The Future of Photography?

[john borrelli]

Recently I received a Calumet flyer in the mail, the flyer featured several sharp, perfectly exposed images by the landscape photographer Elizabeth Carmel. When asked about her technique she replied, "I will do multiple exposures for both aperture and shutter speed so I can combine exposures for maximum depth of field and dynamic range." WOW! So she could take her camera, a digital Hasselblad, photograph the foreground by focusing on the foreground with overexposure, then focus on the middle ground adjusting exposure again then focus on the sky and underexpose; that's potentially unlimited depth of field at the lens' best aperture, a great overall exposure and with a lower aperture you can now use a faster shutter speed (for those leaves moving in a breeze). A large format photographer could also slightly modify the movements used for each "exposure". That tricky high branch in the foregound not a tilt problem anymore! WOW! I assume there are limitations like the amount of memory in your computer, as several scanned large format images would slow down most computers. I also assume the best scene would have to have little movement so that the photographer has a chance to do these multiple "exposures" so that they can be seamlessly merged together later.

My head is spinning thinking of the possibilities. What do forum members think of this technique? Have any forum members tried it with large format film?

[SamReeves]

I'm more of a one-shot makes all type of guy, but this does sound pretty interesting. Got any samples of this to show?

[Gordon Moat]

Limitations? Sure, how about the number of hours you spend in post processing. This is fine for an enthusiast, but a complete disaster for a professional. It really is just another technique, and not an answer for all imaging.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Eric James]

The future of photography, or the end of photography as we know it? I'm with Sam, I prefer to be "one with the light", rather than, say, "twelve with the light". There are many approaches to making beautiful images, and this approach is no less valid than a single capture approach, but is it photography?

[Daniel_Buck]

well, it's certainly not a one click process. it takes alot of work, and if you don't do it right, it doesn't look good.

I do the exposure blending (two or three exposures, masked together) when I'm shooting black or dark cars when shooting into the sunset. I like this look better than using strobes or reflectors

http://danielbuck.net/wip/sycamore_canyon_01.jpg

[Walter Calahan]

Whatever floats her boat, but it doesn't mean the technique is correct for anyone else's photographic vision.

More tools in the photographic tool bag.

[Kirk Gittings]

It is similar to techniques I use for architectural interiors, tone blending, which allows you in a mixed lighting situation to do different exposures for different light sources and blend them in PS to achieve an overall consistent look.

[roteague]

The future of photography seems to be tightly tied to manipulation. :( I guess that is life. Not surprising really when you think about it - there are now photographers working who have never used film or known life without a computer.

[Kirk Gittings]

Robert,

My son, 31, has never owned a land line phone.

[roteague]

Robert,

My son, 31, has never owned a land line phone.

I'm reminded of the younger generation every morning on the city bus, on the way to work. Amazing to those of us who are a few years older.

[kjsphotography]

And this is exactly the demise of this current generation. Sad... Digital has its place but it is not a all solution. In time they will all realize the mistake they made by putting everything in the digital technology.

[tim atherton]

In time they will all realize the mistake they made by putting everything in the digital technology.

You really, honestly, think so?

[JPlomley]

I used to use the exact same compositing technique for about a year with my 1DsII. At first I thought it was the cats meow, and then the novelty wore off and I got fed up with all the time I was spending on the computer. Not to mention the tedious nature of having to mask high frequency detail. So I sold all my digital equipment, bought an Arca Swiss and some sweeet German glass, and I'm it doing right the first time. I outsource my scanning (which includes scratch and dust removal) and about the only work I need do in PS includes sharpening, contrast adjustment, and a bit of saturation. Not only am I spending far less time in front of the computer RAW processing and compositing images, but my image quality has gone up big time. I do not miss digital one iota.

