Digital STINKS (1 Viewer)

[AjayM]

I stopped visiting "regular" photography forums because of the above, the number of people who went out and dropped $2-3k on a nice little kit, and they want to start making money with photography (usually with wedding photography), yet they don't understand how the camera works, things like depth of field are totally foreign to them, or how to use the flash they just bought, etc, etc.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

John,

I'm pretty sure I understood what you meant all along. Let me say that while you may not know too many people who would think of themselves as software engineers, programmers or whatever-they-call-us, there are indeed plenty of such people who know little-to-nothing of the fundamentals of computer science and such much like the average Joe who buys a digital camera and thinks he's suddenly much better at photography.

I'm sure you're familiar w/ the term "hacks" even in your field. Well, that term probably means the same thing in mine. :wink:

FWIW, whenever I meet a "programmer" I never knew before, I always wonder whether he/she's just a hack or not. I'm just glad I don't (often) have to interview them (nor far worse, manage them), but maybe some day that will have to change -- or I might decide to change careers and become a "hack" in photography or something else for a change. :wink: Oh, I still remember a (vocational) high school teacher telling us we don't need to be any good at math to be a programmer -- boy, was I in for a rude awakening in college. :wink:

One more thing. The issue for us goes far deeper than that actually. It used to be that many of the stuff we take for granted today required a well paid programmer to do for each specific request. But advances in technologies (and applications of good sound theories and mathematics) have made much of that stuff automated, end-user doable, much easier for "hacks" to do, etc. That's not much different than going from fully manual photography to ever improving AI-assisted and advanced PP software assisted photography.

And AFAIK, there was also once upon a time when color photography required 3 separate exposures in one each of the 3 RGB color channels/glass plates and then required the photographer/developer to recomposite the 3 exposures into 1 for a color photograph. Interestingly, we still employ roughly the same principle today in the digital world, but the advances in technologies have certainly made the application of that principle infinitely more user-friendly, efficient and effective, don't you think?

_Man_

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Ajay,

Come on now. Be fair to John. You seem to continue to insist that his business model should be the same as (or very similar to) the pros you know. You're accusing him of assumptions, but you seem to be making lots of assumptions about John and what he *should* be doing too.

We don't all choose our professions only to make $$$ and for not much else afterall. If nothing else, John's point that the $$$ side of the business is turning photography from an art (and actually, science also) into not much more than a vehicle for commericalism is a valid and fairly self-evident point. It seems to happen w/ *all* of the arts, not just photography, and that's indeed a shame.

While I'm not a fan of Ken Rockwell's, there's certainly some truth to his little satire of 7 Levels of Photographers:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

Maybe in the end we really should just stick to being an "artist" or "amateur" and avoid aspiring to becoming the "professional", if we wish to be true to the art form and not let commercialism overtake our love for it. But I guess many who love and also work just try their best to keep the 2 sides separate and do both as if they lead completely different lives between the two. BTW, that happens in the software dev world too, FWIW...

_Man_

 

[AjayM]

I have made no such statement about John or his business, however I think it's not very fair to say "Digital STINKS" just because one does not use all of the tools that are around (and there is nothing wrong with that, some of those tools cost a ton of money). Or the fact that there is no sense at all in spending money on high end digital equipment, just because one or even many people's business don't support it.

But none of that changes the fact that film is dying and digital is taking over. And that day is a lot closer than some people think.

 

[Sam Posten]

Clearly I'm not qualified to continue arguing any of these technical points, but I would like to add a few more philosophical ones.

I think that a better thread title might have been 'Progress stinks'. Or 'Changes in market forces stink'. Putting up pixel peeping strawmen comparing digital backs versus individual films seems a fools errand at best. Digital is still in its infancy and the technologies will surely get better, cheaper and faster as time goes on. Workflows will be streamlined. Things, in general will continue to change for 20 or more years. Whole industries will rise and fall. As the ancient curse says, we will live in interesting times.


If anything, maybe this statement is what can give you hope. I see products competing with cheap every day, look no further than bottled water selling so briskly when clean, ordinary tap water would suffice. Maybe we just havent gotten to the point where the simple newness, the shine of digital photography hasnt worn off yet, and consumers havent been 'educated' that there are reasons why making an investment in a pro can still pay off when these cheap alternatives present themselves. Certainly pros have been competing with cheap 35 mm and polaroids for decades without too much angst against the uncle freds of the world.

