Historic Parallels Glass Plate to Film... Film to Digi

**AF-ULF** · 9-Aug-2012, 09:49

It is called "creative destruction" by the economists. A new technology comes along and replaces an existing, mature, technology. Whenever the new technology appears, it is limited compared to the old and it takes time for it to develop. When dry plates first appeared, they offered the advantage of being portable and they could be developed long after the shot was taken. Initially, they were slower than wet plate and not as good a quality. The advantage of not carrying a darkroom around with you eventually won out, but it took time. For those serious about quality, it took longer than the "early adopters." Film offered advantages over dry plates, but the quality was not there initially. As the quality improved, more photographers started to use it. Same with digital. Initially, the quality wasn't as good as film. Remember the Sony Mavica? It was a breakthrough camera, but not anywhere near the quality of film. It was also expensive compared to film cameras. As the quality improved, and the price dropped, digital won the hearts and minds of most photographers. The instant feed back and ability to send the image instantly to a client changed the work flow of photography.

The history of photography can be a case study of new technologies slowly developing and taking over existing technologies. The image quality of the daguerreotype was far superior to that of the paper negatives. But as the quality of paper negatives improved, and as wet plate work improved, the daguerrotype faded. Salt prints were replaced by albumen. Albumen was replaced by gaslight. Gas light was replaced by enlarging papers. Enlarging papers are being replaced by printing technologies. Wet plate was replaced by dry plate, which was replaced by film which gave way to digital. With each transformation, some adopted the new technology early, before it matured, while others clung to the old because of its advantages over the new.

**Jay DeFehr** · 9-Aug-2012, 11:50

I don't think creative destruction is the right model. Creative destruction describes the devaluation of wealth as a basis for a new economic order. I think a more appropriate model is Disruptive Innovation (see Clayton M. Christensen ), which describes innovations that disrupt existing markets and create new ones. Not all the innovations in photographic history have been disruptive, many have been sustaining, and the distinction is an important one. Photography itself was not a disruptive innovation, because it was initially impractically difficult, and didn't disrupt the imaging market, but the Daguerreotype was a disruptive innovation, and created a new market that disrupted an old one. Wet plate, dry plate, film, and color film were all sustaining innovations, some evolutionary (dry plate, film) and others revolutionary (wet plate, color film), but digital imaging is a disruptive innovation. Image quality is a red herring in all these innovations, distracting from a new value system on the part of the consumer. I've said it over and over -- the consumer, not the producer, defines quality.

**AF-ULF** · 9-Aug-2012, 12:38

Okay. Disruptive innovation--I'll go with that one.

**John Kasaian** · 9-Aug-2012, 18:22

I still drive a manual transmission. Just sayin'

**Jody_S** · 9-Aug-2012, 18:41

Originally Posted by John Kasaian

I still drive a manual transmission. Just sayin'

You lucky bastard. They don't make minivans for driving around the suburbs with manual transmissions anymore. My last one was a 1980s Ford Aerostar (cargo!).

**Jody_S** · 10-Aug-2012, 06:47

Originally Posted by Dakotah Jackson

Sounds as if you haven't had a run in with a pissed off Moose or Bear. Even a surly Badge is a problem if you are in the wrong place.

Bolt action rifles are preferred by more snipers than semi-auto.

The only time I've ever worried was while camping in the Canadian arctic, in polar bear country. I still didn't carry a rifle, because I would never have seen a polar bear until it was too late. So I brought Cree guides who carried the rifles. I have had numerous run-ins with brown bears (including babies, but I didn't stick around long enough to photograph those) and moose, can't say I've ever seen a badger though.

**Jody_S** · 10-Aug-2012, 06:58

In case there is any doubt, my post was obviously intended to be humorous. I am well aware that there is considerable overlap in the USA between large format photographers and gun enthusiasts. Heck, at one point in my life I was a gun enthusiast myself, owning several semi-auto handguns. And in Canada, that requires some perseverance to get through layers of bureaucratic obstacles. I got rid of them all when a drunken neighbor threatened my life, and I found myself looking for my shotgun. A shotgun is not the proper means of ending disputes with neighbors.

**E. von Hoegh** · 10-Aug-2012, 08:04

Originally Posted by Jody_S

In case there is any doubt, my post was obviously intended to be humorous. I am well aware that there is considerable overlap in the USA between large format photographers and gun enthusiasts. Heck, at one point in my life I was a gun enthusiast myself, owning several semi-auto handguns. And in Canada, that requires some perseverance to get through layers of bureaucratic obstacles. I got rid of them all when a drunken neighbor threatened my life, and I found myself looking for my shotgun. A shotgun is not the proper means of ending disputes with neighbors.

Depends on the neighbor.