Point of Separation

[Rich Silfver]

This is not another one of those 'Digitial sucks' or 'Film is going to be discontinued' threads. It's just a personal observation of what I think is a trend that started over the last 3-4 months and may continue going forward...

First of all....I am personally not a big fan of digitial cameras but that is simply my own personal opinion (I also don't like ketchup but love mustard).

When the 'digitial-revolution' started and people with often more interest in the gadgets than the final results started highlighting articles about 'Now Digitial finally beats Film in quality!', etc, etc things got ugly for a while.
Film-fans scrambled to come up with arguments promoting the continued use of film (often driven by a fear that film actually one day in the future WOULD be discontinued and change is HARD to accept).
The Digitial-proponents tried to justify that the industry had them pay for the development pixel-by-pixel by pumping out 1+x Meg cameras every 60 days by getting some satisfaction from digitial vs. film comparisons that every-60-days got closer and closer to 35 and MF quality (if scanned on a cheap 100 scanner) and the ability to snap 1,000 photos a day for little or no cost.

It was ugly and facts didn't matter much because the little that was out there was polluted by biased opinions and agendas.

Now I think digitial cameras have a range of poor-to-very-good. Many digitial backs and high-end DSLR's produce final images that rival - and often beats the image quality you can get from a 35mm film based camera.
MF quality is next to 'beat' and it's happening and it will continue to happen.

There are still little 'battles' flaring up but you may have noticed that they have almost vanished from the major boards.

In comes 'the trend':

I believe that the reason for the slow down in the controversy is that we are reaching a "point of separation".

Digitial photography have earned its right next to film cameras and that is the key in this "next to film cameras".
Not instead of or replacing but "next to".
Digital is simply another tool to get to the desired end-result.

With both film and digital camera prices dropping and people going off in two directions:
* Running after the next-60-day digital camera, or
* Going back to film based cameras
there is once again that 'point of separation' occuring.

1) The people that are either professional (PJ's, Wedding photogs, Studio, etc) photographers and have calculated that the digitial workflow adds more to the bottom line - or people that enjoy the ease in how digitial allows for you to create images - and often with amazing quality in the higher-end products,

2) The people that appreciate all the traditional aspects about photography - the feel of their body, the smell of chemicals, the slow and almost meditative picture taking process in MF and LF photography, the joy of seeing your slides on a lighbox or projected, etc.

The same person can ofcourse appreciate both worlds and have cameras from both camp - but even so that person uses them for one of the above stated reasons.

So the controversies are ceasing because the camps are now more well defined. People in camp 1 continues to follow the digitial trend. Trading up that 3MG camera that 60 days ago was uber-class but is now only half as good as the 6MG camera that is selling for 499 at B&H. Their discussions are now amongst themselvs. Not with the 'film people'.

People from camp 2 - the film people - are enjoying amazing oportunities in film cameras. Expanding into MF and LF - areas that had a high premium to get into just a year or two ago but that now can be had for pennies to the dollar. They are not discussing film vs digital anymore. They know who they are and are talking about film, lenses and formats.

The Point of Separation was reached - I think personally - in July-August of this year. Things quited down on the boards. People settled into their camps.
It's not a static existance at all - but the friction is gone.

As Martha Stewart would have said... "It's a good thing".

 

[Doug]

Hi-- I think you're right about "Not instead of or replacing but 'next to'." We've been in a mode where digital imaging explores its nature for advantages. I think it's pretty obvious that newspaper photography is a natural for digital. This is a dynamic time full of creative opportunities.

Back in the early days of photography, there was controversy among artists over this new medium, and fear that it would replace painting. I think it did largely replace certain kinds of commercial hand art done for publication. But many disciplines of drawing and painting are quite healthy today.

While gazing at some paintings the other day, the above thoughts arose, and I considered the ways in which photography is distinct from painting. And it IS distinct, despite some small areas of overlap with photorealistic paintings and heavily manipulated photos.

