Does the “D” in digital – Stand for Dirty?

[rodney@theloughroad.com]

Inevitably when I teach workshops the topic comes up, film – digital – honest – not honest, and I think it about like this: the fellow who designed the crescent wrench probably never intended that it would be used as a murder weapon, but I’m pretty sure it has been.

What I mean by this is the technology surrounding digital captures is not inherently bad (in much the same was as the crescent wrench isn’t inherently bad), but rather the integrity of the user might be.

Film photographers know that sheets can be sandwiched together in the darkroom to put a moon where a moon wasn’t, and even film can be double exposed. The concepts surrounding this type of deception have been around for a very long time.

If however an ‘artist’ says their manipulation was done for ‘artistic’ purposes and is very clear, even blunt about it, then I say OK – because they’re not lying about what they’ve done. However the ‘artist’ that says ‘the moon was there!’ knowing it wasn’t – is simply a liar.

Unfortunately there is no real way, although sometimes there is because a moon could never be ‘there’, to prove the veracity of their statement(s). And we are left with the ‘artists’ ‘word’ to believe them or not.

So with that in mind, here’s my question……

Why does there seem to be such a caustic attitude between the film and digital worlds?

A camera, after all, is simply a box that lets in light. Does it really matter what’s on the back to effect the result? For me it’s like two painters arguing over what’s better, horse hair or plastic based brushes. The painters both complete their respective paintings, do they not? Or are we such petty creatures quickly willing to demonstrate an ‘I know it all’ attitude while ‘the rest of you don’t know and could never know or understand’ attitude?

Personally I’m in-between both camps, while shooting 8x10 film which is then scanned before printing the final image.

My belief is pretty simple, I want to get back to what I saw, how I get there I could pretty much care less – other than wanting it to be the best that it can be.

I would love to hear opinions here.

[Ron Marshall]

I have no hostility towards digital; I use film and scan it, and will probably also use my wife's new 5D Mark II occasionally.

[Marko]

My belief is pretty simple, I want to get back to what I saw, how I get there I could pretty much care less – other than wanting it to be the best that it can be.

Exactly.

Unless we're talking about forensic or documentary photography, a great image is a great image, why would anybody care how the artist got there?

And it should matter even less for lousy ones. :)

[Gem Singer]

I, too, capture my images on film, scan it into the digital realm, and print it digitally.

I use B&W 120 roll film, and 4X5, 5X7, and 8X10 sheet film. All of which I develop myself.

However, for color work, I use a digital DSLR. My 35mm camera equipment has been packed away.

I refer to film capture as photography and digital capture as pixelography.

There are tasks that are best accomplished with a film camera and tasks that are best accomplished with a digital camera.

There are tasks for a Crescent wrench and tasks for a pipe wrench.

Digital is just another tool.

Last week I asked a commercial photographer why he only uses digital cameras. He answered, "have to make a living".

[Marko]

On the second thought, "D" most likely stands for "Dominant"... :D

[Daniel_Buck]

I'm probably one of the exceptions here, I did most of my photography learning with digital cameras, and have just now in the past 3-4 years started using film :-)

Personally, I like both of them, and I choose to use one over the other based on how I want to shoot that event/scene/person/whatever. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, though digital is still pretty much just getting out of infancy if you ask me, and will most likely get better and better over time, and hopefully cheaper :)

[darr]

digital is still pretty much just getting out of infancy if you ask me, and will most likely get better and better over time, and hopefully cheaper :)

I hope so. :) I shoot 6x7, 6x17 and 4x5" film, but I do look forward to the day when digital can equal my black and white film results. I have shot film for a long time and absolutely disliked 35mm until the 35 digi came out. Now I actually shoot a small format camera that I enjoy.

[Steve M Hostetter]

I think traditional is a more hands on type, hand made if you will... I think with the best work you can see it... To me there is a difference

kind of like a fine hand made Italian boot like say,, Scarpa for example:D


"To me" digital is to machine driven and way to fast pace,,,which, for many of us is the reason we use the LF equipment in the traditional form...

plus,, none of us can afford digital backs:D and besides that I haven't seen one Petzval digital image

then there's that chance I don't know what I'm talkin about


Steve

[windpointphoto]

I hope so. :) I shoot 6x7, 6x17 and 4x5" film, but I do look forward to the day when digital can equal my black and white film results. I have shot film for a long time and absolutely disliked 35mm until the 35 digi came out. Now I actually shoot a small format camera that I enjoy.