Will there be a backlash against cheap digital? I dont know. But it would only take 1-2 people in my circle of friends having their weddings ruined by not having artistic, lasting memories of the day when they relied on relatives. As for other areas of photography, I'm less sure, but I do know that people tend to appreciate quality when it matters most, or is most visible.

Sam

 

[JohnRice]

3,000 4x5 images in a week? Absolutely not. Not here, not anywhere, unless possibly they had a couple dozen shooters running full bore all the time (and in which case they would need a couple dozen digital backs, not just one) or was a place doing extremely high volume copy work or something like that, but I don't picture them doing that on 4x5 and it is definitely not commercial photography or anything requiring the slightest bit of time or talent. I venture to guess even a portrait photographer shooting as fast as possible could not have 3,000 35mm shots in a week without half of them just being of a wall. How much time is being spent on each shot, 10 seconds? You guys who have actually shot 4x5 just stop and think for a minute about the basic logistics of shooting 3,000 sheets in a week.

Anyway Ajay, you are great at spewing out absurd figures and continue to back them up with no discernible explanation why you have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Engaging "Kaplan" mode.




Sam, I intentionally titled the thread the way I did to make it provocative. I was hoping my immediately following it up with "did I get your attention?" would kind of spell that out without making it boringly obvious. Besides, I have said more then once since then that digital has real benefits and I am waiting for the day when it actually becomes what so many people think it is, as well as being more reasonably priced in the high end.

 

[JohnRice]

Man, I was sadly bugged by the first several levels of the Rockwell bit, until I got to 2 and 1. Those are exactly the guys who are starting to piss me off. the sad thing is it may just be possible I was at level 7 at some point, but I have now dropped to 3. :p)

 

[AjayM]

The point is obviously lost by now since you want to argue the semantics. I don't know why it's hard to comprehend that plenty of people find a true cost benefit with the move to digital, even those spending $50k on a digital back. The petty insults though are really fun, you want to make a "provactive" thread, but when anybody disagree's with the whole foundation of your point, you get defensive and start throwing around insults and get just a bit condescending (have a need to mention your 'background' one more time?). As if there weren't hacks and wanna-be's when all there was around to use was film.

Andrew

 

[JohnRice]

Actually, one of my best friends, who I have known since my freshman year of college, is a software engineer, if that is the term. Maybe you know, or maybe you don't, but my alma-mater (RIT) is pretty big in computer technology. He is going through a similar type of situation as me, in a way. He owns an ISP but is finding that field increasingly difficult to work in.

In the last year or so, I have expanded into web site design and while I still have a geat deal to learn about the code side of things, I am amazed by how little a lot of people who have been doing it for years know. In fact, that was a major factor in me going into it. I got tangled with this guy who called himself a web designer, but his sites didn't work. Even though I knew nothing about html annd site design, I could look at how he did things and see why they didn't work. Then I started really looking at web sites and realizing how bad most of them were. So, with my design background and a general knack for pickinng up technical things, I realized I could do a better job than 95% of the web designers out there.

Of course, now I look at the first sites I did and know I would have done them differently behind the scenes, but they still look and work better than most, even if I could have coded them better. I will probably never get into the most sophisticated types of sites, particularly online stores, but I really don't wannt to. I'm just looking for an extension to the othher visual creation I like to do, to fill in the gaps during this very bad time in commercial photography.


I think most of you realize I don't actually think digital is a bad thing in and of itself. It's just that it has served as a catalyst for a lot of severely distorted impressions of what is needed to do good work. When the tools used, and they are nothing more than that, become such an obsession for so many people, something is wrong. It's funny because I used to get a lot of comments about how I must have to buy new equipment all the time because cameras change constantly. I would get such baffled looks when I would say " Not Really. Consumer cameras change constantly. The pro stuff doesn't." I also used to often be asked if I used a Hasselblad, because that was the only name most people knew that they associated with pros. Now they ask me how many megapixels my camera has, followed by telling me how many theirs has, with an air of superiority if theirs is higher. Or, they look at the view camera (if I am using it) and ask me if it's digital. I like that situation because then I say something like "sure, on the simple, low end stuff, but the good stuff is still always on film because the quality is so much better."

