Is Al Kaplan going Digital?

This morning I received the February issue of The Big Picture in the

mail, a trade journal for the digital printing industry that I've

been getting for a bunch of years. The cover announced the lead

article The Secret World of Black & White Photography and inside were

some quotes by a number of photographers about how they used digital

for B&W including "fine art prints". A lot of people still appear to

be using film and scanning it!

 

In an article on digital cameras it shows and talks about the new

Leica with digital back. (This keeps things on topic.)

 

Since it isn't catering to a bunch of amateurs the magazine is quite

upfront about the fact that a typical amateur camera might give you

only 30,000 to 40,000 exposures before needing repair while a pro

camera can be expected to last 100,000 to 150,000 exposures between

service stops (page 44). Also mentioned is the fact that buying the

most expensive high end camera is only cost effective if you can

recoup your investment and expense it it in one year. It says

technology is changing too fast to figure on depreciating it over a

multi-year amortization schedule.

 

This is a magazine that features ads and new product reviews of

things like $30,000 medium format scanners for you Mamiya and

Hasselblad folks, printers that take 100 ft. rolls of 60 inch wide

paper or vinyl, knocking out prints at rates up to 1,750 square feet

an hour. They cater to companies with accountants, and often stock

holders, concerned with the bottom line so I'm more likely to believe

their articles than what I read in consumer photo magazines.

 

To answer the question in the title: Not Yet, but I do keep up with

the technology a lot more than some of you guys could ever imagine.

"Is Al Kaplan going Digital?"

 

If the answer is "yes," then I guess hell just froze over(!)

Well... then, if Al Kaplan goes digital, he'll have more time to play with his film gear. Won't he?

maybe, but far more trobling is the fact that al kaplan is starting to refer to himself in the 3rd person.

 

a reality show, late night chat program, and/or workplace massacre can't be too far off now.

you might wanna try using one some day instead if just spouting abstract ideas all the time.....get rid of the books, get off your strabux chair and go rent one for a day instead of buying that carton of cigs with your social security checks.... ;-)

It was just for the title, Roger. I've spent too many years writing/editing where that would be normal format for a title.

wj gibson wonders how many Leica forum Leica owners have taken 30,000 to 40,000 photos or let's say 1000 36x rolls of film.

 

wj gibson also wonders at the cost recovery vs. relentless technical improvement. he was asked to consult with a small local museum as to what camera (digital) to use to photograph collection acquisition items (2d and 3d). The analysis spun out when the workflow analysis bumped up against how many photographic or scanner images the museum might make in two years time vs. obsolescence of the equipment. If they could only make 2000 images from someone working part time, was it worth it to go digital. They are still mulling it over. Some kind of mix of film, digital camera, or scanner (they get offered the chance to copy photos and photo post cards from the 19th century,but the original are not donated). They have some old camera gear 8x10 or larger, that I have suggested they use for certain select objects.

fwiw, ive had to cla my leicas far more often than ive ever had to send out my digitals, which i use a lot more. leicas are well made, but are by no means impervious to the elements when being used everyday.

This is the disposable generation. When your digital camera wears out, breaks down or becomes obsolete, you get a new one with improved features. When your 1960 M3 cranks out you send it to Sherry Krauter who overhauls it... and then it's good again.

<i><blockquote> buying the most expensive high end camera is only cost effective if

you can recoup your investment and expense it it in one year.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

How precisely is this relevant to the 99% of people here, yourself included, who don't

make a living from photography, and werent' considering an $8,000 EOS 1D//? <p>

 

Sheesh, when I first saw the subject header I thought Al finally got a microwave.

BTW, does someone have Tony'e e-mail address. I think we should report this guys who's impersonating Al Kaplan. ;>)

My D70 has already paid for itself in much less than a year. Approx 80 good quality films at UK prices + dev + printing + CD at good lab = Cost of new D70 & 18-70mm lens even back when I bought it. Now the equation would be about 60 films! I hasten to say again, at UK prices. Your equation will be different.

 

However buying a DSLR is not only an economic decision (unless you are a busy pro) it was a learning curve and it is fun and gives me a LOT of extra time even allowing for the computer time with photoshop.

 

Keeping up with technology also means using that technology, learning what it will do well and what it won't and exploring/enjoying/exploiting what it can do that older technology cannot. Reading about it is not enough.

