Digital attitude?

[patrick_earnest]

When I was out shooting with my M3 recently, I met a man who knew my lenses by names, because he had a Leica iiic, and an M2 at home that he used to use, but stored them away; he was convinced that an Olympus digital camera and an Epson printer were better for him than the "inconvience" of film. Is there a lways going to be film and chemicals for the long run in asking about the future use of my M3 versus the predominant "digital revolution"?

[jackflesher]

I think you can count on 35mm film being around for at least a few

more years. Maybe. But hey, look at the bright side... at least

you'll have plenty of advance notice allowing you to stock up on film

as your favorite emulsions eventually fade away!

[andrew_schank]

This question comes up in every photo forum every month or so.

There's no way 35mm film is going away anytime soon. Sure, some of

the niche emulsions are already gone, but don't count on the more

popular 35mm or 120 films going the way of the 8 track cassette.

Heck, the major camera manufacturers are still coming out with new

models, and they are still selling. When Nikon, Canon, Minolta,

Contax, Leica, etc. DISCONTINUE all their 35mm camera lines, then I

would say look for film availablity to become a problem maybe 10

years after that point.

 

<p>

 

Also, how about the inconvenience of short lived batteries, memory

cards, funny looking digital artifacts, poor ergonomics, crappy

finders, slow data transfers, hard to manage color balance, and the

other host of nigling problems in imaging software, etc.

[yip2]

Things can exists side by side.

 

<p>

 

The digital watch did not wipe out the mechanical watch.

The ball pen did not wipe out the fountain pen.

TV did not wipe out radios.

The camera did not wipe out oil paintings.

Computers screens did not replace paper.

Quality, workmanship and fine things will always have a place.

[tod_hart]

How's this for a digital "attitude"? Last fall I was out toying

around with an old 1950s vintage Balda Super Baldina (moderately

resembles a IIIg). I ran into a teenager who upon seeing my oldie

commented, "Wow! Far-Out! Is that a new digital camera? How many

megapixels does it do?"

[gee-bug]

Wow, what a coincidence. Very recently, in a fit of madness, I came

dangerously close to trading my M6 for an Olympus E20. I got a

Canon S300 digital camera a few months ago and absolutely love the

convenience of being able to see your shot immediately after pushing

the button. My wife of all people, talked me out of the trade. She

said something like: "Digital photography may be convenient and a

lot of fun, but it just doesn't seem like art." I'm don't know if I

agree, but it made me think. Does something about the effort and

permanence of film photography make it more akin to art than digital

photography? I've read about similar debates at the turn of the

last century pitting painting against photography. Painting is

still alive and well. Here's yet another corny analogy: digital

photography is to film photography as microwave cooking is to

conventional cooking.

 

<p>

 

I do wish that Leica would come up with an M camera that could use

something like the Contax N1's FE-1 digital preview viewfinder

accessory. What a great idea, though I don't know how well it works.

[djphoto]

Even if all the developed nations switch entirely to digital cameras,

the change will take much longer in the emerging nations. Film will

certainly be around longer than any of us will live.

 

<p>

 

Besides that, there will always be those of us who prefer film. We

constitute a perfect niche market for a few small companies to serve

profitably, even if the rest of the world goes digital.

 

<p>

 

We may not have the vast selection of films that are available now,

but then, photographers of past generations did not have such a

selection either. They managed to get by somehow, and to do work that

endures. We should do so well.

[joshroot]

""Digital photography may be convenient and a lot of fun, but it just

doesn't seem like art." I'm don't know if I agree, but it made me

think. Does something about the effort and permanence of film

photography make it more akin to art than digital photography? "

 

<p>

 

 

Hahahahahahahahaha

 

<p>

 

NO.

 

<p>

 

I just spent the evening shooting portraits of a lovely young lady

with my digital SLR. I worked just as hard as I would have with film.

Except that I didn't have to waste the polaroid film I would have

with a med format camera. And I got to show the model what we were

shooting.

And now, I've got a couple of hours of sorting through 200 digital

files to find the keepers. In this way, I'd say that digital is more

work than just using a loupe and a light table to decide on which

slides to keep.

[reinier_de_vlaam]

Compare it with film, remember the 8mm film? Who is still using that?

No, almost all consumers now use digital camera's, for whom they are

good enough. Who are still using film? The "real pro's", that need a

film to be presented on a large screen.

Photography will probably go the same way.

[mike dixon]

Ken, I like the cooking analogy. But consider: a TV dinner from a

conventional oven doesn't really taste any better than a TV dinner

from a microwave. Whether one oven is better than the other depends

on what you're cooking . . .

[xav]

Regarding the 8mm film analogy: You still can buy 8mm films! And

for how long now has the manufacture of 8mm cameras been

discontinued? Digital will most probably replace films in the

consumer market but films will still be manufactured - maybe by small

companies - for a very very long time.

