digital photography-helping or harming society?

[deanimator]

... it is also easy to spread so much rubbish ...

Exactly my point...which is why I can´t agree with one or two earlier comments posted in this thread about spreading "truth".

An interesting example of the rise our use and dependency on this medium is Google, and the 6 billion questions per day it handles. Someone asked 1) what the hell did we do for info before Google?, and 2) do we know any more than we did?

Think about it.

 

[JimmyJaceyMom]

it is the actions of humans which do good or bad, not the tools they use...

Good point

 

[morydd]

and everyone ... even those with no background knowledge about anything they see and hear can comment on it and sell it to millions of people.

I agree, but the people who are unwilling to find views that challenge their own, were always unwilling to do so, and will continue to do so. For these people the net effect is null.

However people who do want to seek out the truth, have a much wider range of opinions and information to learn from than they might have previously. Especially in places where the powers that be control the newspapers and media. For these people, there is a much better chance of finding the information that they desire.

When recording a subject, lack of knowledge can sometimes mean lack of bias. (not always, but sometimes), and the more raw data, the more likely that people will be able to find the truth in it somewhere.

 

[Alex_B]

and the more raw data, the more likely that people will be able to find the truth in it somewhere.

if, and only if

1. the raw data is not manipulated

2. people do not stop looking for further raw data afer they found some suporting their view

And of the information on the internet, only 5% I guess are what you call raw data. most is predigested, interpreted or worse.

I agree that the internet can be a way around censorship in some states though.

 

[sabbath999]

There is a comletely different side to the digital photographic revolution that most people either don't care about or simply ignore...

Digital pictures are much more environmentally friendly than film. Film contains heavy metals, the chemicals used to process it are toxic, and all need to be handled with great care and disposed of in an environmentally friendly way... all at great cost and effort... and all too often, home darkroom users just dump the stuff down the drain which pollutes the environment.

With digital (unless you actually make a print) you get absolutely none of that... digital is very environmentally friendly, and in the long run makes it vastly less expensive to both the wallet and the environment to take photos...

 

[deanimator]

If I may quote myself

... with less film being used it keeps some poisons out of our drinking water ...

 

[RMThompson]

While I think the question itself is ridiculous, I suppose that digital means we use less paper and plastic, therefore it helps out saving the resources used to make said products...

*rolls eyes*

 

[Alex_B]

however, with the advent of home colour printers, by far more photos are printed than in the old days I suspect ...

At least if things develop similar as in the office world. Since all became digital, the paper consumption of an average office has shot up in the sky since people print everything 5 times, and then again a sixth time if they just cannot find that last printout. then they find a sily typo, re-edit the document, and print it all again

Let us face it, since things became digital more resources are being wasted

 

[newrmdmike]

whoever said for bc keeps more ppl employed is dead wrong, there were so many more GOOD jobs in commercial photography before photoshop, you don't have people who get paid to arrange bubbles in beer mugs anymore and have a seperate photog and your team gets 3 days to shoot. now its a couple hours and photoshop the bubbles, not as much time equals not as much money, and i would think digital has taken away more jobs than given.

one of the only things i can think of that makes digital bad for society at the moment is the super manipulated images creating impossible standards of beauty.

 

[newrmdmike]

and alex, more resources wasted . . . what about all that chemistry that isn't used now? i think wasted paper is better than all that chemistry getting trashed and put in the environment.

 

[newrmdmike]

but your right about the people wasting the paper, nobody does that in the darkroom.

 

[Alex_B]

how environmentally safe is the colour ink used in today's desktop printers?

I do not know, since I do not own a single desktop printer (amazing, ain't it? )

how dirty is the process to make the really nice glossy paper everybody uses these days, and how much water is wasted in producing that paper?


Again, I do not know, I am just raising questions here

 

[newrmdmike]

no clue, but i'm betting the toxins aren't as bad as all the developers etc that get pumped down the drains at schools and home darkrooms.

corporations are to an extent held accountable for those kinds of things, so i hope any nasty leftover chems aren't as bad as film stuff.

that water in the darkroom is nomore, and i'm betting they use just as much water making darkroom papers.

pigment inks are pretty safe i think.

 

[sabbath999]

If I may quote myself

Missed that, excellent point (of course )

 

[danalec99]

I'm already picturing camera manufacturers promoting 'Green' Photography!

"Shoot digital. Save mother nature."