[Andy Eads]

There are two separate techniques involved. Both are possible with film photography but the cost in materials and time is enormous. The depth of field trick has been done by micro and macro photographers for some time. It involved moving the subject through the plane of sharp focus, carefully illumiating only the subject in the plane of focus. This provided depth of field from one end of a bug to the other but also resulted in the critter looking like it was photographed with a lens of infinite focal length. Most everything done in digital has been or could be done with film but, as I said, the cost is high. I just wonder how long the general public will be wow'd by the effect before getting tired of it.
Andy

[Daniel_Buck]

one of the problems with folks going to digital, is that just like film, you have to know what you are doing to get great results. Being someone who grew up with digital stuff, and who works in the visual effects line of work, I know how to work with digital files. I do shoot film, but on the digital side I have more control than if I were to do some things in a traditional dark room for my prints.

things like these will be 'effects' that will come and go. Like the tone-mapped "HDR" photographs, which I think look horrible unless you do it right. In order to do it right and have it look good/natural, you may have to spend some time with it. Most folks going to digital have the impression that digital is quick, easy, and anyone can do it. Well, for simple things yes this may be true, but for complex stuff, you have to know what you are doing, and you'll spend a lot of time doing it. Just as with film, probably anyone can get an image to show up on your print paper, but mastering it and getting exactly what you want, takes time and effort.

I wouldn't write off digital so quickly. I think digital (again, in the hands of a competent digital artist) can be just as effective as film (in the hands of a competent film photographer/artist) Even large prints can be done on digital, with stitching methods and other techniques. Some of these digital techniques probably seems foreign to folks routed in film, but for someone firmly routed in digital it doesn't bother them to try things like that to get around the limitations of digital. You are limited by resolution, so just grab a longer lens, shoot a grid of images and stitch them together.

With some of the limitations of digital, they spawn new techniques that actually turn into different styles of processing the images. Well, the HDR tone mapping is one example, but in my mind it's an example that shows that not everything different is always good! haha! DOF blending and stuff like that is a work around in some situations, but it's something that can be used very effectivly in some situations.

[roteague]

I wouldn't write off digital so quickly. I think digital (again, in the hands of a competent digital artist) can be just as effective as film (in the hands of a competent film photographer/artist) Even large prints can be done on digital, with stitching methods and other techniques. Some of these digital techniques probably seems foreign to folks routed in film, but for someone firmly routed in digital it doesn't bother them to try things like that to get around the limitations of digital. You are limited by resolution, so just grab a longer lens, shoot a grid of images and stitch them together.

Yes, there are a lot of techniques you can do with digital technology, some quite easy, and some requiring a lot of thought and effort.

However, the part you are missing is the "look and feel" of an image. Film and digital both have a unique "look and feel" to them - some people have no problem with the difference, and like both. Others can't stand one or the other. Personally, I don't like the "look and feel" of digital images.

Technology changes, and that may not always be the case, but I don't see any real financial interest for the camera companies to make any change - most people have accepted the "look and feel" of digital.

[paulr]

However, the part you are missing is the "look and feel" of an image. Film and digital both have a unique "look and feel" to them - some people have no problem with the difference, and like both. Others can't stand one or the other. Personally, I don't like the "look and feel" of digital images.

i'm suspicious of the idea that there's a particular film look and feel and a particular digital look and feel.

these are both categories of process, and the possible range of look and feel within each one is staggering. i have little doubt you would find examples of film whose look and feel you'd dislike, and examples of digital whose look and feel you'd like.

the world of music went through this decades ago. when digital recording first emerged everyone hated it but technologists. then it got better. now there are so many different recording media, both digital and analog, that smart people know that blanket statements are meaningless. how good can analog recording sound? you can always use fatter tape, fewer tracks, slower tape speed. at least as long as you can afford it. how good can digital sound? you can always use higher quality a/d converters, higher sample rates, and longer word lengths ... again, at least as long as you can afford it.

at the highest end they both sound amazing, better than anything you've ever heard at home. neither sounds intrinsically digital, or intrinsically analog, for that matter. they both eventually just sound like music, as the artifacts of the medium drop away.

the biggest difference is the working methods and working style. these things are often important to the artists and technicians, but increasingly irrelevant to the audience.

[paulr]

The depth of field trick has been done by micro and macro photographers for some time. It involved moving the subject through the plane of sharp focus, carefully illumiating only the subject in the plane of focus. This provided depth of field from one end of a bug to the other but also resulted in the critter looking like it was photographed with a lens of infinite focal length.

i saw work by a woman who photographed rooms like this. she used a large format camera and film, with multiple exposures. she would illuminate different parts of the room individually, and focus on them to make the exposure. the final image would be on a single piece of film, but made up of dozens of individual exposures, all in perfect focus.

the results were really interesting. there was something creepy about them .. your eyes tried to tell you they weren't photographs, because in a sense they were too perfect and violated your sense of what photography could do.