I admit, I am attached to photography and seeing that actual knowledge continues and not everyone just turns into computer manipulation freaks. I definitely get keyed up when I read comments which are absurd or ignorant, and I should just brush them off. If the day actually comes when actual experience no longer means anything, like some people wish was true, I hope I'm not around. It's a good thing that people like Rob Tomlin have taken the time to learn some silver processes (even if he is turning into a digital Judas :p) ) and people like Man have been motivated by digital to find a new hobby.

I think the main thing is that with such a sudden shift in one aspect of photography there are an awful lot of people who would like to think everything has been thrown out the window and they no longer have to know any of it. The fact is, the only thing that is changing is the manufacture annd form of the sensor, which is going from organic to electronic. The new sensor is definitely in it's early infancy, though it has come quite a way from the first ones I dealt with nearly 20 years ago. It isn't the answer to everything. What bothers me is a lot of people think it is.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

That seems so very true, John -- and it's true w/ a great many other things too, not just photography. I think it all has more to do w/ people's prevailing wish for instant gratification, that shiny new "toy" (as Sam suggests) and various such things than anything else inherent to the object of our obsessions, etc. And admittedly, I'm certainly far from immune to that myself.

Still, though, John, w/ advances in technologies, there can also be advances in methodologies or perhaps, rather, advances in the application of methodologies, etc. and perhaps also significant paradigm shifts and real breakthroughs in the art form and relevant businesses and business models/practices. If I were the working pro, I would not want to dismiss the possibilities w/out looking deeper into them. Afterall, significant advances in the tools have certainly made new things possible all along throughout history. And AFAIK, all the art forms of major significance have gone through their fair share of evolutions and revolutions over time (and some may not even have much, if anything, to do w/ advances in tool set). Maybe the advances offered (and promised) by digital will lead to some major revolutions in this art form too. It certainly seems to be doing just that in the parallel art form of the cinema.

_Man_

 

[Sam Posten]

I dont know about that Man-Fai. With the Mac leading the charge on easy entry to digital audio and video editing the same way Canon and Nikon and the other camera/software vendors are doing digital imaging, you would think that there would be a real explosion of GOOD quality experimental films. There certainly are some, but I was more excited when things like Short Video Journal were really pumped about this 5-6 years ago and not so much now today that things like SVJ have died off.

In all of this, it takes time for people to get beyond the shiny toys and into the artistry, and when so much of this stuff is marketed at gear heads like me its questionable just what slim percentage of us geeks will ever develop that artistic capability. It's hard work.

I think its easy for people like John to get overwhelmed by the sheer number of 'noobs with a nice camera', but I think over time this will stabilize and people will go back to looking for quality they can trust. It's going to be a rocky few years for people in those positions but for people like me (and you too I suspect!) this will be a golden age.

I used to wonder how content producers would make a living in the digital age, when everyone has access to both cheap tools and piracy is rampant. Today I'm still interested in that but I think its clearer that there will always be markets for talented people but its the intermediaries who have the most to fear. The RIAAs and the MPAAs and the big content networks. It wont be easy to compete for those artists, but its not the death sentence that the old school intermediaries are facing.

Sam

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Sam,

I agree w/ your sentiments. When I mentioned the cinema at the end of that post, I was refering to stuff like special effects, CGI, the push to go all digital, etc. and how those kinds of things seem to be making some serious changes to certain parts/aspects of the film industry. But no, none of that stuff will ever replace true talent, particularly at the higher levels, as you point out. While advances in technologies *might* reduce the gap between the truly talented and the wannabe's, it also *might* work the other way and increase the gap too -- hard to predict me thinks. Such advances probably often do one thing for a certain kind of talent while the opposite for another kind of talent, so it may well depend on how multi-talented one is at the end of the day -- and when I say "talent" here, I mean specific skills/talents where a true master of photography (or whatever other art form or profession) might actually have many of them all useful toward the art form (and perhaps, also the business side of it).