 

<p>

 

PS: I can't believe I actually got involved in such a bogus thread :)

[bobtodrick]

Good analogy Mike. For consumer usage where convenience is paramount

and nothing larger than a 4X6 will be required digital is great. But

for pro, or serious amateur use (by this I mean the person who wants

to print and display quality 16X20's on his wall), film will remain

the best way to do so for quite some time. On the 8mm debate. Again

as an amatuer medium video is far cheaper and convenient. But what

do you think you watch at the theatre (film), made for TV movies

(film), and even music videos (FILM - after shooting it is

transferred to video for ease of distribution and broadcast).

[andrew_schank]

Another sign that will preclude that film availablity and use is

going away is when one after another 1 hour labs (and the big ones

like Kodak, Fuji, Mystic, etc as well)start going out of business

from too low a volume of film coming in for processing. Of course we

are only guessing as far as whether and when that will happen.

 

<p>

 

By the way, many pros are switching over to digital. Benefits

include the ability to show clients immediately results, and the

quality of the new high end cameras is good enough for color magazine

work. With the new Epsom printers, very high quality enlargement work

can be turned out as well. A Pro shooter said in Shutterbug that he

can now finish a complicated shoot early when the client says they

got the shots they wanted. Before with film, he'd have to shoot

hundreds of extra exposures with changes in angles, lighting, etc

trying to make sure he'd got the shot.

[bobtodrick]

Actually Andrew it is another misconception that pros are switching to

digital in droves. In very large centres this is happening to a

degree but in Edmonton (where I live, a city of 750,000, one of a

handful of cities, along with Seattle that adverisers test products in

because it is so 'average) two photographers are using digital medium

format backs. Apart from the two local newpapers there are a dozen

pros using D1(Nikon) and another dozen using Canons. There are 7

pages of photographers in the yellow pages here, so a small number of

pros have switched to digital. Don't be mislead by advertising and

what digital 'gurus' tell you....

[lutz]

Just to throw in my 0.02 - don't be mistaken: the film industry, too,

is flirting heavily with digital as a future standard of movie *

shooting* (Wenders, Soderbergh and Lucas, to name a few, have already

adopted the media). It's faster to handle and less expensive in

postproduction. But Sony and Fujinon are still struggling to achieve a

look that is appealing to cinematographers. DOF and color rendition are

quite different from conventional film aesthetics... so far. But there

is going to be yet another cut to the film stock producing companies

when high definition DVD and projection-on-demand via satellite will

take over in the theaters and make movie copies obsolete.

[sikaan1]

I drive a car with a manual gear shifter. I don't like automatic

cars because there is no pleasure in the experience. However, I

don't begrudge those who buy Porsche sportscars with an automatic

gearbox. There is room for both types of people.

 

<p>

 

I wear a $30 quartz watch with an analog face, and shoot photographs

with a $4,000 manual camera. A friend wears a $5,000 manual Swiss

watch and shoots with a digital Canon S110 $350 camera. We are both

happy. Choices are good, and so is competition.

 

<p>

 

Just because someone shoots photographs with a M6 doesn't make them

an artist. Most of my stuff is average crapola and I don't *need* a

M6, it just gives me a tremendous pleasure to use it, the whole

process. Makes me wonder. What percentage of the Salgado's and the

Bresson's were keepers? I bet you the number was very low.

 

<p>

 

Here's a competition they should have. I roll of 36 film, I hour.

See how many keepers you have. Lucky if you have one.

 

<p>

 

Any fool can take 100 rolls and get one awesome keeper, which is the

ratio in magazine photography.

[ed_hoey]

Film cameras are not going away anytime soon, or in the future. If

you think about what you need to go digital, an expensive camera, a

printer, a computer to edit the images....we're talking thousands of

dollars...this would cut out the majority of people just shooting

pictures at their 3 yr old's birthday party, with a $30 camera and a

roll of film and an hour at the local CVS. What about the disposable

cameras at the wedding tables? Don't get me wrong, I have a 3 yr old

digital camera I bought to sell items on ebay, and it's perfect for

that and for emailing a quick picture of something. However, I would

need many thousands of dollars to get the technical quality I can get

from 35mm or 120 roll film, PLUS I just plain like film!!! I want to

hold the pictures in my hand...and then I can enlarge what I

want...it also rubs me the wrong way for some reason the digitally

enhanced pictures, I'm a tradionalist I guess, I want to shoot the

picture - and if I captured some magic in that moment - so be it. I

don't want to change, colorize, enhance, add people...whatever after

I've tripped the shutter. Digital has a place and so does film - may

they co-exist forever.

