Will Digital Make LF obsolete?

[Trevor Crone]

Andrew I asked myself almost the same question at the start of this year.Having just turned 50 I felt that I and my photography had reached a "crossroads",do I go digital or do I consolidate the old ways?I chose the old ways and blew a fair sum on a 45 enlarger,new 45 camera and a couple of lenses I felt are unique to 45 work. I did this because I beleive traditional processes are here for a very long time to come,just look at the number of photographers printing in platinum,POP,carbo n and any other alternative process you care to think of,in fact it seems to be on the increase. So if you look after that lens and yourself you will be using it at 70,your comp uter? Regards,Trevor.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

I often compare photochemical imaging vs. digital imaging with different mediums in the world of painting. Artists were painting with oils in the 1600's. The invention of Acrylics or Computer Graphics for that matter, have not displaced oil as a viable and popular painting medium. All the mediums in photography or painting are simply tools that various artists gravitate toward, either for their subtle nuances or sometimes for the way they handle. They are not forms of expression in and of themselves, but a means to achieve it.

I sell broadcast television equipment to feed my family and in the twenty years that I've been doing that, I've seen enormous technological change take place in that industry. As with any other technologically driven field, many demand to have the latest, some not even understanding what it is they are asking for! "I wanna go digital" is the common remark I hear. Digital processing in a camera? Digital tape format? Non-linear digital editing? Digital what? Tape? OK, D1?, D5?, DV?, DVCPro?, DVCam?, D-9?, 4:1:1 sampling?, 4:2:2 sampling?, 8-bit?, 10-bit? Do you see my point? You can spend a great deal of time trying to understand all that is new before you can even chart a path of purchase. I'm not saying one should reject all new technology, but rather to consider it all as a selection of tools for specific tasks. If you can identify the tasks at hand, the right tools will be obvious to those who bother to read and keep up with the times.

In art, the business of what tool to use is more emotional. Some people don't like to sit in front of a computer screen. It reminds tham too much of television or work, for that matter! Some people like to get their hands wet and enjoy the tactile aspects of making traditional prints. The process has mistique and requires a certain brand of dexterity and thought that differs from the world of computers. The business of going out into the wilderness with only mechanical tools that require no batteries or cables or laptops, to some, fits in more comfortably with hiking in the out-of-doors, devoid of the sounds of the modern rat race.

On the other side, there is tremendous possibility for experimentation in the digital domain. Remove picture elements, add new ones, rob from one image and paste into a second. Change contrast, tonal scale, soften, sharpen, the whole gamut offers tremendous possiblities.

I say the two worlds will coexist for a long time. As long as there are people wanting to express themselves with traditional tools, you'll be able to find the materials. They may cost more. They may be fewer in variety as "highly profitable markets" dwindle, but you'll be able to get the tools and supplies you need. There may even be a resurgence of interest in various mediums. Just look at the cottage industry that has sprung from the many alternative processes you read about in the trades.

As for what any person age 27 will be doing when they are 70, all I can say is "probably not what they think they will be doing". I would buy the tools that seem appropriate for the task at hand and with which you have the greatest comfort level. It's what you do with those tools that really counts! Good luck and thanks for asking such a great question of this forum. I'm sure it will get a lot of us thinking real hard about just what we do all this for!

[David F. Stein]

Great comments by everyone, esp. David G and Bob Z. Inkjet/digital may be seen as a alternative medium. Instead of trying to make an inkjet print minic a photography, we can use this new tool to create the best expression it is possible of. That is why we still have people working in charcoal, lithograph, etching, drypoint, watercolor and so on. Think of yourself as a printmaker-then find the medium that fits the expression. That's why I like the book called Photographic Printmaking, this is what we are doing. ON THE OTHER HAND, each new medium changes the standard for authenticity and, also, how we psychologically interpret the world. This is the great part of Keepers of Light. Thus, in the old days, if we needed to establish that we graduated from a certain university, we would have to have had the registar sign a typed letter, which we then submitted by mail. Today, a xerox copy of your diploma is expected-and demanded! And it may eb transmitted by fax. But is that really as authentic or verifiable a documentation. When we accepted a wood cut as "reality," we perceived our world differently from when "paintings" or "photographs" cut it. That is what respondents are saying: it may be hard to detect, but there is a difference between light-sensitive, chemically developed materials and digitally produced ones, (the photon vs. the pixel, as it were), just as there is between movies shot on film stock and those done on video tape. Great list a

[Wayne Campbell]

Digital won't make LF obsolete. LF became obsolete when Oscar Barnack introduced his Leica. Vinyl became obsolete when CDs were introduced. 35 MM motion pictures became obsolete when HDTV Video came along. But wait a minute....