 

I am enjoying a new approach with film (rangefinder + Leica lens) and digital togther. The neg scanner is arriving next week in order to further what I do with film.

"Is Al Kaplan going Digital?"

 

Do pigs fly?

leicas are like shovels. the technology doesnt change. when you buy into other things where the technology changes, you update. are you still using the first computer you ever bought dennis? what about the first car you ever bought? its not that one is better or worse than the other, its about technology.

"Also mentioned is the fact that buying the most expensive high end camera is only cost effective if you can recoup your investment and expense it it in one year. It says technology is changing too fast to figure on depreciating it over a multi-year amortization schedule."

 

As a former owner of a large business with an accounting background myself, here's the deal: it isn't technology or equipment manufacturers who dictate how something can be depreciated, it's the IRS. I'm not sure if the numbers have gone up but as of a couple years ago you could write off a single purchase up to $15000 in the year of aquisition. Assuming you had $15000 of income to write it off against. Beyond that, the tax code was quite clear in how short a time period you could write off various things. I do remember that computer equipment had a shorter span, but nowhere as short as their typical 18-month product lifecycle. But all that aside, basing equipment purchases solely on allowable depreciation is not the way I'd ever manage a business. If I were a commercial photographer making large prints or shooting sporting events (for example), then a less expensive low-end DLSR would probably not be the best purchase.

Al, do us a favor and start posting pictures. We don't care if they are digital or not. In summation: We would like Al Kaplan to go out and shoot some pictures and be able to present them in digital format on this forum.

 

P.S. Those environmental self portraits freak me out even more but hey what do I know.

<i>maybe, but far more troubling is the fact that al kaplan is starting to refer to himself in the 3rd person. </i><p>Actually, referring to oneself in the third person is in fact proper. It is generally reserved for more formal styles of writing i.e. MLA, Turabian or APA rather than forums, email, et. al., so it just seems out of place.<p>

"are you still using the first computer you ever bought dennis? what about the first car you ever bought?"

 

Uhh... that was point exactly. People don't keep things as long as they once did. But you're right .. opart of the reason is rapidly changing technology.

 

It used to be that when a part on your car broke they would repair or replace the broken componenet. Now they toss out the whole part and put in a new one. It's a modular approach. It's a disposable mentality. I'm not saying it's good or bad... it just is what it is.

 

Things aren't made as durable as they used to be and don't last as long either. Unless it's in times of economic crunch people don't keep their cars as long as they used to. Al knows what I'm talking about, I'd bet... probabaly better.

 

I'm not saying it's good or bad to keep a Leica for a lifetime. Some people do. I'm helping a young photographer sell some of her grandfather's Leica equipment right now. He bought the stuff right after WWII. Some people still use 40, 50, 60 year old Leicas today and get them fixed when they need it rather than buying a new camera. It's just a different mindset. I'm not saying that's either good or bad... it just is what is.

Why not?

If the price is right and the result is acceptable why not?

Well Al, since you obviously have a computer to e-mail from, you could just try a small handheld digicam just for fun. Using a digital camera doesn't mean that you have to give up using film, so there's no need to make any painful sacrifices or anything like that.

Um, I haven't banged out 1000 rolls, but I'm pretty well on my way. In the last ten months of last year, I probably exposed around 150 rolls of black and white film. Less color, but in the dozens of rolls. And I've been pretty laid up sick since September or so :-) Burning film is easy. Just spend an afternoon with the family or wandering around the fish market with a camera. Or whatever.

<i>People don't keep things as long as they once did...Unless it's in times of economic crunch people don't keep their cars as long as they used to.</i><p>

 

People keep cars longer. From 1992 to 2002, the average age of the car owned in the US increased by 20% (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Department of Transportation, U.S. Government), by no means insignificant. Here is the exact quote: <i>Because of improvements in the longevity of passenger cars, the median age of the automobile fleet in the United States has increased significantly, from 7.0 years in 1992 to 8.4 years in 2002. </i>Note that most of the this time hardly qualifies as "economic crunch," quote the opposite. Facts are always best when they're really facts.

"quite the opposite."

What's next, Al, a flush toilet?

 

By the I'm done with my DSLR, Canon will have their line of digital retina implants ready, anyway. In the future, only old-timers like you will even carry a "camera" anymore.

I'm planning on keeping my pickup truck indefinitely. 'Course, in order to get rid of it, I'd probably have to get it started.