Digital cameras and dinos

greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo: Creativity, Etc. : One Thread

Hello
With the flourishing development of digital cameras, I have heard some fellow photographers express concern that film-based photography will become obsolete, much like the type-writer in the wake of the word processor. Personally, I see digital photography as just another format and do not consider it a threat at all. Also the "photos" produced from digital cameras lack a human quality and therefore are lacking in a distinct type of energy I look for in photographs. Anyone else have any comments about this?
Thanks.

-- Asher (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), September 20, 1999

Answers

I build scientific CCD cameras, and we sometimes put a standard lens on them for testing. Rest assured, when you spend $10K or more for a CCD array (not including the camera) the results can be spectacular. All the resolution, energy, and "human quality" you want. In fact, the dynamic range exceeds film by a wide margin, so you can apply almost any mapping to the print you want. Excellent separation in both shadows and highlights is easily possible. The pro level digital units for large format should do as well, though I've never had the opportunity to use one. At the moment, output devices are the limiting factor. How do you print a great high resolution digital image? I don't know when, if ever, the cost of this level of digital imaging will cross film, and film become obsolete. I still love wet darkroom work, and I'm not worried about the demise of 35mm or 4x5 in my lifetime.

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), September 20, 1999.

"Also the "photos" produced from digital cameras lack a human quality and therefore are lacking in a distinct type of energy I look for in photographs."
"I see digital photography as just another format"
I'm sorry, but those two statements completely contradict each other, making no sense. So do you also beleive that 35mm photos just don't have any energy at all compared to large format?? How about APS? That size & resolution of an image has no relation to the emotion conveyed by it. That goes back to the equipment vs photographer debate. All the recoring devices do (film, digital CCD's)is record light. That's it. To say that digital photographs lack energy is absurd. It all depends on the photographer. If this brand-new state of the art digital camera is bought by someone who only sees it as cutting-edge technolgy, and has no photographic eye (as is the case alot of the time), then yes, the pictures will be dull. But it's up to the photographer, not the camera or film/memory chip.

-- Martin Ceperley (martin@ceperley.com), September 25, 1999.

I certainly agree with Martin that the photographer has a far greater impact on the energy in a picture, than the technology in the image- plane. It is also important (I believe) that the photographer has a sufficient understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of that technology, which is difficult in the digital realm as it does keep changing. I suppose an argument could be made that current consumer- level digital cameras produce far less 'human' photographs than good 35mm film, but I see that as a difference of degree rather than anything intrinsic. In other words, the gap will narrow as we get more pixels, and bits per pixel.
In the meantime, why not embrace the extra goodies that digital offers? Instant results, instant publication (via the Web) with no nasty editors to convince. If I had a digital camera (I'm a fine one to talk), I could take a photograph, and five minutes later anyone in the world could view it.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), September 25, 1999.

Martin:
Perhaps (and very likely) the few photographs I've seen that were created and printed digitally were simply made by photographers who did not have a vision that inspired me.
However, you completely misunderstood my statements. I did not say that any format has more impact over another. I've used several formats, and like cameras, each has its strengths and weakenesses that are well known based upon years of use by many talented photographers. Digital photography, being relatively new and rapidly advancing is still largely an unknown. Quality digital photography is still inaccessible by most photographers and to a certain extent, high quality may not exist yet.
I do not doubt that as the technology improves and becomes more accessible that digital photography will IN TIME simply be viewed as another format, no better or worse than other formats. Just different. As it stands now, from what I've seen accessible digital photography has not yet arrived to the consumer market. I don't think that is an "absurd" point of view. Show me an affordable digital system that approximates the quality of traditional 35mm photography- from image management through to the final fine print (not jpeg).
I hope that clarifies my personal views. I am interested in what others think about the issue, my personal views aside.

-- Asher (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), September 26, 1999.

As a Technical Illustrator,(Graphic Artist) I have been involved with digital technology for quite a number of years. My trade has changed from hand drawing and photo mechanical reproducing to totally digital. As a lot of my work involves photographs, we have been keeping an eye on the emerging technology, and have been lucky enough to try quite a bit of it out. Digital photography has a long way to go before it surpasses film and paper if it ever does.
The majority of the images we use are photographic (film or slide), which are then scanned into the computer and output to high-end printers. Though we have to use images from digital cameras, from time to time, we try to avoid them because of their lower quality.
As a photographer I have little or no interest in digital technology, but recognize the potential it could have as another tool for me to use, just like the computer I use every day, that replaced my drafting table and drawing instruments.
In most cases with new technology, "good enough" gets accepted to often, and too soon. Right now, consumer digital photography is "good enough" for the average consumer and for putting images on the web. The higher end digital, which is way out of reach of the majority of consumers, is better but still not as good as film. Each side must be looked at in it's own light. High quality, archival paper prints, can only come from film technology, images for the web, and some publications, can come from the digital technology.