You have to put some distance between you and an Impressionist painting, for instance, to get a feel for the whole. You can still see and even appreciate the brushstrokes, but they don't dominate. Close up, you can study the strokes to see how thick the paint is, what sort of brush or palette knife was used, etc.

Brushstrokes aren't found in photos, but we have our analogs... We study a photo looking at the grain structure, tonality, highlight flare, bokeh, as well as appreciate the whole effect.

I wondered if digital photography might "push" film-based photography towards a more obvious display of its distinctive characteristics. Grain! Big and sharp? Tri-X and Rodinal to the forefront in our future? Resurgence of the half-frame format? :-D

But I'm sure there are other ways film photos will distinguish themselves, and stay viable. While warming up the Olympus Pen, I won't chuck my MF gear quite yet.

 

[Oldprof]

Digital has reached the point where it can make great photographs. I have a digital camera and have fun using it. But there are still many people who aren't very computer literate or who can't afford the requisite computer/printer setup. These people will continue to use film for the forseeable future. I hope film will hold on for a long time - I truly enjoy film as an artistic and documentary medium. And there are many applications where it is still far superior to digital (such as working in remote locations without electricity, in harsh environmental conditions, etc.).

 

[scoop]

Expanding on Oldprof's comments a bit, a point rarely made in these discussions is that digital cameras aren't particularly convenient to use for a casual photographer.

For professional photographers who work to time deadlines and have the financial resources to afford top quality equipment, digital will probably be the technology of choice.

A casual photographer who uses a camera largely for family and vacation shots can drop the film off at a local minilab and have the photographs back in an hour with no further effort and for a modest price. No equipment investment is required other than the camera. The argument that one had the computer already isn't relevant here. An expensive printer is required to even remotely approach the snapshot quality of a film-based print.

A digital camera requires both the equipment and time for downloading the images then printing them at home. Point and shoot film cameras actually do quite a nice job for casual snapshots - there seems little to be gained for many such users to convert to considerably more expensive equipment to produce at best somewhat inferior images.

 

[Summitar]

2 worlds

2 worlds

Digital is really easy to post to an email and share with family or for business reasons but of all the 30 or so images I have matted and framed in my house, not one is digital, they are all silver based images. By the way, the digital prints are pretty much relegated to the front of the fridge where they inevitably curl up so much I end up throwing them out after a month or so.

 

[Doug]

Expanding on Oldprof's comments a bit, a point rarely made in these discussions is that digital cameras aren't particularly convenient to use for a casual photographer.

...

A digital camera requires both the equipment and time for downloading the images then printing them at home. Point and shoot film cameras actually do quite a nice job for casual snapshots - there seems little to be gained for many such users to convert to considerably more expensive equipment to produce at best somewhat inferior images.

Well, on the other hand, your local lab is likely to offer conventional prints from digital originals. Mine does: Take in your Compact Flash, CD or other digital media, tell them which files & what size to print, and it's as if you brought in negs but without the cat hair.

One lab in this small city just put in a digital media reader machine with which I can download the digital images to their computer directly, after specifying crops, rotations, and color shifts. Pretty handy!

Actually I use film cameras, but have the lab provide a CD with scans along with the processing. Then for reprints I copy the selected scans to a CF card and use their order machine. This doesn't risk damage to my precious negs!

