The real story on the digital push

[hyperfocal]

James � on your assessment of the digital hype, I agree with you totally. You see IMHO everyone is pushing this digital stuff down our throats because there�s far more potential for making money than with traditional processes. With digital there would be a huge market for capture, storage, and printing devices that even the small Ma & Pa outfits could get in on the action. Furthermore, the modern day consumer is quite inured to being on the constant upgrade treadmill to stay compatible with the latest computer bells and whistles. Like a mantra, almost everyone chants �Technology will keep getting better and become cheaper,� so they see little point in buying for the long haul. In fact our entire consumer economy is based on low quality, planned obselesence, disposable or short lifecycle goods � people expect this.

 

<p>

 

Now the flip side, traditional photography, is anathema to those running the show in this world of bilk and money. The trouble is that the equipment lasts too long, and there there isn�t the need for constant upgrades; 50 year old cameras and lenses are still making beautiful pictures, as many this forum will attest to. Thus in the brave new economy, traditional photography must be eliminated from the marketplace and replaced with something more lucrative for the corporate bottom line. Frankly, for the most part, those producing the gear and film we now use don�t give a damn about photography, it�s only about making money, i.e., maximizing shareholder wealth and CEO compensation. Ditto the magazine publishers. These same people would sell their mother�s grave to make a buck if they could, e.g., see Enron, the is THE mentality in the business community today.

 

<p>

 

The quality of digital vs. traditional will not be an issue either. Most people are quite happy with their 8x10 digital prints and the masses really don�t appreciate the quality we are getting with our beloved LF film and cameras. Standards in general are lower these days with everything geared towards one-size-fits mediocrity. It�s not about making a quality product anymore, it�s about marketing and hype.

 

<p>

 

R.I.P. LF as we know and love it, the masses won�t miss it!

[mike_mahoney]

I'd wager there is more profit margin in a monorail than in a

digital. I commented on another thread that most LF cameras are based

on one hundred year old technology with basic tooling and alloys,

whereas a digital camera has big R&D bucks behind it, and a short

product cycle - increasing everyones risk in the supply chain.

 

<p>

 

You know who I really pity in all of this ? - the advanced non-pro

who is shooting really good stuff with a 2-3 megapixel camera. He's

building a library of work with very limited reproduction potential.

 

<p>

 

With a 4X5 neg or trans, your reproduction avenues are wide and

wonderful ....

[jeff_buckels]

My Deardorff camera is 60 years old; my Schneider, Rodenstock and

Wollensak lenses are between 30 and 80 years old. I'm 50. My camera

and lenses will be about the same after I'm dead. If (when) Ilford

stops making film or goes out of business, I'll go to paper negatives

and/or glass plates and continue printing platinum/palladium and such.

All I really need is my current equipment, paper and/or glass, and

chemicals.... As far as the present or future of art is concerned,

digital is irrelevant. Art doesn't improve. Digital is not more

artistic than film, film is not more artistic than classic painting,

classic painting is not more artistic than cave painting.... Digital

may or may not be an issue to professional photographers. I don't

really know and definitely don't care. I'm an amateur and I couldn't

care less if digital "takes over the world" or walks off the face of

the earth tomorrow. It doesn't make any difference. -jeff buckels

(albuquerque)

[jim_galli4]

ditto jeff

[eric_boutilier_brown1]

You are right, there is more margin in a monorail camera then a

digital, but I will sell 500 digitals before I make one 4x5 sale new,

which is why the market is going digital. Simple.

[doug_paramore]

Whether or not digital will replace our beloved LF film and cameras

is a moot point. It will. The only remaining question is how soon.

Digital is still in its infancy...it has only been around a few

years. It is already replacing film in many portrait and commercial

studios, and most newspapers have changed already, even the smaller

weekly papers. It's a done deal. Equipment will continue to improve

along with other advances in digital technology to the point where it

will be of equal or better quality. This is not years in the

future...it is, relatively speaking, tomorrow morning. For those

making a living doing photography it is already at the point where

quality is good enough for most uses, the cost of equipment is coming

withing reach, and operating cost are cheap. It also takes less time,

therefore fewer employees. Digital has everything going for it that

traditional photography has not, with the exception of ultimate

quality and permanance. That quality and permanance is almost here.

