Analog versus digital

[salvatore]

I am following this chat since a few month`s and found a lot of very competent photographers.

 

<p>

 

As I am an amateur and using my Leicas mainly for Privat shooting here a few thought`s concerning digital photographie which I would like to share with you.

 

<p>

 

I bougth about 20 years ago my R4 and 3 years ago my R8.

I have also a lot of lenses for the R`s. I also bougth a few weeks ago after considering forwards and backwards a M6 TTL with 3E.

Now.. I never bougth my cameras for to resel it later or so. I bought it because I wanted to take pictures in my spare time, vacation, on business travels etc. .. ( For real having fun with my hobby)

 

<p>

 

Now what I see is the tendence for the digital photographie and I am asking my self how long will it be posible to follow the hobby of analog photographie. And for how long will there be labs which will develop my pictures at a reasonable price?

Or how good must a resolution of a digital camera be to beat a analog camera with a 100 ASA roll?

And what about the printers are there and do you think there will ever be such that can print a digital picture in the same quality as it is available from a good lab a analog picture?

 

<p>

 

As I am an amateur and do not make money with my equipement I ask will all my money I spent for my lenses and cameras in 5 years be for the foxes?

 

<p>

 

I would appreciate to know your sight of the comming things.

[nom]

Salvatore,<br>Don't worry so much about the future of classic

photography, at least for the next 10 years there will be no problems

of finding films, labs, etc. <br>Without doubt digital IS the future,

but it will be long before our film cameras will be useless.<br>I

have a 3.3Mp digital camera and I print decent photos up to A4 size,

but they always have a different "feeling" -not bad, just different-

. Maybe some times they are too sharp or too bright. I can't express

the feeling with words.<br>I think that to beat an analogue camera

with 100 ISO film we must reach the 20 MegaPixels -if not more!-

This means huuuuge files that will need really big, fast and

expensive storage media to save them. But electronics will improve

fast and one day it will happen!<br><br>PS. I never - NEVER felt the

same happiness while shooting with my digital camera and since we are

hobbyists this counts VERY much, eh?... So, let's enjoy our Leicas

and we can think about it again after 4-5 years. :o)<br>Jordan<br>

[doug herr]

Your questions are shared by a great many photographers now.

It's very hard to predict when the image quality of hand-held

digital cameras will surpass that of film cameras, or for how long

film will be available at reasonable cost. I'm not going to lose

any sleep over the issue. I doubt your Leica caemras will be

worthless in only 5 years.

 

<p>

 

For printing, analog has already lost. A high-quality scan and

output using a lab's printer like the Fuji Frontier, Durst Lambda,

ZBE Chromira or Cymbolic Sciences LightJet on photographic

paper IMHO can be far superior to a traditional darkroom print,

depending on the skill of the people in the process. I sold my

darkroom equipment several years ago with no regrets.

[jay_.]

I too am not jumping on the digital bandwagon (except for the 1.4MP

Sony I use for e-mailing and web purposes). But I am also not

investing more into analog equipment as I believe that except for a

small minority of it which constitutes collectibles, it will be worth

very little within the decade. I think probably that the cost and

availability of analog will go south significantly earlier than the

point where digital can equal the performance of high-quality analog,

simply because the majority of consumers are currently happy with the

results from high-speed print film with inexpensive cameras yielding

4x6 prints made at mini-labs staffed by less-than-professional-grade

operators. The stumbling block, IMO, is not the quality of digital,

but rather the relative cost of the cameras and storage media, and

the increased complexity of the cameras, coupled with the natural

human nature to resist change.

[jackflesher]

While I am no expert on digital, nor am I an expert on films, several

of my photography friends and I had this very discussion a few weeks

back. Here is what we came up with: Given that most ISO 100 slide

films have grain structure of about 3 microns (or .0001 inch), and

given that a 24mmx36mm slide is essentially 1" x 1.5", you have about

ten thousand grains per inch in film. You can then translate silver

grains in film to the equivalent of about 150,000,000 (10,000 x

15,000) "pixels" needed to replace silver in a digital image.

 

<p>

 

Digital gurus claim that because it requires 3 silver grains to

complete a color palette in silver (1 grain from each color layer),

so the number is closer to 50 megapixels. Someone said they read that

Kodak claims that because the grains overlap in the layers, you

actually gain resolution (ie; 3 grains of silver overlapping actually

make 7 distinct color points).