[John Kasaian]

IMHO, the future of photography is what photographers in the future will make of it :)

[paulr]

IMHO, the future of photography is what photographers in the future will make of it :)

and i predict that the photographers of the future will disagree about almost every aspect of the photography of (their) present. just like in every other era.

[roteague]

i'm suspicious of the idea that there's a particular film look and feel and a particular digital look and feel.

these are both categories of process, and the possible range of look and feel within each one is staggering. i have little doubt you would find examples of film whose look and feel you'd dislike, and examples of digital whose look and feel you'd like.

I understand where you are coming from Paul, and have to say that my statement is only meant in the general sense. I don't mean it from a sense of composition or impact; I spend time on Photosig, and have seen some stunning images there - some taken with digital cameras. However, I do see a difference between the two mediums in the way they reproduce color and in the type of sharpness both exhibit. In this respect, I prefer those images taken with film.

BTW, I do own a digital camera, a Nikon D200, I use it when I need convenience, illustrative or other quick use purposes. Jjust yesterday I used it to test an old lens I had laying around, which looks like I will have to throw away, and I wanted to confirm it before.

[Daniel_Buck]

I understand where you are coming from Paul, and have to say that my statement is only meant in the general sense. I don't mean it from a sense of composition or impact; I spend time on Photosig, and have seen some stunning images there - some taken with digital cameras. However, I do see a difference between the two mediums in the way they reproduce color and in the type of sharpness both exhibit. In this respect, I prefer those images taken with film.

BTW, I do own a digital camera, a Nikon D200, I use it when I need convenience, illustrative or other quick use purposes. Jjust yesterday I used it to test an old lens I had laying around, which looks like I will have to throw away, and I wanted to confirm it before.

Can you honestly say you can really tell the difference between film and digital when looking at a small image on a computer monitor? Not that it matters, as computer monitors aren't usually the final output, but I for one can't tell what image was shot in what format or what medium from just a small uploaded image on a computer monitor.

I'm not well rooted in film so maybe I don't know what to look for, but on my images when I downsize them I wouldn't know which was which if I didn't know otherwise. On my downsized images, I actually lable them as digital or film, just so in the future I don't forget. I have a similar workflow for both digital and digitally scanned negatives, so maybe that's why. My prints I can always tell, because of the nice grain on the film, however. Although, I'm considering scanning in a medium grey exposed sheet of film and using that grain on my digital photos, because I like the look of film grain.

[Brian Ellis]

"I just wonder how long the general public will be wow'd by the effect before getting tired of it. "

The technique described in the Calumet catalog of making separate exposures for the foreground, midground, and background and then merging them is just a way of extending depth of field, something we've been doing with tilt and swing for a long time. If it's also coupled with altering each exposure to maintain detail in the highlights and shadows, that too is something we've done for a long time through use of the zone system or just changing development times to adjust highlight densities. Again, nothing new, just much more control.

I almost never make only one exposure of a digital photograph when there's sky or some other very bright area in the photogaph, I always make two, one for the sky and the other for the rest of the photograph. Very occasionally I'll make three. Merging two or three photographs in Photoshop is very easy to do, takes only a couple minutes at the most. I haven't tried making three exposures of the foreground, mid, and back to maximize depth of field. That one's a little tricky because of course the lens moves forward or backward with each exposure and so when you're merging them you don't have three identical photographs to merge. I've read of the technique that's used, I just haven't tried it.

I don't see why anyone would have any problems with either of these techniques or why the public would get tired of them. None of it seems to me to differ in a meaningful way from all of the various technical innovations that have taken place in photography since time immemorial. Look at the difference between a 35mm camera made in the 1950s and a 35mm camera made in the 1990s - auto focus, 20 or 30 frames per second, continuous focus on a moving subject, multiple methods of metering, auto bracketing, the list of things the 1990s camera had that the 1950s didn't goes on and on. Nobody suggested that because so much more could be done so easily with the 1990s camera than the 1950s the 1990s camera didn't make "real" photographs or that the public had a problem with any of it.