It is a lot cheaper for a photographer to do a shoot on digital, plug

it into the computer, do all the needed retouching with key strokes,

and spit out a print ready to deliver. Put that up against

traditional film that has to be developed, retouched, printed,

spotted, etc and it becomes plain why digital had made the inroads it

has.

 

<p>

 

I have been a photographer since the late 1950s, and every change has

been accepted by some and fought by others. At first the change to

smaller cameras was going to ruin photography, then color was going

to kill it, then sending processing to outside labs would kill

professional photography. I was a photographer when newspapers

thought changing from 4x5 Speed Graphics to the Rolleiflex was the

worst thing that ever happened. The change to 35mm was purely a work

of the devil. Just give a 4x5 five camera with 25 sheet film holders

to a photographer now and ask him to shoot a football game.

I don't want to change to digital, and will not, but I am at the

stage in life where I won't have to. If film and paper manufacture

stops, I will just say thanks for many years of good memories and put

the old workhorses in the closet or mount them for display. On the

other hand, I am afraid to shoot too much digital. I might love it.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

[matt_oulman]

Eric is right - and all of the LF photographers bemoaning the

coming end of film-photography - who have never batted an eye at

shelling out $3-4,000 (and more) for a camera less sophisticated and

less mechanically precise than a 30 year old 35mm SLR, have no one but

themselves to blame.

[andrew_held1]

Traditional photography is an extremely mature industry. Profits are

steady but unexciting. From a finance perspective there is no

expectation of growth. This is fine for small companies that are

happy producing for a limited market with adequate returns, but it

will not generate the kind of returns that keep a finance capital

economy growing. Digital, on the other hand, is a very young

industry. Typically in this stage of the lifecycle of an industry

expenses (typically R&D and marketing) are very high, but returns are

also very high. Note that this does not necessarily extend to the

retail side (as one merchant aptly noted). The expectations of future

growth and revenue are also extremely high, particularly looking

forward to the period of maturity when prices are still high and

expenses begin to decrease.

 

<p>

 

I don't think it is fair to say that this system is due to greed. The

fact is in a free economy money flows to where returns are greatest

and that is always in the growth cycle industries - or the industries

that have managed to reinvent themselves (e.g. telecomms). If

investment is prevented from flowing to the fastest growing industries

than returns will decline and the economy will stagnate. We have seen

that in command economies such as the old USSR where investment was

deliberately directed to industries on the basis of political instead

of financial reasons, and to a lesser extent in Japan, where a too

close relationship between big business and government allowed old

inefficient methods of doing business to remain dominant.

 

<p>

 

So don't blame greed or stockholders for the new excitement in, and

shift to digital. Whether or not companies "give a damn about

photography" is irrelevant. They have to sell products that sell and

keep customers coming back for more. Although sometimes

there is a disconnect, eventually they will learn that

quality "sells" - marketing and hype cannot ultimately

overcome quality problems. Digital has proven that it can serve most

customers needs. The industry is not turning its back on or

abandoning fine arts or high end photographers it is simply

concentrating its energies on the choicest segments of the market.

 

<p>

 

The good news, for those who like myself prefer traditional film for

aesthetic reasons, is that there is no reason to expect film to go

away. As big firms begin to shift resources to the more profitable,

growth sectors, like digital, there are small companies that figure

out how to make a profit serving a niche market. I am continually

surprised and pleased to see how many small, new firms are doing

business supplying a small niche market. Look at Really Right Stuff,

or Bergger Papers, or even Ilford. We will likely see big changes in

the composition of manufacturers, and in the way we obtain supplies

and services, but I don't think we will have a problem getting the

supplies we need. As a parallel to this, I think the art and science

of traditional photography will continue to advance. It has always

attracted among the most innovative and inventive engineers and

scientists. They will be the ones contributing to small firm's r&d and

improving products for the market. The greatest threat to traditional

photography, in my opinion, is a tightening of wastewater regulations

that could all but eliminate the use of toxic chemistry. We will have

to respond by creating more benign darkroom chemistry, or by finding a

hazardous waste disposal system that is not prohibitively costly.