 

<p>

 

While none of us agreed to the finality of this, the digital logic

seemed a bit more credible to me. So I would say that when digital

images get to the 50 megapixel+ size, you'll be about equivalent to

35mm film - that of course assumes that no further advances are made

in film technology... IMO, the storage and processing power needed to

manipulate those large images is still a ways off, let alone the

CCD/CMOS technology. The ten year figure given earlier is probably as

good a guess as any. Even then, I think it is unlikely film will

disappear - naysayers made the same prediction about b&w emulsions

when color arrived on the scene in the middle of the last century,

and we know how that turned out ;-) Then again, we can discuss the

file size needed to replace a medium or large format transparency or

negative!!!

[jackflesher]

PS: Jay posted while I was posting, and I think he makes a very good

point regarding what that the average photo-consumer will be willing

to settle for...

[Robin Smith]

My advice is to buy what you want now, otherwise you will waste lots

of time worrying about when is the right time to buy - much as you see

with many computer geeks who put off buying as a new model is coming

"that is just so much better" etc. etc. This is a recipe for inaction

and in the meantime you do not have the use of the camera you want.

Will the Leica start producing worse pictures even if better digital

cameras arrive? No. I think it will be a good time before great manual

analog cameras are judged to be useless, and in fact it is quite

likely that they may never get that way. Also remember that the Leica

is already a digital camera: if you buy a good scanner and digitize

your shots - surely this is a good way to go and this route can

assuage any guilt you may feel about being "old-fashioned".

[andrew_schank]

Two different ways of doing things, and I doubt film will be totally

obsolete even in our lifetime. Don't forget how many millions of

cameras are still in operation around the world that use 35mm film.

The availability of many dozens of types emulsions,especially less

popular ones, is already feeling the crunch however. My crystal ball

shows me maybe only a half dozen each slide, color neg, and black and

white films 10 to 20 years from now for us to use in out "antique"

35mm cameras. If we get to the point where NO ONE is marketing and

selling a current quality 35mm camera, then start worying.

[iván]

Hi, Salvatore:

 

<p>

 

What Robin and Andrew say reminds me that when the WEB was born many

people said that the traditionally printed books were virtually dead

(pun intended) and it turned to be that one of the best seller goods

on the WEB are precisely books as Amazon could easily attest . ..

BTW and still on the same line of reasoning: mechanical cameras

shouldn´t be sold anymore after the automagic cameras appeared in the

market but many of us know that old M3s are still very sought after

and, furthermore, some "new" cameras with not even a rangefinder have

recently found their way into the photo market.

In short: I'd bet for well longer than 10 years.

 

<p>

 

Enjoy it while you can !

 

<p>

 

-Iván

[bobtodrick]

Had a funny incident last week that shows why film has lots of life

yet. A client purchased a digital p/s for his shipping dept to

photograph damaged goods. Up till now has been using 35mm p/s. Got a

phone call an hour after he picked up the camera - he couldn't figure

out how to load the software. A couple hours late got a call that he

couldn't get the images into the computer - didn't realize you needed

a cardreader or had to hook the camera to the computer - thought the

images would just appear. Not everyone is computer literate and for

them the easiest way to get images is film.........

[jay_.]

I don't think the issue of computer literacy is that significant. If

a digital camera can be operated as a P&S, anyone could take their

memory media to a minilab and have prints made, thus avoiding the

computer completely. There are home printers, independent of any

computer, into which those memory cards can be plugged and prints

spit out with the same P&S mentality. On the opposite end, high-end

digital backs exist and are appearing which appeal to the

professional, commercial photographers (product, wedding, etc.) and

news photography has already gone almost totally digital. In fact,

only the so-called "serious amateur" segment remains with the most

reluctance to abandon ship on 35mm photography whose explosive growth

they fueled since the 1960's. The psychology of that group is not to

be ignored in estimating the probability of film to stick around.

Those who tout the "immediacy" of digital photography should not

ignore the relatively minor impact which Polaroid had on the

photographic world, despite initial predictions to the contrary.

Many peoples' pleasure is *heightened* by the wait to get their shots

back from the lab. Many people derive pleasure from holding and

viewing their images in tactile, tangible form rather than as files

on a hard drive. Many people feel more secure knowing it would take

an odds-against catastrophe such as a fire or flood to destroy their

precious images, not just a computer malfunction which is a

realtively common occurance. Then there are the billions upon

billions invested in film cameras, film, and film processing

equipment. That technology is so "mature" that "new" products with

only incremental advantage (read: less R&D expenditure)can be sold at

a better profit--all it takes is a very clever marketing campaign.