[john borrelli]

Daniel thanks for your example; the exposure in both the shadows and highlight areas, as well as the sharpness throughout the scene, makes me doubt that I could have done it with a single shot with my 4X5, Velvia and a grad filter. Paul R. I have seen the image you are referring to and it did have a haunting quality. Some photographers seem to see this technique as digital verses analog but with a film scanner, Photoshop CS3 and this HDR technique, we seem to be at the point where both film and digital photography can benefit. I don't mean to ignore some of the legitimate philosophical questions being discussed but at present I am concerned about the more mundane issue of whether my G4 would slow to a crawl while trying to handle three 4X5 scans for an 11X14 print. I actually have not tried this compositing yet, though I have some experience with Photoshop; I appreciate that this may be a difficult, time consuming technique but I think it is worth a try. Maybe I'll make an image bracketing for exposure, focusing and maybe tilt or swing and then save the slides until I have all the equipment and technique down. Thanks to everyone for the great feedback!

[PBrooks]

Honestly, every time there is a new digital camera or technique, it's always "Photography is dead""Future for photography in danger" or the I'm going to replace everything, one answer, there is no doing what you did before, cause i do everything and i do it better. Oh yeah I cost 27,000 dollars and you have to replace me in 2.5 years but that's ok cause i've been obsolete ever since the day after you bought me anyways.

[roteague]

Can you honestly say you can really tell the difference between film and digital when looking at a small image on a computer monitor? Not that it matters, as computer monitors aren't usually the final output, but I for one can't tell what image was shot in what format or what medium from just a small uploaded image on a computer monitor.

I wasn't referring to a monitor, but to a print (magazine or otherwise) - I should have stated so more specifically. Referring to Photosig was simply to point out that I have found some excellent work there, most of the work on that site is digital, meaning that digital photographers are capable of excellent composition. The difference between film and digital isn't the composition, but rather the "look and feel" - based upon hints I see in color and sharpness (and I'm not referring to dropouts or artifacts). The "look and feel" is more of a feeling. For example, in the last issue of Outdoor Photography I was able to pick out 90+% of the film images simply by "look and feel" - I don't know how to put it into words, it is just a feeling.

[Daniel_Buck]

I wasn't referring to a monitor, but to a print (magazine or otherwise) - I should have stated so more specifically. Referring to Photosig was simply to point out that I have found some excellent work there, most of the work on that site is digital, meaning that digital photographers are capable of excellent composition. The difference between film and digital isn't the composition, but rather the "look and feel" - based upon hints I see in color and sharpness (and I'm not referring to dropouts or artifacts). The "look and feel" is more of a feeling. For example, in the last issue of Outdoor Photography I was able to pick out 90+% of the film images simply by "look and feel" - I don't know how to put it into words, it is just a feeling.
ah, yes that makes more sense :)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

As usual Brian hit the nail in the head, aside from his comments on camera movement, back in the early 90s the rage became doing two exposures, one for sky and one for foreground, make lith masks and print the belnded image. If you had a registration set up this was easily done and did not take that long. This is nothing new, in fact now with digital it is easier in the darkroom. I now do paper masks (they do stop UV light) and dodge and burn with them. This is nothing new and certainly not a threat to traditional photography.

[joolsb]

Interestingly, the American art photographer, Gergory Crewdson, uses this multiple blended exposure technique with 10x8 film. But then, given the size of the team he works with, his shooting-budget must be virtually unlimited...

[paulr]

using a separate exposure for the sky actually goes back to the mid 19th century, when the blue-sensitive emulsions made it impossible to capture the sky and the foreground in one exposure.

all the landscapes and seascapes with detailed skies from before the turn of the century (or whenever ortho films first came out) were made this way. it was popular for poster-style images that were big sellers at the time. studios back in civilization would crank out prints in huge volumes for sale to the public. they would mix and match skies and foregrounds freely, guided purely by esthetic effect and the need for speed. some of the results were both sloppy and hilarious ... cumulus clouds printed upside down, and bottoms of clouds overlapping the horizons, like something out of a horror movie. others were done exquisitely, but the photographers often had no say in what sky would be matched with what landscape.