_Man_

 

[JohnRice]

My impression is that typically it increases the gap at first. Take, for example, the first appearance of the Mac. All of a sudden people started doing desktop publishing and with the wysiwyg interface, they suddenly started throwing in every font they could get their hands on. They were so enamored by what they could do, they rarely stopped to think about whether they should, or whether it even looked good. "Ooh! Look at all the fonts I can put in this." I'm sure they thought thhey were incredibly creative because they could do that. Look at web design. How many sites are unbelievably cluttered or have so many animations annd thinks going on the make you dizzy? Same deal. The ability to make something happen is not that same as having a good sense of what to make happen.

 

[Tony J Case]

Rise! Rise from your grave!


*Casts necromancy spell*


I'm going to straight up agree - I dont like digital. Now, mind you I do think that Digital has it's place, but I just like the look of film SO much better. It's got better dynamic range, better colors, I like the look of the grain - I just think it's a superior format.


M'lard, if it please the court - here's exhibit A and B:





and





Both pictures are taken within seconds of each other, both are straight out of the camera (save for the film, which I underexposed slightly, so I increased it an f-stop or two). Otherwise, I didn't touch the colors, enhanced them or otherwise touched them up in any way. The top one was shot with a Rebel K2 on Fuji Reala and the bottom one was on a Rebel XSi, and I think the analog version looks WAY sexier.


The other area that film has it over digital? Black and white shooting. Digital B&W looks so flat, so bland. The contrasts aren't very strong, the blacks are tepid, the whites do nothing for me. Film, on the other hand looks really nice. Something like this shot just wouldn't look nearly as nice in digital:





The other selling point - at least for me? The quality of my shots has gone WAY up since I started working with film again. Why? Because of the limited resources. With digital I found myself spamming, shooting with a pray and spray attitude, firing off 400 shots on an outing without blinking an eye. 375 of them I would never look at again, with 10 or 20 being any damn good. With film, I'm constantly asking myself "Why am I taking this picture? Is this worth expending one of my 36 shots on?" - and many a time, I find myself backing away from a mediocre picture without pulling the trigger.


Oh, and the last reason why film is superior (which is a bit of a cheat, since it doesn't apply anymore). One word: Kodachrome!

 

[Sam Posten]

Well let's be fair here, you are comparing sooc digital (with whatever presets you chose) versus a negative that's been lab processed. Post a full size shot for editing and I bet a few here could whip up a version that's just as striking as the top one, I bet a minor tweak to contrast would do 90% of what you want. I like film too but it's on life support.

 

[Tony J Case]

Oh sure you could tweak the colors to match film, but you want to go color correct everything you shoot? I like to keep my photoshoppery to a minimum - it's my least favorite part of photography. And besides, nothing you do is going to recover the highlights - film overloads gracefully when there is washed out lighting while digital highlights abruptly clip and look horrible as soon as anything gets too bright. It's not so evident in the two pictures I posted above, but I've had some awesome shots turn out that would have killed the exposure on my digital.


As for the life support - sure it's a niche, but there's been an upswing in film usage as of late (weird anomalies like the end of Kodachrome developing aside). The Lomo hipster crowd has become pretty large and I hear tell of professionals coming back to shooting film. Sure it'll never be really big like it once was, but like records, film will probably never quite go completely away.


Or at the very least - if it is indeed a doomed medium, I'll be shooting it all the way up until there's no more rolls left to expose.

 

[Sam Posten]

Well again, it's not just tweaking to taste. Raw files are like your negatives, you get to decide how your negatives are going to develop into prints.


If you let the lab decide for you then you LIKE the look of your lab more than you do the look of the film you are shooting, especially if you are pushing ISO or overexposing to begin with.


If you are shooting jpeg then you are stuck with the results of your jpeg presets and that doesnt accurately reflect even the capabilities of your camera let alone the true capabilities of digital photography.


If you choose a crappy jpeg preset for the type of work you are shooting then NO WONDER you like the lab prints better. Even the best jpeg preset won't hold up to a well done raw conversion.

 

[Sam Posten]

30 seconds worth of contrast and saturation bumps. Hope this is ok. For the record, I like this one better than I do your film version but I'm multiple kinds of color blind, so ymmv. =)

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Nice example of what a little post processing can do, Sam. I agree completely with you regarding PP. I see digital as an opportunity to easily and inexpensively have my own "dark room", something I never had in the days of film.

 

[Bryan X]

Originally Posted by Scott Merryfield

I see digital as an opportunity to easily and inexpensively have my own "dark room", something I never had in the days of film.

+1