But let's also not brand baby-boomers as techology-resistant,

either. Witness that while vinyl records still do exist in minuscule

numbers, the market has been very fickle in its willingness to

embrace one media after another (8-track, cassette, now CD). What

will ultimately tell the tale is sales. Consumers will vote with

their wallets. Bottom-line: film photography will disappear when

there's insufficient bottom-line.

[art_karr]

Jack:

 

<p>

 

<b> IMO, the storage and processing power needed to

manipulate those large images is still a ways off, let alone the

CCD/CMOS technology. The ten-year figure given earlier is

probably as good a guess as any.</b>

 

<p>

 

I think that technology is already available, it is, because of price,

out of the reach of most people. Cheaper digital is good in many

press uses; you can take the picture, send it home through a

satellite phone and have it on the morning page or the web site.

Quality is not important in those cases.

 

<p>

 

I think the more important question deals with archival

properties. Think about it. I have music recorded on my

reel-to-reel that I can�t use because it is hard to find a machine

anymore. Don�t talk about 8-track. Then there are wire recorders.

It is worse with CD�s. The reader technology is changing so fast

the some museums have stopped burning records onto them. In

contrast, it reminds me of an experience a few years ago. A

friend found thousands of negatives in the basement of a house

he had bought. All glass. They ranged from the civil war to 1900.

Among other things, they documented the lives of freed slaves.

Sure some were damaged, but the best printed like a modern

print. Aren�t going to be able to do that 140 y later with CD�s.

 

<p>

 

What will happen? It appears that many of the specialty films will

disappear. They already are in large format. The regulars will

stay for a long time. The smaller the format, the longer they will

last. Just a guess.

 

<p>

 

Art

[salvatore]

Thanks to all for shearing this matter with me.

 

<p>

 

Reading all your comments I also start to belive that the analog

photograpy will remain for many years. And it lets me feel

comfortable.

 

<p>

 

Robin mentioned the feeling of oldfashion, well it is not this what

concerned me most but more the fear that our "expensive" equipement

becomes useles one day. I really hope that Leica would in future

produce cameras which were suitable for all the R and M lenses so if

one day we have to say good by to all the Roll`s at least the lenses

will be usable.

 

<p>

 

Again thanks for all you valuable comments.

 

<p>

 

Salvatore

[jackflesher]

Art:

 

<p>

 

I was referring to the "on-camera" storage and processing power

needed to manipulate 30-50mb files, not computer processing power...

But your point on cost is a good one. I would have to spend $5000+ on

a Nikon D1x to get what, 6 megapixel images? 5 grand buys a lot of

film, and even a bit of Leica gear...

[art6]

Jack:

 

<p>

 

I use a dual G4. My files average 150 megs. The computer

technology is there and anyone can afford it. In contrast, you are

correct about on camera storage. [Now I collect data from scans

of real objects so I haven't done this], but the ones that I have

seen are a lot more than $5000+ and require a backpack for

storage.

 

<p>

 

Hence, we agree.

 

<p>

 

Art

[Rob F.]

One of these days, the silver image will regarded as the esoteric

artsy way of doing things, in an age when most everyone is using

digital. Silver will be to the digital age what platinum and gum-

bichromate (whatever that is) are to us in the silver age. Fancy-

schmancy.

 

<p>

 

When that day comes, we can all make a nice living teaching our

quaint old art to wide-eyed followers. We can charge top dollar to

show digital nerds what it looks like to see the image slowly coming

up in the developer . . .

[geddert]

here's a comment about the longevity of digital storage. I personally

think that digital storage is much safer and better then slide

storage. Yes, it does take work to keep up with the new technology.

When you see CD's being faded out for holographic storage chips that

look cool and are placed on a ring on your finger, why not do the

work of putting those 200 CD's in your computer and moving it to the

new medium. If you save the files as a standard format (like .tiff

or .psd) and buy big hard drives you should be able to keep it for a

while. When the file standards start to change, all it takes is

running a batch program on photoshop 17.5 and converting all the .psd

files to .xyz. The reason people think digital data will be obsolete

is that they don't realize that it requires a little work every 5 to

10 years... but in return you won't get fading, and you can have a

copy at home, work and somewhere on the internet, so natural

disasters are much less likely to destroy your work.

[sheridan]

Salvatore,

 

The Leica was originally designed to test movie film.The

movie industry is now working mighty hard at producing effective

video projection in movie houses.It may only be a few years before

all movie production is in video.We can guess how long film will

continue for still photography. The longer the better.It is indeed an

irony that a Leica universal optical viewfinder produced in 1932 was

codenamed VIDEO.Regards,Sheridan Zantis.