Ed

[sikaan1]

FYI, most (I would say 99.99%) of pictures you see of beautiful women

on magazine covers, and inside, have been doctored using digital

technology. The picture may have been taken with a film camera, but

the digital darkroom takes care of scars, pimples, tatoos, or other

natural features that the editors consider to be less than worthy to

put to print.

 

<p>

 

If I had to put a vote in, I would say that I love my M6 (and Nikon

F2AS), but I would like to have some form of digital darkroom because

I don't have a dark room in my home. In addition, there is the issue

of chemcals in the lungs.

 

<p>

 

Also, in Manhattan it costs $24.00 to process a 36-roll of black and

white film, but only $10.00 for 36-color. When I was a child it was

the other way around. So the pleasure fo film camera with the ease

of a digital darkroom would be my choice of formats. RIght now I am

not using black and white film because of the expensive processing

cost.

 

<p>

 

Money is a huge motivator, and this year the 2.1 megapixel cameras

have been flooding the market at a reasonable price. A month after I

got my M6 I ended up buying a Canon S110 because it fits in my shirt

pocket and is so easy to use anywhere. The digi is for quick docu-

shots, pictures that I would consider a waste of time and money to

take on the M6 (eg, the new baby, the new cat, the new car, the new

apartment), but I won't give up the M6 and use it with pleasure(the

new girlfriend).

[bobtodrick]

Sikaan - even though I sometimes have a looksee at all the beautiful

women you talk about on the magazine covers ;-) I seldom find that

they are particularily worthwhile or astounding photographs. As well

if you check some of the work of photographers such as Sieff, Gibson,

even guys like Hamilton or Bailey - wonderful photos that have never

seen an airbrush or Photoshop filter........

[eliot]

I thought compact discs would wipe away LP records and cassette tapes

because the sound quality was so much better, but records and tapes

are still around. But open reel tapes have disappeared.

 

<p>

 

Because digital is still relatively far below silver halide

technology in image quality, and because 35 mm film is so well

entrenched with photographers, I think it will remain available for

the forseeable future. As has been pointed out above, 35 mm images

can be scanned and manipulated electronically, allowing a blending of

the two technologies.

 

<p>

 

As far as I am aware, 35 mm P & S cameras still outsell everything

else on the photographic market, so I can't see film disappearing

soon. I seem to recall a similar debate "raging" in photo magazines

a few years back on whether the APS format would replace the 35 mm

format: a moot issue today. It seems that 35 mm film just has

staying power.

[sikaan1]

"...if you check some of the work of photographers such as Sieff,

Gibson, even guys like Hamilton or Bailey - wonderful photos that

have never seen an airbrush or Photoshop filter........ "

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 08, 2002.

 

<p>

 

Bob,

 

<p>

 

I can't agree with you more. I don't particularly find the women of

today to be beautiful in a natural sense of the word, they seem too

artifically made up, as if fitting into some formula for universal

beauty, whatever the word "beauty" means today, something meant to

sell products. There is a sensuality that is totally lacking. The

sensuality of Hamilton's pictures, which I had in the 1970's, is just

not there anymore. The women of today seem very plastic.

 

<p>

 

You can see this phenomenon when you look at movies shot in the

1970's. The women were women then, and not gym-built cyber-chicks

with plastic-surgery faces and breasts, and sometimes asses.

Whatever has happened to women???

 

<p>

 

Thanks for the Hamilton memory. A lot of his photos had some sort of

soft focus filter or something like that. Made them look more

sensual, but not too far from innocent.

[peter_hughes1]

<i>Any fool can take 100 rolls and get one awesome keeper, which is

the ratio in magazine photography.</i><p>You'd be surprised how many

fools can't.

[patrick_earnest]

I wish to thank you for all of your many insightful contributions!!

I've never before recieved so much positive feedback since I started

using Leica in my photography, that I'm now encouraged even more to

continue with confidence in my darkroom and in my shooting. Using my

C1 and M3 with 90mm, 50 and 35, and Leica's Prodavit slide projector

and my v35 Focotar w/Autofucus. Thank you for keeping up the great

thread!! I will be back with more, photos included.

Patrick Earnest

p.s. This thread isn't bogus:.)

[patrick_earnest]

As a school-day photographer for a family company that has been in

business for more than fifty years, I frequent almost 150 schools

each year (Fall + Spring ~300 shoots, not to mention Proms,

graduations, Weddings and Dance Schools). I love film and the volume

it can handle in short time, like a school semester. I also embrace

the digital edge as in re-touch-ups for pimples, and happy moms

everywhere.

[david_killick]

Like Tod earlier on, a young guy asked me if my Leica IIIa (1935) was

digital. Lots of young folk seem to think it's cool. Thing is, it's

nearly 70 years old and still takes nice pictures. How many of today's

digital cameras will be doing that in 70 years time? Or are we now

such a throwaway society all objects have lost their value and

permanence doesn't matter any more?