[Steve Kefford]

This digital technique is not really anything new and can have some good results. A problem with multiple exposures is with transient light, which is usually the best type.

One variation on the technique, is to shoot one raw omage, and make two (or more) raw conversions at different exposures, and then combine them. This obviously only helps with exposure and not focus, but solves the above problem.

It is one of the advantages of digital, but not really that significant.

Steve

[Steve Kefford]

I'm reminded of the younger generation.....

31 - younger generation? To some that is almost pension age.

Steve

[jetcode]

The future of photography seems to be tightly tied to manipulation. :( I guess that is life. Not surprising really when you think about it - there are now photographers working who have never used film or known life without a computer.

is using a red #25 to turn the sky black not a form of manipulation? or using super saturated color film not manipulation?

[John Kasaian]

is using a red #25 to turn the sky black not a form of manipulation?

I use filters to record things which, without filtering would be diminished or lost entirely in the negative. I rarely use strong filtration but that is one way to record the contrast between clouds and the sky---if indeed there was that much contrast when taking the shot. I prefer using filters to "preserve" not to "add." This is one of the parameters I impose on myself to preserve fidelity.

[roteague]

31 - younger generation? To some that is almost pension age.

Steve

31 isn't, I'm only 52. Kirk's comment made me think about all the things teenagers have this day, that they take for granted; things that were science fiction to those of us a bit older.


is using a red #25 to turn the sky black not a form of manipulation? or using super saturated color film not manipulation?

What is a red filter #25? Not something I use. As for the "super saturated" color film - I hate to break it to you, but I see colors as brilliant and saturated. These films are the only ones that match how "I" see color. That isn't manipulation, that is using a film that matches the way I see color.

[Don Wallace]

In my opinion, there is no doubt that digital technology will all but replace current photography. Some silver-based photography will remain as a form of artistic expression, but the digital process is not simply "another tool in the photographer's kit." It is a process that is embedded in a growing industrial infrastructure that will engulf all others.

We all know that there has been a serious decline in widespread support for silver-based photography and this is only going to get worse. There will remain some manufacturers and suppliers who will service this small market and we should cultivate these.

I will continue to practise silver-based photography and have no interest whatsoever in digital capture. I do not like the digital workflow, not in photography, nor in any other artistic pursuit.

[paulr]

... and have no interest whatsoever in digital capture. I do not like the digital workflow, not in photography, nor in any other artistic pursuit.

just wait til they come out with version 2.0 or 3.0 of digital women.

[Struan Gray]

Focus stitching works best in macro photography or microscopy where you can move the sample through the plane of focus and thus keep the magnification constant. It is a standard feature on high-end optical microscopes these days. For real-world macroscopic imaging, the differing magnifications of foreground and background can lead to problems even if you leave the lens fixed in position and focus by moving the film plane. It's worst if you have a bright object or a light source in the immediate foreground or far background: it's out-of-focus image can swamp the light from dimmer objects at other distances. This is less of a problem for microscopes because of the high divergence of the light path: out of focus objects go dim fast, so much so that one popular algorithm for finding the most in-focus parts of the focus stack just looks for the part of the stack where a particular pixel is brightest.

[eddie]

one of my fellow camera club members began using "high dynamic imaging" ( i think it is called that) anyway he shoots panoramas and now 360 degree panos. some look interesting but most lack something. in one photo he cut off the buildings tops because he could not tilt the camera up or it would not stitch correctly.

for one 360 pano he shot 20 images, 5 brackets per shot for a total of 100 images. 2 gigs of memory. and then he spent 3 hours putting it together on the computer. now it looked okay, but i would have rather spent 3 hours shooting than PSing.

eddie

[Daniel_Buck]

one of my fellow camera club members began using "high dynamic imaging" ( i think it is called that) anyway he shoots panoramas and now 360 degree panos. some look interesting but most lack something. in one photo he cut off the buildings tops because he could not tilt the camera up or it would not stitch correctly.

for one 360 pano he shot 20 images, 5 brackets per shot for a total of 100 images. 2 gigs of memory. and then he spent 3 hours putting it together on the computer. now it looked okay, but i would have rather spent 3 hours shooting than PSing.

eddie

he couldn't tilt the camera up or it wouldn't stitch correctly? That doesn't make much sense. I stitch all the time (at work, and at home) and I never have any problems stitching. heck I can even stitch images taken with different lenses and different cameras.

