Mysterious Digital Dependence

[Mike Cockerham]

I agree with Dave , when the Nikon F3 came out did all of the F models suddenly stop, or when the new F6 arrived I don't think my F3 suddenly stopped. Having worked in retail camera sales for 20 years this is what happens. I buy a new 3 megs pixel camera in 1998 and I pay $500 for it , I do not print anything other than snapshots my camera works fine but now I see that I can get 7 megpixel cameras for $400, it must be better than the one I have and it is less money. This is what is driving digital cameras now, not what do I need but what do I want which is the latest and greatest.

Daves D30 still works and does what he needs it to do, your Dorf works for you, but somepeople will tell you that you should dump the 50 year old camera and get a new Wisner or Phillips but will it change what you do with it I don't think so.

[Doug Meek]

John -

I love reading your posts. Please put that fountain pen and leather-bound notebook to use soon. Your experiences and gift of writing just beg for a book to be written.

I am only 47, but I too yearn for a return to the simple life. I guess that I must be a throwback to an earlier generation. I have one of those digital wiz-bang cameras in addition to an extensive large format system. That $1000 digital camera is far more difficult for me to figure out than my $20000 large format system. I must confess to simply putting my digital camera on the "auto everything" function and just hoping for the best. Not so with my LF camera. I control and understand every facet of the image-taking process.

As for your reference to "no 128-page owner's manual", you need not worry. That manual now only exists in cyberspace either on-line or on a cd. Please keep your excellent posts coming John!

[David Luttmann]

"I predict that there will be a time not to far off, that a gallery print with have a sticker on the back which will say..."No digital manipulation in the taking, or printing of this image was used", and below this...will be the signature of the photographer. "

Richard,

I'll look for that disclaimer on all analog prints as well. Obviously someone like Ansel Adams would never have manipulated prints in a darkroom .....and if he did, that is OK because it wasn't manipulated in Photoshop in the digital domain.

Or maybe, that is just a ridiculous, biased prediction.

[Wayne]

"More simple" does not necessarily mean "more easy" as you may find out with your new fountain pen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think John probably realizes that "more easy" does not mean "more better". ;-)

[Wayne]

You can't work on electronics on your workbench after dinner because this stuff is too simple - no moving parts to duct tape. It's binary; either it works or it doesn't. What can be simpler than that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bruce--you're joking, right? I hope so because that is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.

[Wilbur Wong]

I am completely sympathetic to use of manual systems in photography and elsewhre in my life, and I appreciate the work of others who do so. I have shot with large format for a quarter of a century and have no expectation of giving that up.

I admit to having a 4 x 5 color lab in my basement which seldom gets used. It is as much a victim of modern economics and the society of which we have become. I was laid off from a company that I went to work for 35 years ago, why? because the mega company which took it over considered me an over paid anchronysm. Never mind I was one of the innovators who made it a sufficient success to be desireable for a take over. Today a dozen designers work there and most of them depend on todays super duper software and computers which replaced experience and innovation. They simply believe that there is greater ROI in the modern model of business, and do not financially equate the long term return for ideas generated that are not quick and dirty.

Because of my work predicament, I find myself scrambling to earn a living on my own and remaking myself. It has not been an easy 4 years, and at age 59 a hell of a time both physically and emotionally to establish a new business.

One of the consequences of this of course, is I "feel" I have little time to devote to my photographic hobby, while I try to make ends meet. I too feel falling prey to the call of going digital, as I know that I can accomplish a work flow in a fraction of the time that is required by large format, film based art. So maybe I could make some personal expressions quickly in little snippits of time.

Yes I have a little point and shoot digicam, but it's used only for snap shots and recording work issues. Do I want a "real" digital camera? Yes, it is alluring, and yes it would be expensive, I wouldn't want to settle for less than a D1S Mark II and an array of tilt - shift lenses. Too bad I can't afford it.

Seriously, even if I had a dream digicam, I am sure that I will enjoy those few moments when I am in the right place at the right time to set up my view camera. The state of mind and rejuvenation of my soul and psyche while under the dark cloth are goals worthy of itself.

I might watch 30 hours of TV a year, I wind up the grand-father clock every Sunday night, and I still heat my home with a wood burning stove. (and I spend several hours a week on the web.)

[CXC]

I remember when TI calculators started being sold in large numbers, there was a rumor that something like 30% were defective, yet they didn't have any quality control to weed them out. They figured out that it was cheaper to let the customers find the duds, and then rapidly replace them for free. Not sure if the legend is true, but it makes sense: at some point, when making something really complex, in quantity, it becomes more practical to replace it rather than to fix it. Furthermore, technology evolves so rapidly that if something lives at least 6 months, its replacement will be better and/or cheaper.

So, most high tech stuff has become "consumables". Not much point in putting a camera in an indestructible titanium body, if the innards won't be good for a long, long, time. Might as well just make the body out of plastic. If you prefer and are prepared to pay for titanium, well, sorry, too bad.

[paulr]

"I predict that there will be a time not to far off, that a gallery print with have a sticker on the back which will say..."No digital manipulation in the taking, or printing of this image was used", and below this...will be the signature of the photographer. "

Do we see stickers claiming "absolutely no new fangled orthocromatic film used in making this image," or "none of that wussy dry plate technology employed," or indeed, "no photographic technology used--just burnt sticks on rock" ... ?

We're just seeing new processes getting added to the old ones, as has always happened. I don't think the original post was just another luddite elegy for the good old days.

[Alan Davenport]

I dunno what to say, John. I was a holdout for a few years, but only because I felt the price of digital cameras was ridiculous for the quality. I broke down about a year ago, and bought a 2MP digi that was being closed out, only this time the price was ridiculously LOW.

Now I usually have the digicam in my pocket while I'm out with the 4x5. One is for photographs, the other's for taking pictures.

[Ellis Vener]

What do people do when their digital widget board crashes out in the field? How do you explain that to the client who is expecting a dependable professional?

I switch to my back ups. What do you do when you find out after processing that the manufacturer screwed up the film batch (I've had it happen) or that your chemistry atthe lab has gone bad or that there was agoof in the processing? (My solution is not to have all of my film processed at the same time but still there are those times when the frame that was absolutely singualr was in the batch was ruined.)