 

<p>

 

As far as standards for photography I think the public's expectations

have risen greatly. Compare an old snapshot from a brownie to any

machine print from a point and shoot. Of course, we are not

adequately educating people as to the aesthetics and quality of really

good photography, but our school systems de-emphasize that sort of

thing. As people learn to use and like digital they too will begin to

demand higher and higher standards for the medium. Ultimately, I think

this respect for quality will bring about a new appreciation of the

artistry of film, and that will help both mediums to survive, side by

side and into the distant future.

 

<p>

 

 

[dk_thompson]

Doug, your post reminds me of working as a kid as a part-time stringer

for a pretty large newspaper...one of the old-timers told me once that

he could "cover a football game on one sheet of film"...going on to

tell how he could stand in the middle of the field (sidelines) and

blow off one shot...the neg was so big that he'd get 4-5 plays out of

it....well, I never really believed him until years later, working

here--I printed an old press neg of the Rose Bowl game during WWII,

when it was held in NC during the war....with Choo-Choo Justice. That

neg was so loose, it had about 4-5 plays on it, and they were all tack

sharp almost even though it was a hell of an enlargement just to get

an 8x10 off it....anyways, newspapers have been moving digital for a

decade almost. ....that paper I spoke of, had about 75

employees in the backshop who did pasteup and ran the stat cameras. I

went back there about 8 yrs. ago, and they had gone all-digital...the

whole way. Straight to plate. AP picture desks, the whole

nine-yards....gotten rid of the entire darkroom--8 Leitz Focomats, 2

big Durst Labradors...a wetline, and 2 paper processors--one Kodak,

and one Ilford--the best darkroom I've ever seen. they had 12 full

timers, who each shared their own processing room (2 each) with

mini-tank lines and chemistry on tap....all the film labs gone.

Scanners & computers

in their place. The backshop employees were all gone. This was a big

paper, but even the tiny ones now have followed suit. It makes perfect

sense in the newspaper business....and in most others.

 

<p>

 

I also worked for a few years in a small offset printing shop running

stat cameras & doing pre-press grunt work like basic neg

stripping....we had a couple of typesetters and a bunch of

Compugraphics typesetting equipment, as well as paste-up folks who

knew all those arcane rules of type & layout that have all but

vanished from "good" design now. Well, desktop publishing came along

and literally drove that trade under....our typesetteres pretty much

laughed this off, and refused to change...so they eventually didn't

workl there anymore, and the compugraphic stuff was sold off...and we

started running more & more lousy crap and the customers were happy

because it was THEIR lousy crap, and they didn't mind because they

designed, they laid it out...we just got the plates burned and ran the

jobs....

 

<p>

 

What's this got to do with digital and photography....well, this is

where we're at now...the same place the typesetters were about 12 yrs.

back or so....typesetting was an age-old craft, older than

photography...and yet now, it's pretty much a lost art only to be

found in really high-end print houses, or cottage trades like

letterpress printing shops.....

 

<p>

 

Blame it on consumerism, bad taste, stupidity, whatever...it's here to

stay, and it's only get worse. My opinions only, as always.

[djackson]

Architect. Dentist. Doctor. Lawyer. Tailor. Engineer. The waiting

room. Bland. Incongruity. Dusty wall-mounted prints. Dated magazines

in disarray. But the professional wears bespoken suits. Upgrade

needed. Thin-screen HDTV. 2 x 3 feet. Digital input. Photographer

provides input. Art images. E.g. Doctor's office. 50% of patients have

emotional overlay. Alpine light. Serene. Sex organs of plants. That

means flowers, Armin. Anti-anxiety images. Tailor. Images show

various fabrics and patterns. Holland and Sherry Superfine 120, 130,

140's. Dormeuil cloth. How measurements are made. Making of suit.

Architect. Key projects on display. Artistic rende

[bob_moulton]

The only constant is change. One such change is the assumption that

one buys an appliance and keeps it forever, as many of us have done

with oour Deardorffs, Graphics, etc. They are appliance, tools we use

to create the images that poke and probe inside our gray matter.

 

<p>

 

But apparently now the day of the long lived appliance is coming to

an end. At my college we trash VCRs because they cost more to repair

than to replace. We move every one of our 500+ computers out the door

three times per decade. A commericial photographer friend wrestles

with the fact that his Nikons and Sinars will last forever, but his

Digital cameras will be archaic in a few years.