-- Francis Kelly (kelly@dfo-mpo-gc.ca), September 27, 1999.

I think you have to remember that like anything, digital has pros & cons that appeal differently to the 3 sections of the camera market: Pro, Amature, Consumer. Pro's are people that do it for a living. Therefore, they have the best funded and are the most motivated to get any edge possible. Pro's are the first to move to HIGH quality digital because of the speed & edit ability. Amatures care about making good pictures, but are not committed to earning a living at it. For them it will only when 35mm SLR like digital systems come close in price/performance to the current 35mm SLR. Then there is the huge "Consumer" section. Most people see pictures as nice little memory makers and want to make them as easy as possible at the lowest cost. The winners for RICH Consumers will be: LOW quality digital or APS. The POOR Consumers will still use: Disposible 35/APS & 35mm P&S. The VERY POOR will use: Disposible 35mm & 110 (until the Fuji 110 film supply runs out).
Note that many technologies in the past that thought they were dead, evolved or found nitches: Passenger ships almost died when the jet came along. What eventuly happened is passenger ships went from being practicle transpertation for all classes to Pleasure trips for the rich. The Jet went from being for the rich (a tie was required for boarding) to practicle tranpertation for mostly the middle class. The Pro's welcomed the jet over the prop for airplanes. Yet there are still many prop airplanes (mostly for privite use). The big disadvantage of the jet is high repair & operating cost, making the prop good for the amature. Note: avation never reached the "Consumer" level. When the TV started comming on in the 50's, The movie houses thought the end was near. Why go and pay to see a movie when it could be see at home for close to free. Yet today the movie is bigger and better then ever. The only movie place to get hit hard was the Drive-IN's (even they are making a come back). My opinion is that digital will come on strong. When many people realize the disadvantages of digital (it still costs for batteries, good paper, good ink, good working computer system, file deletion and coruption, a real high rate of obsolesce, the question of is it REAL or digital manipulation) then some sections of film will come back and survive.

-- Andy Clements (a_clements2@juno.com), September 27, 1999.

Thanks for your comments- I apologize for the HTML underline tag that won't stop. I hope this fixes it.

-- Asher (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), September 27, 1999.

One more example: The Watch. By the 1960's the Swiss owned the world watch market. Then in the 1970's came the digital watch. Dispite the problems, it overcame the analog watch throughout that decade. By the 1980's the digital watch had moved from very expensive/high tech, to only sellable as cheep toy watches. I think what happened is in the 70's the digital watch became a way of saying to everyone I'm advanced and technical. Costing hundreds to the few people who could get them. People realized after most made the change to digital by the 80's, that the digital watch no longer sent that HIP message. That the digital watches were ugly, hard to read, and most of the "advanced features" they offered were undesired/troublesome to use by "Consumers", and it is unfixable if broken. People have mostly now moved back to analog and digital is given away with a Happy Meal. I believe that somthing like this will eventually happen to "Consumer" digital camera systems. They will be HIP for a while. However, when the HIP is gone and consumers ask themselfs why are we having to putup with some of the problems that the digital camera brings, then many will go back to some kind of film camera.

-- Andy Clements (a_clements2@juno.com), September 27, 1999.

it is like comparing videotape and film side by side. Since the proliferation of videotape all camcorder manufacturers, television studios and videographers have struggled to duplicate the qualities of film with video. But alas a soap-opera still looks like a soap and a movie is still a delight to behold. I believe there will come a day when photogs will carry a credit card sized camera that sees in the dark and makes critically sharp prints to 100"x400".... but on that same day there will be a guy shooting black and white film in a camera held together by dust bunnies that can't see without a flash and can't be printed over 8x10" but the world will still reel in amazement and say "how did he do that?" (Hold your Sally Mann comments until the end please!) And photog A will still be insanely jealous of photog B!

-- trib (linhof6@hotmail.com), September 28, 1999.

End of underline.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeffs@hyperreal.org), October 01, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