing field. If you gave a thousand people paints and a canvas and told them to paint, the good painters will stand out.
*it's very hard to determine if accessibility will raise or reduce the quality level - making the technology so accessible will ultimately push the skill level of as it will be so easy for more people to participate. Counter arguement - when equipment and processes were more complex only those with a real thirst for photography would get involved, overall producing a high level of quality.
I think that now anyone can take a photo, which is great. But it does mean there will be a mass increase in mediocrity. I'm just happy for those who get interested in it and want to learn more and for those who really enjoy it regardless of the images produced :)
- vaxorcist0
1. the learning curve for dedicated learners is shorter. I learned lots when I worked in a lab in the 90's and had unlimited access to free film processing, most people didn't have that luxury. I learned lighting and such before digital, but teaching somebody how to light is easier now than with stacks of polaroids or film processing + notes.
2. Some low-hanging-fruit will dissapear for professional photographers, but those who can do amazing work in difficult circumstances will always do well, if they can market themselves and make sure people know they're better and different than the horde of DSLR owners..
There's an old joke... if you buy a cello, you own a cello, if you buy a camera, you're a photographer. But.. I might add... If you can photograph large chrome objects well, you're a product photographer, not just a guy with a camera (GWC) ... same can be said of other things...
The dirty secret of fashion/lifestyle photographers is that model casting matters quite a bit...
- scarabin0
good photography isn't being threatened.
no matter how many photos are taken all over the world, there will always be the cream of the crop, and by looking at the numbers alone you can be sure that some of it will be genuinely moving photography forward in terms of thinking, execution, style, etc.
access to cheap equipment (camera, apps, whatever) will also inspire amateurs and help them take what might normally be mere dabbling to another level. another good thing.
also, the internet makes sharing photos easy and finding good ones even easier. we're not going to be inundated with crap, we'll just be better at sorting through it
- bigtrick0
slight tangent:
"It would be years past before I finally got my hands on DIGITAL, it would be 2003 when i decided to save some money to buy my very first digital which would be the Canon 300D, a standard zoom - EF-S 18 - 55 mm, another EF 75-300, and a Sandisk Ultra II 512MB, that time, it cost an arm and a half of a leg :). After work in the afternoon, I went to Glenview Park District in Glenview, Illinois and explored the new science of White Balance, ISO settings and the likes.
Downtown Chicago was a favorite location too."
- dibec0
I am not against people taking photos. I totally support that. Please do not get me wrong.
I think I can relate it to it best to graphic design pre-computers. It took a lot of time to create something without a computer, it was painful, well thought out, etc. Film photography was no different. You had to know what you were doing. With technology it has made it effortless, hence diminishing the value of certain styles and techniques.
- betelgeuse0
Growing up there were several occasions where my entire family would get all dressed up and have a professional portrait session done.
All of them look dated and extremely cheesy.
They don't even come close to anything that my dad would do with his cheap point and shoot. I'm very lucky to have had a "snap happy" family. I have countless of the cuff shots of my family that I wouldn't trade for all the studio shots money could buy.
- what do you do with all the photos?epigraph
- I have digital and analogue copies of them.betelgeuse
- bjladams0
^ it also pushes real photographers to refine themselves so that they stick out above the grade.
- bigtrick0
@dibec:
i'm with betelgeuse here. it's great that more people get to take pictures! and, more people are discovering their own visual talents as photographers now - a natural side effect of having more people with cameras.
the proportion of crap pictures to good pictures is higher now, but the overall number of good pictures being created is much higher too, i think.
and finally, i don't begrudge people their instagram and whatnot. i'm happy that they get to make something that they like, even if it's via filters (:
- epigraph0
I agree dibec 100%, it's a pretty well accepted fact. What is the mindset of the average person going to be in 5 years? How are they going to want to view and appreciate the skilled images you have created for them?