But yes, just because an image is stitched or blended for more dynamic range, doesn't mean it's a good photo! :-)

[Steve Kefford]

...We all know that there has been a serious decline in widespread support for silver-based photography and this is only going to get worse.....

Whilst you are entitled to your opinion, please don't assume that everybody else shares it it. Predicting the future is always precarious, but there are many pointers to suggest that film based photography still has a healty future.

Steve

[Don Wallace]

Whilst you are entitled to your opinion, please don't assume that everybody else shares it it. Predicting the future is always precarious, but there are many pointers to suggest that film based photography still has a healty future.

Steve

The part that you quote isn't opinion, it is fact. Consider the demise of Kodak paper, of the Agfa company, and so on. Support for silver-based photography is declining. You can pretend it isn't. Knock yourself out. Invest in Kodak.

I also said I intend to continue as a photographer who uses silver-based materials, and that there would be support for it, so I really have no idea about what opinion it is that we don't share.

[eddie]

daniel,
maybe i am not explaining it correctly.....he was trying to maintain straight buildings. if he would have tilted the camera the buildings would have converged. so i am with you, he could have done it, but did not. at any rate with the buildings cut off it was lacking.

eddie

[Steve Kefford]

The part that you quote isn't opinion, it is fact. ....

Sorry Don. "We all know that ... this is only going to get worse..". That is a prediction of the future, and hence, at this time, is not fact. It might in the future become fact, and it might not. At the moment it can only be considered as conjecture, and hence is your opinion, which you are welcome to, but please don't say "we all know that".

I do agree that there has been a decline in the sale of cenventional photographic goods as a whole, although it is not clear how individual sectors of the market have been affected. People relishing the decline of conventional photography tend to produce overall figures to support their standpoint, and while these figures are supposedly true, they do not give the whole picture. For example, one of the sectors of the market that has taken big time to digital is the happy snapper, holiday photographer, whatever you call him. I imagine that this has a large effect on the overall figures, especially when this type of buyer is probably more susceptible to fashion icons, and are more likely to replace their digital camera more often as they must have the latest status symbol.

Also, due to the changing market, some companies have changed their focus, and also had problems reacting to the changing market. Hence, it is possible to pull a "big" name out of the hat to proove somethinmg or other. For example, a couple of years ago Ilford had problems, and this was supossedly because of the immenent death of conventional photography. But nothing could be further than the truth. Since the management buyout, Ilford are doing business like they have never done before, and they will be around for a long time to come.

Besides, taking individual events in isolation to support a point are not really useful. I could take the recent new films introduced by Fuji, or re-introduced by Ilford, to suggest that conventional photography is "obviously" still going strong. Or the recent survey by Kodak the 65% of European professionals will continue to use film.


Steve

[harrykauf]

As for the "super saturated" color film - I hate to break it to you, but I see colors as brilliant and saturated. These films are the only ones that match how "I" see color. That isn't manipulation, that is using a film that matches the way I see color.

That does not make sense. You either see colour more saturated and then the
regular film would look highly saturated like the landscape and the higher saturated
film would look over the top. What you describe sounds more like something related
to colour blindness where you see things as being the same although other can
clearly see the difference.

[jetcode]

I use filters to record things which, without filtering would be diminished or lost entirely in the negative. I rarely use strong filtration but that is one way to record the contrast between clouds and the sky---if indeed there was that much contrast when taking the shot. I prefer using filters to "preserve" not to "add." This is one of the parameters I impose on myself to preserve fidelity.

photography IS manipulation, whether it's analog or digital - the goal is to represent 3 dimensional matter on a 2 dimensional surface, the first of many manipulations.

[paulr]

photography IS manipulation, whether it's analog or digital - the goal is to represent 3 dimensional matter on a 2 dimensional surface, the first of many manipulations.

this is true, but not all maniupulations are equivalent. some manipulations maintain the basic photographic relationship between subject and image and others do not. for example, there's a fundamental difference between tonal adjustments, cropping, or sharpening, and adding or removing objects.