That day has arrived. I've proven it with a lot of you and you didn't even know it.

[Sheldon N]

Why does there seem to be such a caustic attitude between the film and digital worlds?

No offense, but a lot of it has to do with the fact that people start threads in message boards with titles like Does the “D” in digital – Stand for Dirty?

[Archphoto]

I too see digital as a tool.
I use analogue for 6x6 and 6x7 and 4x5"/8x10" and hopefully by the end of this year for one of my plate camera's aswell.
6x6, 6x7 and 4x5" are scaned, the rest contacted.
B&W I can go as far as 6x7 now, hopefully one day 4x5" aswell.

And Photoshopping has been done even before WW1, then and a bit later it was called retouching.
Some governements were great in this esp the ones in Eastern Europe.

Peter

[sgelb]

I am not sure. I recently have been doing some shooting on my 5D mk 2 that rivals 4x5 film in resolution, contrast, saturation, detail etc. its made me think twice about continuing to shoot film.

the main issues I have with digital:

horizons suck. they are never crisp.

the dynamic range is difficult. often have to blend exposures to get what I would get with color neg film.

impatience. film allows me to slow down, focus and capture rad images. digital is like a movie. less feeling. click click click. I love my super D graflex. its so rad.

main points right now for digital over film:

inherent crispness for foreground subjects shot with digital unavailable without a 10000 drum scanner and new film and fresh chemistry. it just takes too much error out to not work with it.

digital stiching allows me to stretch my camera in resolution terms using lenses of 50mm and longer in 35mm terms. some recent stiches blew me away.

I have been using a contax f/1.7 50mm and the canon 5D mark 2.

[Marko]

And Photoshopping has been done even before WW1, then and a bit later it was called retouching.
Some governements were great in this esp the ones in Eastern Europe.

Peter

No, not really. They actually sucked in retouching, but because they truly excelled at some other, more hands-on skills, nobody dared comment on that. ;)

[jamesklowe]

my 5D mk 2 that rivals 4x5 film in resolution

..are you sure?

[sgelb]

promise. 16 shots stitched into a panorama is about 300-350MB file. its pretty out of control.. similar to a 2400 dpi scan . maybe crisper.

[eddie]

what i find it most of the "attitude" comes from the digital shooters. when i am out shooting i am approached my digital shooter all the time. they always engage with:

"why do you shoot film", "digital is better", "i can do that in photo shop" , "ink jet is archival for 2 million years" "better resolution" etc etc

i find it funny that most all the digital shooter always seem like they have to prove to me that there technique is better than mine/another. it is almost like they are afraid that if they do not always point out the "facts" maybe the facts will change.

i shoot film cause i like to. i like playing with the cameras (especially LF). my results are fine for me. i do not do commercial work. i see that shooting digital at weddings is almost effortless......(i used a digital SLR at my last wedding gig and it felt like cheating!).

in the end of the day the digital camera i would want costs over $3000! the awesome computer to manipulate the images cost big money! that giant printer to print the big photos cost BIG money! oh! should we talk about the price fo ink? holy sh!t that stuff gets expensive! in the end of the day i can always shoot digital....and the longer i wait the better it gets!

[Brian Ellis]

I think traditional is a more hands on type, hand made if you will... I think with the best work you can see it... To me there is a difference

kind of like a fine hand made Italian boot like say,, Scarpa for example:D


"To me" digital is to machine driven and way to fast pace,,,which, for many of us is the reason we use the LF equipment in the traditional form...

plus,, none of us can afford digital backs:D and besides that I haven't seen one Petzval digital image

then there's that chance I don't know what I'm talkin about


Steve

"Hand made?" You mean hand made with that mechanical/electronic camera someone else made using that film someone else made, printing with that enlarger someone else made, and using those supplies someone else made? : - )

[Kirk Gittings]

"Hand made?" You mean hand made with that mechanical/electronic camera someone else made using that film someone else made, printing with that enlarger someone else made, and using those supplies someone else made?