Doug

 

[bobtodrick]

I think what will hurt digital the most in the long run is the lack of standardization. The following happened yesterday. A customer of mine purchased a Canon 10d a month ago. A pro shooter, he had decided to step into digital tentatively, and so for the last month has backed up all his shoots with film.
Lucky for him!!
Last week he purchased a couple of the new Sandisc Extreme CF cards...supposedly the hottest thing on the market. He shot a couple of assigments on the camera (luckily on film as well). When he went to download the images into the computer he couldn't. No way, not even with the supplied image recovery software.
Well after much googling and yahooing we found out on the 'net that the 10d does not 'support' this card...the card is to fast for the camera and, though everything seems to be working when your shooting, most of the images don't actually end up on the card.
So there you have it. A NEW, STATE OF THE ART DIGITAL SLR combined with a NEW, STATE OF THE ART MEMORY CARD and they DON'T FRIGGIN WORK TOGETHER!!!
The feedback so far from the supplier is that people are just going to have to be aware of the situation and make sure their equipment is compatible.
But as someone else said it's akin to taking your M6 into your camera store and being told "well, this here Kodak 35mm film will work fine...but the sprocket holes on that there Fuji film are 1mm further apart and so can't be used".
Great!!

 

[lars]

I'm surprised that he didn't take the time to play with the camera for a while before using it for an important job. Even with film cameras, the common wisdom is to make sure they are KNOWN to work reliably prior to using them for an important event (ie: don't buy new equipment the day before!).

Sure, the problem sucks, but it didn't have to cause him to lose shots.

BTW, an another analogy would be to compare the card to after market lenses for film cameras. After all, cards are peripherals for your camera, not disposable items. And in some rare cases, a third-party AF lens doesn't always work properly on some cameras. Of course, that relates to electronics. A mechanical analogy could be the tauted Nikon backward compability of lenses which doesn't really exist (at least not fully), or how some of the Russian LTM lenses aren't designed for the exact same flange-film plane distance as Leica LTM cameras.

Given enough time, I'm sure a common standard for memory cards will develop, or widespread support for two or three standards. But as much as we enjoy shooting with film, many photographers (myself included) cannot deny the fact that for us, digital has reached a point where it is a viable and, in some situations, preferable, choice.

The only reason I don't yet have a digital SLR body is because Minolta doesn't make one...and then I'd also have to save up the money to afford one. ;-)

 

[Oldprof]

I'm surprised that he didn't take the time to play with the camera for a while before using it for an important job. Even with film cameras, the common wisdom is to make sure they are KNOWN to work reliably prior to using them for an important event (ie: don't buy new equipment the day before!).

So true! I once had a problem with a SLR lens whose automatic diaphragm wouldn't close at the moment of exposure as it was supposed to ... so everything was shot at f1.8 ... and overexposed. I didn't realize there was a problem until I got my slides back. Argh!

 

[Doug]

Well after much googling and yahooing we found out on the 'net that the 10d does not 'support' this card...the card is to fast for the camera and, though everything seems to be working when your shooting, most of the images don't actually end up on the card.
So there you have it. A NEW, STATE OF THE ART DIGITAL SLR combined with a NEW, STATE OF THE ART MEMORY CARD and they DON'T FRIGGIN WORK TOGETHER!!!
The feedback so far from the supplier is that people are just going to have to be aware of the situation and make sure their equipment is compatible.

Yes, frustrating, and yet I'd venture to say the supplier has a point. Surely there should be a warning in the printed material, and thanks to you for raising users' awareness about this!

But it's just one more "gotcha" among thousands faced by photographers since Daguerre. How many MF shooters have ever left their camera set for 220 film w hile loading 120, and then shot the last half of your pictures on the paper backing? Zap! Is it possibly your new third-party SLR lens doesn't fully communicate with your camera body, so all your pics are shot wide-open, overexposed? Zap!

Now in the "digital age" we have some new gotchas. It underlines the good and ancient advice to test your setup before committing to important work. And pay attention to what you're doing!