[roteague]

That does not make sense. You either see colour more saturated and then the
regular film would look highly saturated like the landscape and the higher saturated
film would look over the top. What you describe sounds more like something related
to colour blindness where you see things as being the same although other can
clearly see the difference.

I see colors quite well.

[Don Wallace]

Sorry Don. "We all know that ... this is only going to get worse..". That is a prediction of the future, and hence, at this time, is not fact. It might in the future become fact, and it might not. At the moment it can only be considered as conjecture, and hence is your opinion, which you are welcome to, but please don't say "we all know that".Steve

I am not going to argue with you. You are whistling past the graveyard if you think that support for silver-based photography has not seriously declined and will continue to do so. Ok, I won't say "we all know that ..." I will say "everyone except Steve knows that ..."

I hope that eventually this slide will level out and we will be left with a smaller but committed number of firms servicing us. I am doing my best to support those still in the game.

[John Kasaian]

photography IS manipulation, whether it's analog or digital - the goal is to represent 3 dimensional matter on a 2 dimensional surface, the first of many manipulations.

Representing 3 dimensions on a 2 dimensional surface is representation limited by the materials being used. It is not manipulation insofar as making a scene look like something other than what it is but in 2 dimensions.

Certainly you can manipulate an image using conventional materials, but that doesn't fit into how I see the landscape. I think the greater issue is this:

When photography was in it's infancy (and throughout it's history) the public as been exposed to fanciful "trick" photography, yet for most a photographic image serves as a representation of the actual image---"proof" "evidence" or what have you of something thats factual.

I'm not looking to stir the digital vs. conventional photo pot here---but with the promotion of digital equipment a huge selling point is the ability (ease?) to manipulate images using Photoshop and other tools. The public sees this most commonly and blatantly in advertising and yeah, "art" prints. It will be interesting to see if photography in the future will retain the general public's acceptance as being representational of reality (or not.) I'm not making a distinction between digital and traditional materials here as I've already noted that trick photography has a long history in photography.

In my own efforts I reject the temptation to add what isn't to a scene, but then thats my 'bag.':)

[Steve Kefford]

I am not going to argue with you. You are whistling past the graveyard if you think that support for silver-based photography has not seriously declined and will continue to do so. Ok, I won't say "we all know that ..." I will say "everyone except Steve knows that ..."

I hope that eventually this slide will level out and we will be left with a smaller but committed number of firms servicing us. I am doing my best to support those still in the game.

If you are not going to argue, then what exactly are you doing? Do you not understand what you are writing?

We agree that support has declined, so why do you still labour that point? The issue is about the future.

Perhaps you should add a few others to your list everyone except... Such as the marketing director of Ilford, who is on record as saying :"Over recent times, the demand and usage of both digital and film-based imaging have settled into more discernable levels, with film very much holding its own." and he "sees a very positive future for the traditional medium".

I would consider his thoughts on the future of film-based photography worth listnening to, as opposed to your opinion, for which you claim of universal support is without foundation.

Steve

[Ben R]

For example, a couple of years ago Ilford had problems, and this was supossedly because of the immenent death of conventional photography. But nothing could be further than the truth. Since the management buyout, Ilford are doing business like they have never done before, and they will be around for a long time to come.


Not according to the ilford reps in the city where their factory is based. According to one I spoke to the company is hanging on by its fingertips from the income generated by hobbyists and a shrinking amount of colleges. They are still waiting to see if the management buyout will work and are not hugely optimistic...

[paulr]

I agree film sales have dropped for the commercial and wedding mkts. But I don't see film sales dropping in the large format market for landscape photography.

That's just the thing. Consider the relative sizes of those two markets. A hundred to one? A thousand to one? The reason this can become an issue is that film is made in huge production facilities that require huge volume to be profitable. To make film for a much smaller niche market will require more than just making less. It will require a whole different manufacturing style (which may even mean different companies making it).

I don't know for sure, but I suspect film manufacture is a lot more complex and difficult than paper manufacture. It would be great if small enthusiast-driven companies could make something like tmax or portra, but at this point we don't know if that will happen.

[C. D. Keth]

I've done that kind of thing before. It can be fun. On the other hand, I would much rather spend my time shooting or doing enjoyable digital work than assembling multiple exposures.

