From: David Dyer-Bennet > I find 35mm easier to work with than 4x5, and digital easier to work > with than 35mm, of course. thanks for that. I am the same though I do often find myself grabbing the camera which most suits the image (IMO) > Well, I've used the 4x5 since I got my first digital camera, but have > not used it since I got my current Fuji S2. I've also got financial > constraints at the moment that make using equipment that doesn't cost > me film and processing rather more attractive. > > It's *entirely* possible that I'll wimp out and take a more convenient > choice over a "better" choice sometimes -- I already did that between > 4x5 and 35mm before I ever owned a digital camera, too, of course. I want to add to this, but a bit further down. > Seems to me you're implying, and carefully avoiding actually arguing, > that digital photography is inherently more mechanical, more > mass-produced. Whereas I *will* argue that the opposite is true; to > make the same amount of personal adjustment to any given photo in > digital form takes *far* less time than in the darkoom, so any given > photographer can give far *more* individual attention to each photo > with digital than with with film, or can make more photos with the > same amount of attention per photo as with film. no, I'm saying I'd prefer a cheaper *product*, I'm saying as a customer of the motor companies, I'd prefer the cheapness of a car that is easier to produce than a difficult one, just as here in Perth many photo customers are asking for what they expect.. nay, demand -a cheaper image - the digital one. they're forcing prices down heavily (!) Having said that, there has been a resurgence in the wedding photo industry to see it all go down on film, and even some companies after magazine content want it this way too (and they are paying more ;-) but on the whole the bulk of the industry consumers want cheap digital pics. Funny thing though is that I always argues 'horses for courses' and talked customers into choosing the appropriate media for the final product. When half baked art directors had insisted on 6x7 chromes were needed for a final product destined for newsprint I'd always suggested 35mm B&W was the better choice. In this respect digital is king, even a low res bad jpeg is perfectly acceptable for such situations, and many images consumed these days go into similar publications. > We'll see how the CDs do. Probably more permanent than color > materials. Epson Ultrachrome prints, and a number of other inksets on > the right papers, are essentially certainly more permanent than any > current chromagenic system (they're rated at 3 times the life-span by > the top independent testing lab). cd's are failing in under 3 months in some instances - there's a list member here who'll attest to that, and one of the most frequent things I find myself doing for photographers these days is data recovery from flaky CD's. DVD's are looking better, but this debate has raged for years among people with more to lose data wise than you and I (hope I'm not being too presumptuous here!) Personally I prefer hard drives :-) > Also, for the first time people can do their own printing *without > setting up a darkroom*. This is getting a far greater number of > people into doing "real" printing (not just mechanical straight > prints). And the more people who try something, the more good ones > will turn up. that's true, no doubt about it. And I still make plenty of $$ helping those who struggle with colour management ;-) > Yes, the low cost of shooting in digital makes things possible that > were never really feasible before. Many of those new possibilities > aren't good :-). This sounds like it's probably one of them. they seem driven to it by customer demands more than photographers desires. > Clearly some people can't handle the new freedoms. I wonder how those > two specific examples will be doing in a year, though; will they have > foundered, or will they have learned to work within the new > capabilities, or will they have picked a set of constraints that they > *can* work within and be sticking to them? Seems like all three > outcomes are possibilities. these are top Perth pros, and they are *hurting* at the moment. I do feel for them, but customers, the proliferation of people from other industries who've found they can handle a digicam and cheap prices are pushing them *hard*. Those very few who've stuck with film only have been doing it better money wise, much better. Australia is a country renown for rapid assimilation of new technologies - many products trial here before the outside world see them, and everyone has to have the latest and greatest ASAP. I see in a recent Kodak survey published in a local rag that in the US 52% of pro shooters are film only, 12% are digital only and the rest are mixed. here in Perth more than 80% (my survey) are digital only 8% are film only with the rest mixed. A much greater division. Australia has been a testing ground for electronics, and it's proved digital can overwhelm the competition in the market place. One very large leading camera store in Perth no longer stocks film at all (!) while many that relied on film have folded altogether. digital *sales* are winning yet photographers are finding the load greater, the profits smaller and the competition stiff. Time will tell. It'll be interesting to see how many pro digi shooters are left in a few years.. many have fallen already. > My wall/door analogy is only valid when the door actually leads to the > same place that knocking your head through the wall leads to. I know ;-) > I've gotten to have that feeling again with some of my early digital > inkjet prints, especially the quadtone B&W ones. me too. Anything new is exciting that's true. >>As a consequence many people will look at an image as > > just one image of many that they may care for or not. It will have > > no value though, it's just a picture after all! > > I think people *already* have this problem with photography. Digital > isn't changing anything in this regard. it seems to be worse from what i've been seeing though > Let me make an excursion into audio. The fact that audio recording > (and editing) went from analog to digital seems to have had absolutely > *zero* impact on the appearance of new talents or the recognition of > old ones. It's probably improved the demo CDs of a lot of basement > bands, though. > > I think the path digital imaging follows will probably be more like > this than like what you are afraid will happen. ah. The college has a film and TV department that went completely digital. I used to lecture in basic photography to their students but it was deemed cheaper to teach them on digital video cameras so that component was dropped some 3 years back. Since the last of the film taught students have left they've had such a dramatic decline in skills, the students themselves have demanded photography be reintroduced. They have realised they need the basic B&W course to gain perspective, to learn about film curves, colour sensitivity, development etc so they can relate it to video. the audio industry is different. The desk jockeys who mixed down the tracks sit in front of digital mixing desks which look and behave *exactly* like the analogue ones. The puter programs that digitise still have AU meters and sliders on them, to all intents and purposes it behaves exactly the same as before. the transition from tape/hard drive to vinyl/CD is still handled by a factory somewhere and is something they never went near anyway.. > > damn - I'm getting too close to the realms of phenomenology ;-) > > I'll agree that their value is decided by *us*, yeah. > Well, *should* we value things just because they're hard? Especially > should we value doing things the hard way by choice, when a much > easier way exists? What *is* the value of that? the rarity of the effort? > Me too, very much. But I think working hard to achieve something > *that can be achieved more easily* is pretty dumb. Hard work should > be directed to producing something of interest, of value, something > that's actually hard to make. like a multiple print? ;-) > New challenges always arise when old ones become easier. There's > always another mountain beyond the current one. I really don't think > that there's going to be any shortage of challenging photographs > waiting to be made and appreciated. I deeply appreciate your thoughts Jeff and have enjoyed bouncing mine off you ;-) all the best Karl