 

[bobtodrick]

All I know is that last night I shot 3 rolls of Agfapan...deve'd in Rodinol (a 100 year old developer)...shot on my new Bessa R2 with a 50 year old LTM Summicron, and made contact sheets this morning on my 20 year old Focomat V35...AND EVERYTHING WORKED FLAWLESSLY!!
We're being sold a bill of goods here folks...digital is the admans dream...high ticket items that we buy willy nilly because we've been convinced it will give better images (it won't), is easier (not necessarily), is cheaper (not by a long shot) and will make us better in bed (I think that's really it).
You'll notice I said my customer backed up everthing on film, settling the issue for those who claim he should have tested everything. Being a 3 time Canadian Photojounalist of the winner (shooting for the likes of Time), i daresay he knows a hell of a lot more than anyone on this forum (me included).
His point is (and is completely valid) that maybe...just maybe, if the manufactures actually talked to each other once and awhile stuff like this wouldn't happen. As he says, he is far to busy shooting to have to worry about every nickel and dime item he buys to do his business.
I'm utterly amazed how now many photographers are buying into the computer mentality of 'who cares if works or not...it's new and glitzy'.
If we as users don't demand compatability in the product you can sure bet it will never happen.

 

[Oldprof]

... i daresay he knows a hell of a lot more than anyone on this forum (me included) ...

Even smart people make mistakes!

 

[lars]

We're being sold a bill of goods here folks...digital is the admans dream...high ticket items that we buy willy nilly because we've been convinced it will give better images (it won't), is easier (not necessarily), is cheaper (not by a long shot) and will make us better in bed (I think that's really it).

In my case, I've definitely noticed the latter. ;-)

I don't expect digital to make my pictures better. Depending on the final destination of the pictures, it CAN be cheaper to use digital (ie: if you're shooting for web content or need fast turn-around, etc). Many wedding photographers and other pros are switching to digital because of its speed and the fact that it eliminates film costs. They've done a financial analysis and determined that for them, digital makes more sense.

I want a DSLR because I shoot a fair amount of web content and the fast turn around and elimination of film costs would be very welcome. I would also like the immediate feedback that digital gives for when I'm testing lighting setups.

You'll notice I said my customer backed up everthing on film, settling the issue for those who claim he should have tested everything.

I know that he brought a backup body (or system) but it still doesn't negate the point that he didn't properly test his new digital system before bringing it to an job/event.

Being a 3 time Canadian Photojounalist of the winner (shooting for the likes of Time), i daresay he knows a hell of a lot more than anyone on this forum (me included).

The fact remains that he still shou'd've tested the camera, especially since it was his first dip in the pool, so to speak.

His point is (and is completely valid) that maybe...just maybe, if the manufactures actually talked to each other once and awhile stuff like this wouldn't happen.

I fully agree with you there. This is a problem to all computer equipment but hopefully things will improve in the digicam world since the typical user profile doesn't include someone who is computer knowledgable.

As he says, he is far to busy shooting to have to worry about every nickel and dime item he buys to do his business.
I'm utterly amazed how now many photographers are buying into the computer mentality of 'who cares if works or not...it's new and glitzy'.

Photographers as a group have never been free from the lure of new and glitzy. This is nothing new. We are a pathetic lot...and we're sitting ducks for digital cameras because we love gadgets. ;-)



...lars

 

[taffer]

This thread makes me think about what a friend of mine told me he had read on a newspaper.

It was an interview with some Nokia or Ericsson Big Boss, and it was related to the then brand new ultra-mega-hyper-sonic mobile phones, with integrated cameras (hehe), mp3 players, games console, personal notebook and some more zillion gadgets (I think that the feature "phone" was somehow ignored).

When asked for his opinion about the real need that people have of all these innovations, his answer was something like "Well, we know they don't need this features yet, but we MUST EDUCATE society in order to need them"...

Now Spanish TV (and I suppose that it's not a lot different at other lattitudes) is filled with spots of people taking pictures and sending videos with their cellulars...

And it's more or less the same with digital cameras, you have more than 20 different models in a couple of pages of your local lab AD brochure...

On the other hand, being honest, I recognize that sometimes I get a bit obsessed with the tools , so maybe I shouldn't blame that much people for what they do with their money... The only difference is that my tools are usually older than me...

As long as they keep making film, they can fill the entire world with all the digital gizmos they want