This is especially true when one:

Personally I’m in-between both camps, while shooting 8x10 film which is then scanned before printing the final image.

It strikes me as a matter of small degrees with Rodney's workflow.

[Marko]

what i find it most of the "attitude" comes from the digital shooters. when i am out shooting i am approached my digital shooter all the time. they always engage with:

"why do you shoot film", "digital is better", "i can do that in photo shop" , "ink jet is archival for 2 million years" "better resolution" etc etc

i find it funny that most all the digital shooter always seem like they have to prove to me that there technique is better than mine/another. it is almost like they are afraid that if they do not always point out the "facts" maybe the facts will change.

I don't know, very few people ask me anything when I'm out and about. Probably because I try to avoid interactions rather than go looking for them.

Most noise, in my experience, emanates out of "analogue" types in internet discussion fora like this one, where they tend to start threads such as this one with "suggestive" titles which they usually open up with "I don't want to start/I am not interested in another digital vs. film war, but...".

And then further on, they conclude with something like this:



i see that shooting digital at weddings is almost effortless......(i used a digital SLR at my last wedding gig and it felt like cheating!).

in the end of the day the digital camera i would want costs over $3000! the awesome computer to manipulate the images cost big money! that giant printer to print the big photos cost BIG money! oh! should we talk about the price fo ink? holy sh!t that stuff gets expensive! in the end of the day i can always shoot digital....and the longer i wait the better it gets!

;)

Most digital shooters I know, myself included, tend to say: "who cares"?

[William McEwen]

I have two digital cameras that I use regularly for snapshots, and I've shot two informal weddings with my DSLR.

But when it comes to making a portrait, I just haven't found a way better than using an 8x10 view camera, and that's all I want to do for the foreseeable future.

26 years ago, I saw a face on a groundglass for the first time, and I was hooked. How absolutely beautiful. I still have that same magic feeling when I'm under the dark cloth.

[eddie]

I don't know, very few people ask me anything when I'm out and about. Probably because I try to avoid interactions rather than go looking for them.



i need to go shoot with you and observe how you do this......i try to keep to myself out there in the field as well.....it does not seem to work. i have tried all kinds of techniques, i even tried hiding under a black cloth! "they" still find me.

[Marko]

i need to go shoot with you and observe how you do this......i try to keep to myself out there in the field as well.....it does not seem to work. i have tried all kinds of techniques, i even tried hiding under a black cloth! "they" still find me.

Not a bad idea, given how different we are, perhaps we could learn something from each other. And maybe even end up with another one of these discussions, only this time over beer rather than keyboard? :)

[Steaphany]

Why does there seem to be such a caustic attitude between the film and digital worlds?

The tension is not solely between film and digital, has anyone ever witnessed the brand wars that go on within the digital world ?

Nearly everyone seems to have a "My equipment is better", "My technology is better", "My methods are better" attitude. The internet allows these types to stand on their soap box and force their views, like evangelical preachers out to convert the masses.

It's my view that no one needs to be converted to or from anything. If you are happy with your photographic efforts, regardless of the equipment, technology, or methods, then that's all that matters. If not, then you need to learn how to achieve your goals despite the limitations inherent in your chosen equipment or find equipment that will deliver your goals.

[Gem Singer]

Steaphany,

If you are happy with your Sigma digital camera, why did you inquire about purchasing a large format camera outfit???

[Marko]

Gem,

Besides being digital, Sigma is a small format camera.

Digital and film (or to use your own analogy: grainography and pixelography :D) are not formats, they are technologies. They determine the nature of the capture. Formats define size of the capture.

Speaking for myself, I own a couple of cameras each for small format (digital and film), MF (film) and LF (film). If or when digital becomes affordable enough in larger formats, I will surely switch there too.

[Gem Singer]

Marko,

FYI, I own and use a Nikon DSLR, a Mamiya 645 roll film camera, a 6X9 back for my 4X5 monorail camera, a Canham 5X7 camera, and a Canham 8X10 camera.

I fully recognize the advantages of using the proper format for the shoot (the proper tool for the job).

I was yanking Steaphany's chain. She and I have exchanged several private Email communications regarding the choice and price of large format equipment.