 

<p>

 

A former student who owns a good home theatre shop admits that even

the most expensive equipment he sells will probably not last much

beyond 10 years,and his clients know and admit that. He yearns for

the good old equipment--the Crown Pre-Amps and the DAhlquist 10

speakers which can still be repaired.

 

<p>

 

The question unanswered is whether or not the equipment will make a

difference. The image lurks inside our head, about two inches behind

the eyeball. Are we all certain the final print--and I assume that

remains a constant--will be decidedly inferior if it is produced by a

Nikon D-1 and an Epson printer and not be a Nikon F100, the film of

your choice and a Saunders Enlarger?

 

<p>

 

It will be different, but ???

 

<p>

 

Bob

[dk_thompson]

well that doesn't matter...we will learn to accept it, maybe not all

of us, but enough so that the "new" medium whatever it is, will take

root for awhile until the next new thing comes along....your analogy

to PCs at your school is similar to alot of places...it's what happens

I guess, when things are moving this rapidly. We've got a "state of

the art" couple of year old digital slr that's an obsolete albatross

now, but it's probably the only one we'll be able to buy for another

ten years or so, so tough luck for us, I guess...we're stuck using it

and making the most of the thing, while if I mention it online some

wiseass says "what a piece of crap"....ahh, the price of

progress.....it doesn't bother me though, because it _was_ state of

the art back then, and that doesn't diminish it now...big deal.

 

<p>

 

And then I look around here, I work in an exhibits shop & production

facility...we also do silkscreening for signage. Now we mostly use

wide-format inkjet printers, or use something like Lambda output

signage if we can afford it, or need something durable. Is it the

same? Is it better?....personally I think silkscreening is the way to

go...but it's nasty to work with, can be a real pain, and is expensive

as all...the inkjets are inferior to the silkscreening, and the photos

look horrible compared to the cibas we used to use....BUT, you can do

some nifty things with digital output that weren't possible (easily)

with silkscreening....so, it's good & bad, but in the end--only the

pros know. Only the people looking for what's wrong....the majority of

the public will never know, it has no bearing on their experience as a

visitor or a viewer....something's only inferior or wrong most of the

time, only if you're looking for it...if the client, the patron, the

visitor or the viewer is happy, then there's no problem.....period.

The problem may be in your head though, and that's okay, but it will

be lost on most folks.

 

<p>

 

as always, my opinions here

only.

[john_kasaian2]

Ansel Adams(dare I say it?) equated the negative to a musical score

and the print as the performance. I see digital stuff akin to a moog

synthesizer or Roland keyboard and my Deardorff as a Steinway(one

that looks like its been dropped off a three story building, but I

digress) A good musician, I feel, can get good music from either

instrument, but some compositions sound better when played on certain

instruments. A classical symphony might be amuseing when played with

digital instruments for awhile, but they tend to remind me of

elevator music. Likewise a cello isn"t going to be found on an

Arrowsmith album anytime soon. Digital, I feel will be useful in

certain areas certainly, but in art I think it will be more limited

than most believe. Certainly anything thats going to be produced in

large quantity will go digital somewhere along the line. Commercial

work, assembly line portraiture, even family snapshots and probably

wedding photography(if the colors don't shift like photographs are

prone to do---are your wedding pictures orange?)will no doubt benefit

from digital. However art is another matter. A silver or platinum

print kind of has a soul. Each one printed by hand. Each one

slightly different. Each one a vision in it's own right. I'm not

slighting digital artists. It takes skill and talent to twiddle with

all the opportunities that photoshop affords, but after the image is

put on a disc, what happens? You punch out ten, twenty, or a hundred

duplicates? In an earlier thread, someone observed that Ansel Adams

later prints were darker, moodier than his early "performances" of

the same negative. This is what seperates digital from traditional.

Just as photography never really made painting obsolete, I don't

think digital will make traditional photography obsolete. They are

really two quite different approaches to making images. I am

concerned that traditional sources might discontinue many of the

products I enjoy using(Kodak giveth and Kodak taketh away) but I'll

bet there will always be somebody somewhere who will recognize a

market that needs to be filled. Well, thats my 2cents(hey, theres no

cent symbol on my keypad?)

