Will Digital Photography cause a collapse of the analog business?

[dean_lastoria]

That word was cheep.

dean

[andrew_held]

I read an essay once by a famous German Historian named Hoffman(I

can't remember his full name). He studied the growth cycles of

businesses and technology. He found that most businesses followed a

kind of left-biased bell curve. There was a slow period during the

introduction of a technology followed by an extremely rapid rise to a

peak with a long period of mature growth followed by rapid, then

increasingly more gradual decline. On the right side of the curve

there is an extremely long tail. Businesses mature, and technology

gives way only slowly with a handful of firms lasting for many

decades in the field. Up until ten years ago, for example there was

one cut-nail manufacturer in the U.S. over 100 years after the

technology had been supplanted by wire nails. Similarly it was only

last year that Western Union's last telegraphic customer finally

switched to more current technology. This trend of technology has

been repeated many times, and the more consumer-oriented the product,

the longer the product lasts.

 

<p>

 

Traditional film, I believe will have a long life for several

reasons. First, museums have built up increasingly popular and

valuable collections of traditional film and prints. This will

always exert a very strong appeal to both collectors and

practitioners. Digital photography will develop its own following,

but it will wholely supplant traditional photography. As long as

these are on exhibit in museums there will be demand for traditional

photographic prints. Just as there is demand for engravings, oil

paintings and all the other media that have been supplanted at least

from a commercial and technical standpoint. Secondly, there is

strong evidence that small firms can manufacture complex photographic

materials in small batches, at reasonable cost at a profit. As

examples I would cite, Ilford, Bergger papers and film, and small

camera and lens manufacturers like Rollei, Zeiss and Wisner. Lastly,

over the long run, I think that digital photographic processes will

begin to diverge from the traditional photographic paths. Rather

than attempting to replicate traditional photographic qualities,

digital will develop its own esthetic styles and forge a path that is

independent from those still working in film. This was seen early in

photography when photographers began to move away from painterly

traditions and started to develop photography as its own multiply

distinctive art form.

 

<p>

 

What will most likely happen is that commercial applications will

increasingly shift over to digital as is happening now. Next will

come consumers, who were never very discriminating about photographic

quality and who will switch over to digital en masse when the

technology becomes more user friendly. What will likely sustain the

traditional photographic field will be fine-arts photographers and

speciality scientific and commercial users - who require the unique

attributes of traditional photography. I expect fine arts

traditional photographers will continue to develop the art and

techniques of photography while small, profitable and innovative

small firms (the equivalent of the firms I mentioned before) will

continue to advance the science and production of traditional

photographic processes. We may see a future without major players

such as Kodak in traditional film, and along with it the

disappearance of ubiquituous small photo shops. These will be

replaced with medium and small sized players that cater ever more

efficiently and innovatively to traditional photographers. We will

be smaller in number - but we will help move the art and science of

traditional photography for many decades to come. If Hoffman's model

holds, we will see traditional photographic technology remain in

commercial and scientific use for many years to come, while fine art

photography will extend that to a virtually limitless lifespan.

[erik4]

If the audiophile market is any indicator, small and nimble producers

will take over the production of much higher quality materials at a

significant cost to cater to a smaller market.

 

<p>

 

Commercial photographers will flock to digital in droves initially

because of convenience but then the cycle will return where the look

of 'traditional' materials becomes the new thing. There will always

be a small but steady corp of trad practitioners to keep the market

going.

 

<p>

 

Just as there are vacuum tube/electronic valve amplifiers, 180g virgin

vinyl, super turntables, tonearms and cartridges still, there will

always be 'analogue' photography materials. It may turn into an

industry manned by craftsmen. There will also be those who chant that

digital is perfect and that traditional process adherents are only

deluding themselves. But that is for you to find out which camp

you're in.

 

<p>

 

That's all my crystal ball reveals :)

[jonathan brewer]

They've been predicting the 'death' of Photography for 15-20

years, and they'll be doing it for the next 20, if this scares you out

of what you really want to do, then you shouldn't be in Photography

anyway.

 

<p>

 

Photoshop with a great many of its features, mimics traditional

darkroom techniques, mimics painting techniques, and takes quite a big

percentage of what it does from traditional art. There's nothing

original about Photoshop does except execution wise.

 

<p>

 

Digital isn't going to begin 'swamping' anything until it gets

simpler to use, and becomes cheap. Remember all those computer

outfits of five years ago, where are they now.

 

<p>

 

Some of these folks with their myopic predictions are just

letting everybody else know that they've been locked up in a room too

long with a lighted box.

 

<p>

 

The rest of the world except for a few places like here and

Kuwait can't afford to play with this stuff for 90 days of 6 months or

whatever the hell the digital cycle is and then plunk down another

small fortune the next line of digital gear. I was that dumb for

awhile, but no longer.

 

<p>

 

I love digital, but I had to catch myself because I was spending

incredible amounts of time in a room with a box, and a lot of it was

not spent crafting something, but working on what I had read in a

manual, or doing updates, or fixing my computer. There's too much

baggage that goes along with digital for it to wipe out anything.

 

<p>

 

It never fails how some of you folks 'hype' digital w/how it

rivals, surpasses, wipes out, replaces, kills digital, and you never

mention any of the headaches.

 

<p>

 

There are too many cameras all over the world that people love to

use for that market to be completely deserted. I think some in this

last generation refuse to see it, only the latest toys which they use

are important, and everything else will and should die off.

