When will you give up large format and switch completely to digital?

[Marko]

Try explaining the 'sunny 16 rule' to some of the totally digital shooters today and look at the blank expressions you get. No different from some in years past - but the grounding in the basics seems to be missing more often now. Maybe it isn't, but it sure seems that way.

It surely can't be more complicated than saving files from Photoshop? Nevermind the file size...

[Jack Dahlgren]

Try explaining the 'sunny 16 rule' to some of the totally digital shooters today and look at the blank expressions you get. No different from some in years past - but the grounding in the basics seems to be missing more often now. Maybe it isn't, but it sure seems that way.

As long as the images look the way we want it doesn't really matter.

Different tools have different "basics". Determining exposure is no longer essential (hasn't been since cameras had meters built in a few decades ago) and is done better/faster by the camera than by humans. Not to mention that some of the new digital cameras can give good images with ISO's of 25,600.

There are new basics to photography - and some of the old-timers are unaware of them.

[Robert Hughes]

If I ever become allergically sensitive to photographic chemicals, then I would certainly give film up. But that hasn't happened yet, and I like the darkroom experience, and the negatives will last long after anybody I know will care - so what's the rush?

Besides, the film cameras I use don't rely on batteries. My digi p&s camera burns through a set of batteries in very short order. It doesn't matter how many megapixels that new camera won't expose when the thing refuses to run. But Mr. Denney beat me to that one, so never mind.

[banjo]

never in my life time I hope!!

[Drew Wiley]

Automated metering is just playing the odds about what some engineer thinks will statistically work for certain conditions. The camera doesn't think, and it can't replace the creative role of an actual photographer making conscious decisions about the exposure. I don't use automated metering for anything, even 35mm. And the less damn
redundant buttons and whirlygigs that have to be turned off in order to make a camera a basic tool rather than a complicated scifi overlord, the better. I'd rather be
taking pictures than reading through an owner's manual thicker than a phone book (for
those of you who still remember what a phone book was).

[BradS]

When will you give up large format and switch completely to digital?

I will never "go digital". I only do photography for fun and since there is nothing fun about shooting digital, I'll never "go digital".

If film becomes un-obtainable in my lifetime, I'll probably just find something else to do with my time and money...maybe, learn an alt process printing method.

[Steve Smith]

I have done it once.... then it was quickly undone!


Steve.

[John Jarosz]

Photography no longer is a unified seamless activity where everything has some relevance to other aspects within it. Maybe it was up until the end of the 70's but no longer.

These days photography is a matrix of niches that appeal to some people, but some of the niches have no appeal to others. Yet they all practice photography and have highly individualistic reasons for which niche they embrace.

One of my favorite concepts is that "There is always someone crazier than one's self". Meaning that no matter how esoteric are your activities (in this case with respect to photography), there is always someone doing crazier things in their quest for a photograph. In the 80's I was making silver internegatives so I could print carbon on commercial pigment tissue. Back then it certainly wasn't mainstream. It isn't mainstream now either, but at least there are larger numbers of people doing wet plate, or coating their own silver emulsions, or making carbon tissue or making final print paper with PT/PD emulsions. There may have been more people doing these activities back in the 80's but because all communication on these subjects were via printed page the knowledge of these activities was limited. Communication via forums allows all these little niche activities to exchange information more easily than in the past (narrowcasting as opposed to broadcasting). So the newest technology (internet forums) permits progress to be made in the more ancient technologies.

I'm not interested in learning to make digital ULF negatives to print, but neither are there many digital people willing to learn how to make silver internegs.

Traditional photographic processes are not going to die out and neither are digital processes. Some people always will be luddites and refuse to incorporate any new technology into historical processes. (Heck, there still are some people that make Daguerreotypes by fuming mercury). And there will be others who abandon all historical process in favor of new tech, or will incorporate whatever new technology they feel will help their historical process - all with the goal of producing a photograph to their own criteria of what constitutes a good photograph.

Getting off soapbox now......

[E. von Hoegh]

When they make a digicam capable of gigapixels and buttery smooth tonal range that looks and handles like a Deardorff or Linhof.

Seriously, if I was a pro, semi-pro, or just wanted to sell pics, I'd be digitised already. I have a little Sony digital, about the size of a deck of cards, that does a great job. Took some pictures of my neighbor's daughter's 21st birthday, they had the pics on their computer as soon as we could connect the USB cable. Can't do that with a Nikon F.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

I'll tell ya when: When they pry the Quickloads from my cold dead...

err...eh..umm... (cough, cough)

(Say, can you check back with me after a bit?)