[The Dread Pirate Robins]

I am secure enough in my own selection of gear and technology that I don't spend much time thinking about this. I have seen some amazing photos done on film and pixels. I prefer film.

Did people have debates like this when film started appearing...

"Sirs, With all due respect to Mr. Eastman I do not see how any gentleman who doesn't process his own plates inside a dark tent can call himself a photographer. On my word, this film is a rude invention that will destroy our fair profession!"

[Steaphany]

The Sigma is good at what it does, but it has no provisions for shift, swing, rise, or tilt between the lens and film plane. I see SLR cameras, whether film or digital, as being a compromise - Loose a level of control to achieve an acceptable level of utility and greater convenience. I have a greater level of control and function with my SD14 than I would with a cell phone camera, but my SD14 can not achieve the level of control possible with a view camera.

Researching View Camera equipment (See I have been busy), I found a couple companies who produce a bridge between the SLR and View camera worlds:

Horseman LD View Camera for SLR Digital Cameras (http://www.adorama.com/HM23141.html)

Cambo X2-PRO system for DSLR (http://www.cambo.com/Html/products_photo/set01/english/internet/Item752.html)

Both amount to view cameras which mate to a dSLR's lens mount.

None are available with a Sigma SA mount, so along with spending a lot of money, I'd have to have components machined and customized.

Obviously, there is a market and photographic need to combine a View Camera with a dSLR body. Even the lensbaby is a gimmick heading in this direction. At least I'm not alone recognizing the limitations of a SLR.

So, I'm in the market to expand, not replace, my photographic equipment to include a view camera, precisely because I understand my present equipment's limitations.

[Stefan Lungu]

I am also coming from digital in the last few years, and by now I have a 6x4.5, a 6x9 and a 4x5 plus a DSLR. I like the negatives I get from my 6x9 and 4x5, but I would not try to shoot pictures of our little one in action with a 4x5. I like them all as far as I like the pictures that I get from them, but I can shoot good or bad pictures with all of them - not a problem of the format. I also have some very nice pictures shot with a bridge camera from 2001. It is no use to have 24MP or a big sheet of film if the pictures suck.
BTW, the wars on CaNikon were there before digital also, so nothing has changed, only that at that time there were no forums to spend all day writing nonsense.

[Harley Goldman]

I shoot both. I get the most pleasure out of 4x5. I enjoy the setup, the pace and the contemplative nature. It gives me far more joy.

When I want to travel very light, I take a 5DII. On most road trips where air travel is not required, I take both, but the 5D never comes out. I could drag the 4x5 along when flying, but the digital is far less hassle.

[Daniel_Buck]

promise. 16 shots stitched into a panorama is about 300-350MB file. its pretty out of control.. similar to a 2400 dpi scan . maybe crisper.

you could also stich a grid of film shots in the same way :)

[Preston]

Like Harley, I get the most pleasure when I use my 4x5. I appreciate the control that I have over the plane of focus and depth of field. LF also slows me down, not only when actualy using the camera, but also when visualizing images: I tend to be much more contemplative and 'see' better.

I do have a D70 and one lens. It's great for quick snaps or a preview, or in conditions where 4x5 is out of the question. I don't fly, preferring to drive, so when I go out I take my Tachi and the D70 (before I got the D70 I used a 645 MF, but along with 4x5 found it a bit too cumbersome.)

-Preston

[roteague]

you could also stich a grid of film shots in the same way :)

Yes, but the file sizes would be much bigger ....

[David Luttmann]

I love photographing with 4x5....because I think it's fun.

I also love stitching 3 vertical shots with a 5DII, for a 47mp file, easily match my my 4x5 out to 30".

These threads pop up again and again....the only difference is that as the years are going by, more and more people are finding good DSLRs can produce the results they want.....and so can sheet film. In other words, who cares? I know I stopped caring.

[Drew Wiley]

I think the "D" in digital often stands for "doofy" - it's just too easy to concoct something corny, fake, cheap-looking. This is not the fault of the technology per se,
but of the mentality which gravitates towards its ease of abuse.