[audidudi]

I shoot color exclusively these days and without a digital darkroom, I

seriously wonder whether I'd be involved in photography. What is lost

in terms of potential quality is more than offset by the ability to do

color printing at home, with me calling all the shots. To achieve the

same degree of control over results using conventional processes would

require a lot more time and effort, and an even steeper learning curve

than Photoshop offers. It would also require more space and cost even

more on a per-print basis, both of which are important concerns around

here.

 

<p>

 

And while it also gives me the ability to create hundreds of copies at

the touch of a button, I frequently go back and rework my images after

living with them for a while. This, IMO, is perhaps the biggest plus,

since I can quickly and easily experiment with different approaches to

a print -- keeping only what I like and changing what I don't -- and I

don't have to start over from scratch each and every time, either.

 

<p>

 

That said, if I were shooting b&w, I'm not sure that I'd have switched

over to the digital side as the results, quite impressive as they are,

seem to be lacking a certain something ... I can't define it, exactly,

but I know it when I see it.

 

<p>

 

As for shooting on digital instead of film, no way. Although I admire

the best digital originals I've seen, there's something to be said for

keeping your options open and when my CDs have deteriorated beyond the

point where they can ever be read again, my little pieces of film will

still be around, ready to be scanned again as necessary.

[james_chinn]

LF will be around for quite awhile, even though the choices of

materials will become more and more limited. I think we are in the

golden era of LF cameras also. As more professionals move from LF to

medium format to take advantage of digital we will se the market for

LF cameras shrink. This is good and bad. You will see less of the

medium priced cameras from calumet, toyo, linhoff and probably more

or steady demand for field cameras like Wisners. Oh, and lots of

used cameras for cheap!

 

<p>

 

My other worry is that large companies such as Ilford will reduce

their inventory of silver based products and concentrate efforts on

digital. I know many on this forum will say as long as there is a

market for the products companies will produce them, but if the

margins are small enough the justification is not there. This is the

reason I have decided to build a simple box camera for making some

11x14 negs instead of trying to buy one used. I just don't have

confidence these ULF format films will be available in the not so

distant future.

 

<p>

 

I have no problem with the march of digital. The problem I have is

the idea being pushed that digital is far superior to traditional

methods and that you can get quality results with modest investment

up front. In my previous post on the subject, someone listed the

cost to scan a neg and make a lightjet print. $39 for the one time

scan and $29 for 1 print. I guess that is a bargain. Maybe I am the

only one, but that seems pretty expensive compared to making prints

in my darkroom.

 

<p>

 

I know there are those who will say they get great prints from their

Epson(insert model # here) and special paper with archival quadtone

inksets. I have yet to see one that matches a silver print that I

can produce. If you have to reduce the quality of the work you

produce to get into digital, what kind of a artist/craftsman are you?

[geoffrey_swenson]

Probably, Jeffrey Goggin said it best. Short, concise and to the

point! The digital solution gave us the chance to be able to prepare

our color prints without relying on some moody printer who has no

idea or interest in our artistic intention.

[dk_thompson]

I don't buy those estimates for the lightjet scans...although it

probably has to do with the quality in the end....for some of the

projects we're doing now--the work goes out on bid....I suspect the

bids will come back split between analog & digital means, the final

outcome doesn't matter much to us as long as they meet the

specs....that said, I have priced a bit of this stuff, and I don't see

the front end scans (drum) as being all that cheap. I'm sure it's less

labor intensive on the operator to do a drum scan off a 4x5 CT rather

than having to bump it up to an 8x10, but still in the end, we've

actually gotten more murals made cheaper the old fashioned way over

the past couple of years, than any of the lightjet labs could provide.

 

<p>

 

The problems I see with your arguments though about fine-art saving LF

sheet films and all that is that I think you underestimate the actual

market for those materials...it may very well be all that's left right

now, and those companies are still producing film...but I think we're

headed for some lean times ahead....I'm sure someone will pick up the

slack, some smaller company...but that 8x10 film wasn't being made for

fine-art shooters exclusively...it was being made for the labs, the

furniture studios etc....and they're all going over to digital in

droves now. The labs quit using all the specialty dupe/copy films and

got into scanners....the archives' labs that use these films lost

out....they're almost all discontinued now. I always thought the big

archives & institutions would be the reason films like Pro Copy would

be made forever....not so. That market is nothing--zilch--compared to

the commercial labs. Same goes for Dupont Mylar D--the best storage

plastic...the one that's used by almost all museums & archives for

encapsulation, film storage, mounting etc.....this has been

discontinued because it was made for the graphic arts industry who

aren't really stripping negs anytmore....you'd think maybe Light

Impressions, with 50% of their products made out of this stuff, could

warrant it to stay in production....or all the archives using it as

well? Good news is there may be some import materials that will

work.

