Comments on: [Stats] How Many Photos Have Ever Been Taken?

By: Christopher Broughton

Christopher Broughton — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:25:00 +0000

But if you consider the original daguerreotype, there is nothing today that can equal the level of information and the detail with original capture of the daguerreotype. http://www.pixiq.com/article/the-devil-in-the-daguerreotype-details

By: Alfred

Alfred — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:24:00 +0000

That is a matter of choice and perspective. And, I believe that Adams, like Weston and Bullock, worked with 8×10 cameras. Admas chose to enlarge his work – I think he actually enlarged sideways onto a wall – Weston’s finished products were contact prints (I got to see Cole W. demo how he printed Dad’s work). But, who these days is really into lugging a 40 lb. camera, plus film holders and a 20 lb. tripod around all day.

Given the advancements in technology, image sensor pixel densities are exceeding silver crystal densities, dynamic ranges are improved, results are quicker, and the photog does not have to spend nights sucking in chemical fumes. As someone who grew up on Tri-X and Pan-F, Cibachrome, and who did work with a 4×5 and 120 roll film, I would not go back. I’m sure some day, larger image sensors will be more afforadble for those seeking even more image “quality”.

Some of the “craft” of photography has moved from the darkroom to the computer and editing software. That has made it easier for many who would never have approached a darkroom to enter into photography. So, exclusivity has been lost for some. And, maybe some of the majic and anticipation with seeing the image materialize during development. But, I still would not go back.

By: Mike Schnelle

Mike Schnelle — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:11:00 +0000

I am going to take you to task on this one. Out of a film point and shoot, yes. Film in general you are dreaming. Case in point: name me one “nature photographer” armed with the most cutting edge digital equipment that can even come close to the 4×5 work that Adams did.

By: Jeremi Blurton

Jeremi Blurton — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 03:38:00 +0000

Sure if you’re looking at photo quality from a technology perspective…

By: amyhobbs

amyhobbs — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 01:29:00 +0000

My link to the original post was incorrect – fixed it! But it’s here if you’d like to read more: http://1000memories.com/blog/94-number-of-photos-ever-taken-digital-and-analog-in-shoebox

They’ve got some footnotes at the bottom as well :)

By: Patrick Hall

Patrick Hall — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 23:49:00 +0000

really? I find that the cheapest point and shoot camera at 8 megapixels blows away 90% of all film images taken. The modern digital camera produces much better images than those throw away point and shoot film cameras any day.

By: Jakob Wictorén

Jakob Wictorén — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:01:00 +0000

Sources? not that I dont trust the author, but Id still like to know.

By: James Robertson

James Robertson — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 19:08:00 +0000

Well, it’s google running the youtube show so…
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/08/01/report-google-uses-about-900000-servers/

By: Garrett Byrum

Garrett Byrum — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:41:00 +0000

YouTube accumulates 48 hours of video every minute. Resulting in 8 years of video a day. Can’t even imagine their servers
http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2011/05/thanks-youtube-community-for-two-big.html

By: Jeremi Blurton

Jeremi Blurton — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:59:00 +0000

Might as well just relabel the lighter colored line “Photo Quality”.