[Steve M Hostetter]

if there wasn't a difference there wouldn't be ppl saying they like digital better then film.. I'm not saying they are wrong

steve

[David Luttmann]

I think the "D" in digital often stands for "doofy" - it's just too easy to concoct something corny, fake, cheap-looking. This is not the fault of the technology per se,
but of the mentality which gravitates towards its ease of abuse.

Why don't you explain to us the mentality of which you speak.....maybe clear things up for Kirk while you're at it :rolleyes:

[D. Bryant]

if there wasn't a difference there wouldn't be ppl saying they like digital better then film.. I'm not saying they are wrong

steve
What is a ppl?

Don Bryant

[Flea77]

BTW, the wars on CaNikon were there before digital also, so nothing has changed, only that at that time there were no forums to spend all day writing nonsense.

Just because you were not tech savvy enough to be in on the FIDOnet forums that predated the internet does not mean we all were :-)

Back on topic. I have both film and digital, SLRs and up to 4x5. Each has its uses. I usually prefer film when I am out having fun. Most B&W conversions I have seen from digital I really do not like.

All that being said, the only thing I really hate about the influx of DSLRs in general is that there seems to be a lot more people with them, who know a lot less about photography then they used too. Of course I really blame that on the automation which started with film more than the actual digital format.

Allan

[Drew Wiley]

David - it's the whole digital thing I'm thinking of. Way back when people had a box
Brownie they got what they got. If they didn't like it they blamed the lab or drugstore. Today they download everything into Photoshop or something analogous and wham, with some clicks of the mouse they can turn their Natl Park vacation
shot into something reminiscent of a still frame from Lord of the Rings. Now you've
got the Museums showing this kind of stuff. Ever have your nose right up to a Dali
painting? Whether or not you like his subject matter, his draftsmanship and skill with
a brush and pigment was incredible. Nowadays people want to sit on their arse and
paint with a mouse. Every kid in grammer school can do it. It's the lazy way to paint, just like McDonalds is the lazy way to eat. And because of this, a lot of people
never learn how to LOOK at things and actually perceive them. Their reality is
Hollywood. The camera isn't the fault, but the fastfood mentality. We want magic everything instantly and expect technology to become the substitute for contemplation. Digital cameras are a great tool for the working pro, and a godsend
for ordinary folks sharing family photos etc on the web - it's the modern slideshow!
But as art, its tasty bait with a big hook in it, which is going to drag the superficial
"artiste" into, well, doofiness! (Of course, I AM trying to start a philosophical brawl -
where is Marko when we need him?)

[Athiril]

I would love to hear opinions here.

An artist need not explain their method, motivation, or content, they need not say or answer any question at all.

[Chris C]

I shoot film because it's enjoyable, and these days it's so easy to spend hours in front of a computer screen, so why would I want to spend more time doing that with a hobby?
Eventually, when I can afford a full frame digital I'll buy one. I can see where I'd use it, and it probably would make me a better photographer.

But I've got so many ways to improve my photography I don't really care if other people collect their light on silver, dye or pixels. It's the end result that matters, and in the end aren't we all just capturing moments?

[Steve M Hostetter]

What is a ppl?

Don Bryant

short for people

[Brian Ellis]

what i find it most of the "attitude" comes from the digital shooters. when i am out shooting i am approached my digital shooter all the time. they always engage with:

"why do you shoot film", "digital is better", "i can do that in photo shop" , "ink jet is archival for 2 million years" "better resolution" etc etc

i find it funny that most all the digital shooter always seem like they have to prove to me that there technique is better than mine/another. it is almost like they are afraid that if they do not always point out the "facts" maybe the facts will change.

i shoot film cause i like to. i like playing with the cameras (especially LF). my results are fine for me. i do not do commercial work. i see that shooting digital at weddings is almost effortless......(i used a digital SLR at my last wedding gig and it felt like cheating!).

in the end of the day the digital camera i would want costs over $3000! the awesome computer to manipulate the images cost big money! that giant printer to print the big photos cost BIG money! oh! should we talk about the price fo ink? holy sh!t that stuff gets expensive! in the end of the day i can always shoot digital....and the longer i wait the better it gets!

That's odd. In my 15 or so years of using a LF camera I can only think of being approached maybe three or four times by someone using a digital camera. And they've mostly just been curious about my camera. Where are you photographing that you get these people with digital cameras and attitudes "all the time?"