 

<p>

 

It's always that same old argument..that art is pure somehow,

untouched by any commercialism...but you're using products....the

thing that might save LF actually, is the fact that you can make some

sort of light sensitive material to fit in the holder back there if

you absolutely have to....paper negs or whatever...even full plate

tintypes. Try that with fancy new Hasselblad system, or F5. My

opinions only as always.

[lukasz_zandecki]

Somebody compared his Deardorff to a Steinway, and digital equipment to

Roland keyboard. So, may traditional photography will be like jazz,

when digital photo techniques will establish new kind of hip-hop or

techno-disco-pop? Any way, digital cameras are now common in studio

use, and its fine, people are more creative with light setups and

cropping, because they can immedietly see how the photo is looking

like, and make some changes to do it better. I'm not worring about the

future of negatives and diapositives. It will stay with us like vinyl

discs (music from vinyl is very popular among DJs in Europe, especially

those playing "new music" - ambient, electrohouse, etc.). I think that

I will have to wait about 8 to 10 years until I could buy a small

format digital camera which will produce 30-40 MB tiff's, will have 5-

10 GB microdrive disc, battery which last for 100 hours (not 100

minutes like it is today), and cost no more than $ 1000 - 1500. If that

comes, I would say: "now I can sometimes leave my FM2 nikon at home,

because my digital camera can produce images, which are technicaly

simillar to small format slides.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

 

<p>

 

Lukasz

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>"...Any way, digital cameras are now common in studio use,

and its fine, people are more creative with light setups and

cropping, because they can immedietly see how the photo is

looking like, and make some changes to do it better."<P>Actually

I don't think that is the case. More likely, psychologically

speaking, people are trying new lighting schemes and framing

because they have a new tool (or toy) and that is putting them in

the "head space"/ mindset to experiment and try different stuff in

other creative areas. As proof of this, watch how many of those

you mention settle into a 'style" which become a groove which

will become a rut.

[john_kasaian2]

I didn't mean to sound like I was down on digital, but I agree that

this is a golden age for traditional LF. Many castoffs of the now

digital graphic arts industry and commercial studios are useful to

LF shooters and are available at pennies on the dollar. Thats the

good news. The disturbing news is that materials will probably become

scarce without the demand of those same labs and studios driving

production.IMHO, there will always be a place for quality art no

matter what the process and the creative 'bug' will always drive

creative people to experiment with either cutting edge technology,

traditional, or historic processes (or all of the above)to find thier

own creative niche. I found mine with big pieces of black and white

film and stinky chemicals, and although I shoot for my own pleasure I

think traditional LF will remain a viable art form. Many sculptors

still carve wood and stone with chisels and hammers and often command

comparable, if not higher prices for thier art than those artists

using power tools. Right now, digital is "in" so I guess I'm "out"

but I'm really too busy with problems like "Do I ski or snowshoe out

to the mountain ridge where I want to shoot star trails?(and what do

I do for six hours besides freezing?")Or, "How do I get this !@%#@!

studio shutter to work?" to be too concerned about not having a

$30,000 digital back .

[tim_gearin1]

Several years ago I fell in love with landscape photography with my

Canon EOS IV. Even though a good system, producing respectable

resulty, I quickly found out what it will not do. Digital is coming

on fast, but I am not convinced at this date digital cannot give me

what I am looking for. Something about taking my time in the

mountains, feeling the air around me, and seeing what nature will

give me, slowly, very slowly stirs my heart. This intimacy will be

destroyed in a flash with a quick draw digital whose image will be

mediocre at best. Even in amateur competition, I can discerne the

difference between a film image and a digital image. So I am

presently purchasing a LF camera and will be building my own dark

room. Maybe the LF is part of my maturing process. One big benefit

to the digital era, however, is the darkroom equipement being given

away. All right!!!!