 

<p>

 

I still do digital, but when I take my camera to the beach,

I'm out there, and even if I don't get the shot I want, I've at least

enjoyed life. I don't get the same feeling being stuck in a dark room

for 4 hours , looking at a lighted box. The end result is what's

satisfying about Digital for me, but more of the whole photographic

process from start to finish is what I prefer.

 

<p>

 

I don't see how you can really be a painter, artist,

photographer, or whatever you are, and not want to get out there to

see life in action so that you can capture a 'slice' of it as your

art.

 

<p>

 

You know people are always looking for old camera gear to

purchase because of their budget which was an issue dealt with in

detail on one of these recent posts. You don't see anybody looking

around for 10 year old computers or scanners as a way of getting into

digital because of a limited budget, and until digital becomes that

kind of proposition it remain a necessary tool for a few, and a toy

for others, let alone the rest of the world.

[andre_noble4]

We are not all lambs.

[dan n.]

WOW... well said..all of you..

 

<p>

 

- What is the price of a decent traditional outfit (enlarger + camera)

versus a decent digital outfit (computer + a monitor + a scanner + a

printer + a digital camera...)?

- How long the digital outfit will become obsolete versus the

traditonal outfit?

- How long it take for a beginner to pull out a print from a community

college darkroom versus how long it take for the same student to

understand photoshop and other digital issues?

 

<p>

 

I have here enough digital outfit that outperform a small service

bureau but become obsolete as week went by and a darkroom and

traditional equipment that will last as long as I want...

 

<p>

 

yes..digital slow down the sales of traditional photography equipment

and make lots of resellers happy...BUT..

 

<p>

 

NO.. personnaly, digital will not cause a collapse of traditional

photography... The issue is in the mind of the true believers... and

I'm one of them...

 

<p>

 

happy hollidays to all...

[john_henderson1]

I have a friend who got a digital camera two years ago. He's always

at events snapping pictures. As I am with my Minolta. I come back

with an album full of prints for my friends to pass around, and extra

prints for people to put in their albums, or frames. Hardly anyone

has ever seen any of the pictures my friend has taken with his

digital. They go home with him and are downloaded to his computer

where they stay.

 

<p>

 

Picture TAKING might be easier and cheaper for the low-end consumer,

but actually doing anything with them is a hassle.

[andrey_belo]

I agree strongly with Andrew Helds view.

When the dark age reappears we'll be able to make our own

film,paper,chemistry and probably diversify our methods and materials

more significantly than the large manufacturers and their "dished

out" formulas and restraint in continuing popular emulsions.Look at

the rising popularity in alternative processes for photography and

printmaking.I have worked for several years in Londons' top imaging

company.When I started there they proudly operated an Art Dept.

specialising in fine art printing,platinum,salt..etc...specialised

colour printing and neg. development.Two years later most of the

highly skilled printers were printing cheesy fashion and editorial

spreads or young photographers work who couldn't print their own

stuff but needed the best prints possible to hustle up some work.The

alternative printers upped and left.The company was more interested

in the digital departement which grew rapidly.Investment in a Fuji

Minilab system wiped the floor with traditional techniques for the

average photographer....very fast and high quality colour prints up

to 11x14,speed of service,and the amount people will spend for

speed.Many pros will use a set of 5x7 colour en-prints instead of

contacts.....and pay $30 a roll!

My point here is that we may aswell let them run away with this

digital prize.There are people using traditional film and digital

with spectacular results...see the Flint/Weissman team and their

camera and prints (view camera nov/dec).In the commercial field

digital is convenient and fast,but still expensive,to keep in line

with photographic tradition.Speed is important in the fast editorial

and fashion markets,but this is small compared to the amateur markets

who will defnately go digital.BUT....when compared to fine,museum

quality printing not even incredibly expensive retouching and output

techniques compare to images created initially on film.Alot of

Londons top fashion photographers rely heavily on retouched images

costing thousands a day,all payed for by the client.The results can

be amazing,but usually the retouchers are actually re-hashing an

image with new impact to hide the photographers lack of skill,change

lighting,mop up skin tone and "defects" in makeup or sharpen the

image.....all the things it takes time,patience,experience and

consumate skill to produce traditionally.The allure of alternatively

produced,hand crafted images will become more specialised and sought

after.I've seen this already in the commercial field where salt

prints cost more to commission than digital prints and are wanted by

more up-market clients.Or a 100 year old colour print process revived

into gravure like prints created from digitally manipulated negs from

scans of the original being commissioned for $1500 a print!

My advice would be to experiment with what appeals to you and suits

you.You only live once,so why not do what you enjoy with your

time.The smaller film and paper companies will continue to produce

high quality and inovative products for traditional photography for a

long time to come....and if they ever stop,well there is enough

literature out there telling you how to make your own paper,and film

wont be much more difficult to produce with the surplus of equipment

that'll flood the market.So,take advantage of the cheap darkroom

gear,mix your own chemistry,coat your own papers and continue your

study of photography without worry,be it traditional or digital,or a

mix of both.Why not build your own cameras too?

[sunil_gupta1]

I have just spent over a 1000$ on eBay collecting a Pentax 3-body set, lenses & flashes. I have read numerous such discussions on conventional-vs-digital. No one has yet spoken about the legal aspects in any forum I have read. Will digital photographs be legally admissable as evidence? Here in India photographs that are submitted to the courts have to be accompanied by the original negative!