I also find it amusing that when someone talks about digital costs they use terms like you do here, i.e. "awsome computer," "giant printer," "big money," "big photos." In other words, the high end of digital photography. But when talking about film it's never in the context of a $5,000 Linhof 3000 or a $10,000 Durst enlarger or the film that costs $5-$10 a sheet and double or triple that or more to make one "big photo." I don't mean to argue with you, there's no question that digital can be very expensive. But IMHO there are so many variables involved in buying and using any kind of photography equipment that there can be no meaningful generalizations about costs. And I don't think there's anything inherent in digital photography that automatically makes it more expensive than film photography.

[Brian Ellis]

The tension is not solely between film and digital, has anyone ever witnessed the brand wars that go on within the digital world ?

Nearly everyone seems to have a "My equipment is better", "My technology is better", "My methods are better" attitude. The internet allows these types to stand on their soap box and force their views, like evangelical preachers out to convert the masses. . .


With your nose aimed up in the air at such a steep angle, can you see anything down below?

I'm sure glad there are no "brand wars" in the film world. Back when I owned a Nikon F4 I really would have hated it if people argued over whether a Canon was better than a Nikon. And goodness, what if people here argued over the need to wash film in a water bath or claimed that their method of processing film was better than another? Worse yet, what if people here became embroiled in arguments about "View Camera" magazine?

I'm sure you're right, it's only in that nasty little digital world filled with small-minded people that "nearly everyone" argues over those sorts of things. People in the rarified air of the film world are above all that.

[roteague]

That's odd. In my 15 or so years of using a LF camera I can only think of being approached maybe three or four times by someone using a digital camera. And they've mostly just been curious about my camera. Where are you photographing that you get these people with digital cameras and attitudes "all the time?"

I had one lady walk up to me, while I was using my Toyo, telling here husband "I'm going over to the guy with the ancient camera". I started to tell her that my Toyo was only 5 years old, and probably cost more than her DSLR (although she did have a BIG lens on it). I figured she probably wouldn't understand, so I didn't bother.

[Emil Schildt]

I use film all the time - regardles of the size of the film.
(I do own a digital camera, but I use it very rarely, and never if I want to use the results as "photographs", if that makes sense.. (I use it to register my students and so on for my school..))

There is one big reason for this (using film): most of the images I do, can't be done digitally - in Photoshop or other programs. They can proberly be re-done there, if the person using the progam is good at his/her work.....(but that's another story)

I don't care about the pixel discussion. It is really boring.

I respect the use of digital cameras, as a use of a tool, but it will never be my tool...

[windpointphoto]

I use film all the time - regardles of the size of the film.
(I do own a digital camera, but I use it very rarely, and never if I want to use the results as "photographs", if that makes sense.. (I use it to register my students and so on for my school..))

There is one big reason for this (using film): most of the images I do, can't be done digitally - in Photoshop or other programs. They can proberly be re-done there, if the person using the progam is good at his/her work.....(but that's another story)

I don't care about the pixel discussion. It is really boring.

I respect the use of digital cameras, as a use of a tool, but it will never be my tool...


Can I have your digital camera as it will never be your tool?

[Emil Schildt]

Can I have your digital camera as it will never be your tool?

:D

come visit, and we can talk....:rolleyes:

[Joseph O'Neil]

I use digital all the time myself, and am greatfull of it, but in short, there are two issue that concern me, that, IMO, most of the time are ignored or glossed over:

1) abuse of photoshop.

yes, yes, yes, yes, and again, yes, photographs have been manipulated since the invention of photography. But that is NOT my point. my point is, an 11 year old can do things in image editing software that before the advent of digital it would of taken an expert with 10 or more years of experience to do.
The end result is just about every public photograph used in major web sites, magazines, movies, etc, is all manipulated.

It's the abuse of photoshop and similar programs that bothers me. as to the technology itself, I have no issue - in fact, I bought my 11 year old daughter a basic (Bamboo) digitizing tablet for her laptop earlier this year, and damn, is she ever good with the thing.

2) Short life span of technology.

