The problem with digital photography
Aug. 25th, 2006 11:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rhythmaningIs that it is too damn easy.
I don't mean that suddenly everyone can take photos because the cameras do everything for you and so have deskilled the artform (though I do think that too, of course).
I mean that it is just so easy to take photographs. And then they have to be edited and, if you are me, stuck on flickr.
Because I have taken stacks of photos recently. On Sunday night, at the Niki King gig, I took about 150. That is a bout a picture a minute.
I have 342 pictures from my week on the west coast in July (which I really am going to write about sometime).
And I have 250 pictures from wandering around Washington (this doesn't include pictures I took at my brother's wedding - there were one hundred-odd of those, but I edited them as quickly as possible so I could share them with my family).
I have always taken a lot of photographs when I take photographs (if you see what I mean): rather than lose a possible image, I would take the photograph - it might never be there again. The small price of a photograph was nothing next to missing it.
So I would get through ten rolls of film during a week on holiday, say; 360 pictures. So the number I took on the west coast isn't out of line. But digital photographs are a different medium, too.
Anyhow: I am suffering from photographic overload.
...And I am away walking this weekend. I must take my camera!
I don't mean that suddenly everyone can take photos because the cameras do everything for you and so have deskilled the artform (though I do think that too, of course).
I mean that it is just so easy to take photographs. And then they have to be edited and, if you are me, stuck on flickr.
Because I have taken stacks of photos recently. On Sunday night, at the Niki King gig, I took about 150. That is a bout a picture a minute.
I have 342 pictures from my week on the west coast in July (which I really am going to write about sometime).
And I have 250 pictures from wandering around Washington (this doesn't include pictures I took at my brother's wedding - there were one hundred-odd of those, but I edited them as quickly as possible so I could share them with my family).
I have always taken a lot of photographs when I take photographs (if you see what I mean): rather than lose a possible image, I would take the photograph - it might never be there again. The small price of a photograph was nothing next to missing it.
So I would get through ten rolls of film during a week on holiday, say; 360 pictures. So the number I took on the west coast isn't out of line. But digital photographs are a different medium, too.
Anyhow: I am suffering from photographic overload.
...And I am away walking this weekend. I must take my camera!