Why do people flock to 8x10 and 4x5 from medium formats? Why do collectors seek out vinyl claiming it has a warmer, fuller sound than CDs? Why are features still shot in 35 mm instead of v

[Pete Andrews]

Until recently, I thought we were about 10 years away from digital being a serious threat to even medium format, let alone LF, but I've had to revise that drastically.

Snooping around Kodak's website, I see that they already have 36 x 36mm square CCD sensors with a resolution of 4096 x 4096 pixels! They're monochrome sensors with extended blue sensitivity, but put 3 of them together to give a full RGB image, and you've got one hell of a digital camera. The 16 megapixel resolution would give MF a very serious challenge. And this technology is available now.

Of course, I don't know what the cost would be, but I do know that it'll be half of that in a years time, and a quarter the year after. Meanwhile the cost of a basic MF camera continues to rise, as does the price of film. My initial estimate of 10 years looks way off the mark. Just food for thought.

[Ron Shaw]

I also think its much closer than most people seem to think it is.

[QT Luong]

If/when digital takes over, the last piece of equipment to become obsolete will be the lens. No matter what you do, you still need to form an image to begin with.

[Mike Troxell]

I worried about this for awhie too. I see a time when digital could match the quality of LF today. But there is much more to the advantage of using LF than just image quality. I had a vision of a future digital camera that would replace todays LF camera. Whatever quality a digital camera is capable of, to match LF it would also have to be capable of tilts and swings and a larger viewing area to fosus on (an 8x10 screen for a handheld camera?).

So, the digital equal to a LF camera of today would have tilts and swings in some form and a large (possible expandable or pop-up) viewing screen at the very least with possible other differences from a regular digital camera. What I'm basically talking about is a standard LF camera with a digital back. You would probably have the same image quality as you would get with a conventional LF camera and having a drum scan of the negative or transparency. Add in the extra cost of the digital LF camera and I don't see any advantage to traditional LF equipment.

[Mike Troxell]

A painter can take Photoshop or a similar program and create a 'digital painting'. Now suppose a new printer is developed which will print out an image that simulates conventional oil paints, watercolors, charcoal finish, ect. that is indistinguishable from the finish provided by the traditional medium an artist would use. Is this 'digital painting' that someone created with a computer as valid as a traditional painting even though the digital artist mentioned may be incapable of drawing even a straight line with a paintbrush but relies on the computer program to get all the lines, angles, colors, ect. correct that the painter may not have been able to produce manually?

I realize that digital manipulation takes skill and talent, but I feel that some (many?) photographers who have spent years perfecting their camera and darkroom skills feel the same about digital photography as a traditional painter would feel about the digital painter. It may be wrong to feel that way but still.....

[Andrew Herrick]

Firstly thanks to all for your valuable responses. Whatever it may do to our photography, the digital age is a wonderful thing in being able to connect people like this from around the world. The discussion has made me realise that I had in fact asked two questions but had confused them into one.

The first is whether digital (in small or MF) will replace LF by virtue of its low cost/high quality over the coming years, thus rendering my new lens obsolete. I now realise that no matter how great the resolution and sophistication becomes at the back end, you still need a superb piece of glass at the front to take a superb picture. Digital won't change that. And whatever advances are made at the small end of the scale will carry over into the larger formats. Someone said recently that you can "walk into" a large format picture by virtue of its incredible detail and sense of space, and that you could never do this with a 35mm picture. I suspect this relationship will hold with the new generation of cameras as well. So I suppose I can buy my lens knowing it won't become useless in a few years.

The second question centres on the ongoing availability of conventional film. I agree that for professional photographers (who aren't particularly fussed about the fun or romance of the old ways) digital will take over completely. So the question I ask myself is whether the serious amateur photographers will be a sufficient market to keep the flame alive. I suspect yes, if for no other reason than LF photographers tend to be an obsessive lot and will probably pay the extra money to get what they want! Here's hoping. Anyway thanks again for all your contributions and here's to a long life for the old ways!