It's not just cameras, it anything and everything today. While not directly related to photography, give you all an example that just happened to me yesterday afternoon. I have a commercial phone system that is 7 years old now? Anyhow, phoned the manufactuer direct yesterday because I was looking for a spare handset.

The system i have works perfectly, no problems, no issues, nada, zilcho issues. They put me through to tech support of all places, and the tech on the phone kept telling me "but sir, that system was dropped 5 years ago, it's obsolete!"

I After being told this same thing for the 3rd or 4th time in row I finally told the guy - nicely - that I don't give a damn if they think it is obsolete, the system works fine, it has NO problems whatsoever, all I want is an extra handset. Why whoudl I replace a whole phone suystem that works fine, has no problems, just because they think it is obsolete. it's not obsolete to me.

Then he told me to go look for one on ebay. :(

Point is, I run into exactly the same issue with digital photographic equipment - be it cameras, my commercial printers, etc. a friend of mine who makes his living of his large industrial printer is having a heck of a time. Nobody has parts, there's one tech support guy 2,500 miles away who still understand that "old printer (aka 4 years old), and so forth.

Or wait until you are in my shoes, like the day a few weeks ago when my nearly new, $2,500 printer, rated at 50,000 prints per month, with only 11,000 prints total in less than 6 months breaks down on a weekend, and you HAVE to have the job done the next day (yes, Sunday). You ever try and get service or tech support on a weekend from anybody? :) Then when you do get somebody, it's going to take at leas ta week to get the part that is broken shipped in, why don't I just buy a new printer in teh meantime?

:(

Sorry to ramble on, it's not so much digital, but it's the attitude. When my dad's lead type printing press broke down at any point years ago, it could be repaired on a weekend, and yes, if it took more than 24 hours to get a replacement part brought in or repaired, people where apologetic and embarrased. Today - well some of them actually act incredulus (spelling?) if you expect any kind of fast service.

maybe that's more human nature than digital, but I personally noticed this attitude crept into the workplace hand in hand with the growth ofa ll things digital

My apologies for the rant, I'm too dmaned cheap to pay for therapy. You guys are just as good anhyow. :D Need more coffee.

joe

[windpointphoto]

:D

come visit, and we can talk....:rolleyes:

I'd like to do that. Been there a couple of times. My family came from Sakskobing.

[Steaphany]

Joe,

I do not believe that this is human nature, but feel it has more to do with our present culture. At one time people took pride in manufacturing a product designed to last. As technology advanced, manufacturers found digital technology provided a flexible cost savings approach over traditional analog electronic designs. This simply set digital technology to be positioned to take the wrap for what followed, the rapid introduction of new products. Manufacturers realized if their future products, availing to new technologies, would be out in a year or two, why spend the money designing or supporting a product which could last 10 or 20 years.

Digital technology is just the victim here, not the culprit behind products expected to fail or be replaced by users indoctrinated by the marketing hype of "You need the latest and greatest".

To people like you and me, whose culture it is to invest in quality and use it for many years, we do not provide the cash flow that most manufacturers look for. As annoying it is to us, we also become a thorn in their side when we force those same manufacturers to support what they consider ancient technology. They actually hope telling a customer something like "go look on ebay" will make their problem go away.

This is what is the motivation behind the growth of the equipment leasing industry. Instead of purchasing something, as in your case, an office phone system, which ends up being a capital expenditure needing several years to write off, companies lease equipment. The lease term is usually based on the manufacturers life cycle of the product. If the manufacturer expects a supported product life of 4 years, get a 4 year lease. When the lease expires, the leasing company takes the equipment with all of it's obsolescence head aches, you get a new "Latest and greatest" phone system, again on lease, and the manufacturer is happy not needing to tell you to "Go look on ebay". Financially, a lease is not a capital expenditure, but becomes an operating expense.

That said, it still does not get you your spare phone handset. In my own line of work and from my cultural view point, I purchase reconditioned, formerly leased, equipment. Just like your phone system, they work fine. Two of my computer servers, when new carried a price of $50,000, I picked up for $250 each. My electronics design instruments have similar histories, one new was $20,000 which I got for $1000. The price that I do have to pay later is that I'm on my own when service or support is needed. So, I get copies of the original manufactures service manuals and do the work if and when needed.