[Mchilly]

The future of photography? I do believe that both film and digital are important.
It is still important for good photographers to know and understand film, if not for image quality, then for the benefit of the photographer’s shooting habits. Using film – especially for beginners - will help teach how to control aperture, shutter speed, composition and light. As the digital age continues to evolve, the future of photography will also change. Whether it is for better or worse is the argument – one where an answer remains to be seen.

[John Kasaian]

I see this thread has sunk into a digital vs. film issue, so I might as well offer my 2-cents:

Digital offers instant gratification, which in my view isn't gratification at all. Nothing that is instant, including coffee, mashed potatoes, or micro wave popcorn is I find, especially rewarding. Efficient, maybe, but nowhere near enjoyable.

Digital also offers seemingly unlimited control that has before been unkown---I kind of feel that Ansel Adams would be into digital if he were still with us. Certainly this is a blessing for advertising and other genres, but the limitations of conventional film and lf cameras is a greater boost to my creativity---like the cyclone fence around a playground, it allows me to focus on the game rather than having to chase the ball into the busy street, just as going out with one lens and three film holders (or a brownie 127) creates a situation that demands that I focus on just what the heck it is I'm trying to do. Not so with digital (or long roll motor driven Nikons either!) It isn't a matter of enjoying potentially unlimited creativity but rather the employment of creativity unrestricted by software and employing only the crudest of antique hardware. I'm not certain, but I'll hazard to guess that such is the market film manufacturers will be addressing once 35mm has been completely unseated as the family snapshot workhorse the world over (if it hasn't already.)

In other words:
FIlm cameras are fly rods, digital cameras are spincasting
Film is single malt, memory cards are blended
Large Format is a waffle from the waffle iron, digital is Eggo from the freezer.

Spincasting, Johnny Walker, and Eggos are far and away more popular, even to the point of eclipsing all the competition, but even so...
There is still a market for fly rods, Glenfarclas and waffle irons.

I think it is safe to say there will still be a market for film :)

There isn't anything wrong with digital and I won't argue that it isn't currently the major player in imaging. It just isn't the same thing as film based photography---at least from a user standpoint.

[Greg Lockrey]

In other words:
FIlm cameras are fly rods, digital cameras are spincasting


Interesting annology John, not all fly rods are a Sage and some spincasters use St Croix Legend's w/ Lew's Speed Spin reels .;)

[scott_6029]

The f64 vs. Pictorialism exhibition at the Phoenix Art Museum last night drew a huge croud for the lecture. At least 75 + for the lecture easily more than several hundred to see the work. Wide demographics, young and old. Lot's of interest. Obviously all film based photography.

[tim atherton]

The f64 vs. Pictorialism exhibition at the Phoenix Art Museum last night drew a huge croud for the lecture.

Who won? I'm hoping it was a knockout in the first round for Pictorialism

[paulr]

Who won? I'm hoping it was a knockout in the first round for Pictorialism

does anyone on the board do claymation? this would be a good subject for Celebrity Deathmatch.

[Oren Grad]

does anyone on the board do claymation?

Did some 30+ years ago, using my dad's Yashica wind-up double-8 camera with the bodacious two-lens turret. Lots of goofy fun - perfect for f64 vs Pictorialism. But the camera has vanished, and I'm not sure I could get film for it now anyway. Maybe David Goldfarb can do it in Super 8...

[Don Wallace]

Digital offers instant gratification ...

I WISH!!! Oh sure, you can look at the crappy little screen in the back and least be sure you GOT the damn thing. But as for everything else that makes a photograph a good photograph, you can't really tell that until you have downloaded and screwed around with it on the computer. I am on the computer quite enough for my day job without wanting to spend any more time at it. My rotator cuff aches just thinking about it. And then of course, you have to spend a pile of dough on hardware and software which will all have to be replaced in the not too distant future. Even though I scan some colour, I am not into perpetual upgrades.

Give me the darkroom anyday. For those of you who have embraced the digital darkroom unequivocally, don't waste your time critiquing me. Just send me a message listing the darkroom stuff you want to unload at firesale prices. I am in the market for a CPP and a good colour processor.