Sorry for such a long reply to your long post, just wanting you to know you're not alone and hoping my words are therapeutic.

[Marko]

Hey Joseph,

I of all the people understand where you are coming from with your second point and I certainly feel with you. Perhaps some of my reasons are different, but still... :) It is the consumerist society we have turned into, in which fluff and "special" FX rule and substance takes the back seat if it comes along for a drive at all. Just read the results of some survey or the other yesterday - something like 84% of Americans view the military as "beneficial for the society", but barely 70% (and declining) see science as such. You are not expected to know and understand things, you are expected to consume and replace them. If you do too much of the former and not enough of the latter, you become the odd man out, a black sheep.

That kind of attitude has nothing to do with digital, one of the best photography-related manifestations of it was the concept of instant cameras. What was the slogan of the day - "You Press The Button, We Do The Rest". No need to learn or understand anything, in other words.

Which brings me back to your first point. ;) The digiphobes love to perpetuate the nonsense about "clicking a few buttons to get the perfect print", "perfect and effortless manipulation", "so easy a caveman could do it"... No, wait,, that's something else, but it does sound good, apologies to cavemen on the Forum :D

Even if it were indeed so easy - it isn't, at least not a good one - and even if manipulations were never done before - they were, take "Hernandez" as a quick example - it would apply to digitally captured images all the same as to those captured on film and then scanned in. And that is how virtually all images that go to press end up anyway.

Manipulation? I have to say I love how, say modern medicine is capable of twisting and manipulating things around through digital means. Many of us wouldn't stand a real chance without it, starting with MRI, CT and onwards. Same thing with stem cell research, genetics and neuro.

While I do understand your anguish, as I said in the beginning, I also think that is peanuts compared to the larger benefits. And I consider it more than acceptable price for all the progress. Especially if it is your anguish and not mine. :D

[pablo batt]

d stands for dead

[Turner Reich]

Live far from Sweet Home?

[Jim collum]

"To me" digital is to machine driven and way to fast pace,,,which, for many of us is the reason we use the LF equipment in the traditional form...

plus,, none of us can afford digital backs:D and besides that I haven't seen one Petzval digital image

Steve

..'fast pace' well.. unless you're capturing with a scanning back, then outputting to Platinum (soon gum over platinum) :D

i've captured a number of Veritos and Cooke images with the Betterlight.. if anyone wants to send me a Petzval i can mount on my Ebony.. then we can check that off as well :) (don't need a shutter for the Betterlight)

jim

[PenGun]

d stands for dead

It's not just the digitization that kills much photography. I for the first time in years bought a Photo mag, Outdoor Photography. I was impressed, well horrified really, by the magazine full of perfectly exposed and focused pictures all well framed and not one really good photograph in the whole mag.

It's almost as if they expected the camera to literally do it all. It was one of the things that decided my future path. I wanted to do photography again, as I did for years, but not like this.

I bought a Chamonix 45N. One of the smartest things I've done in years.

[Donald Miller]

I had one lady walk up to me, while I was using my Toyo, telling here husband "I'm going over to the guy with the ancient camera". I started to tell her that my Toyo was only 5 years old, and probably cost more than her DSLR (although she did have a BIG lens on it). I figured she probably wouldn't understand, so I didn't bother.

Interesting comment it reminds me of a time when at Chaco Canyon I was making a LF exposure when I was approached by what turned out to be a professor at the University of Oregon and in jest he say's " mine takes better pictures than yours"...he had a 35 mm camera hanging around his neck...in retrospect I think that he may have been more right than wrong since I have come to understand that large format does not a better picture make. I feel very strongly about that today as a matter of fact.

[Donald Miller]

On the subject that Joseph addresses, I have been fortunate over the last several years to live a good amount of time outside the US. When I first traveled to Italy, I was in for a rude awakening. Hell all of the flash and dash of modern build it, break it, and replace it America was missing. I eventually opened my eyes and found there are still people that do take pride in building a quality product designed to do what it was meant to do with no 1 year obsolescence built in.

As an example can you imagine a home builder in America building homes with solid copper roof flashings, gutters, and down spouts (and I am not speaking of multi million dollar Mcmansions)...not on your life...How about stainless steel used for security fences around homes...You have got to be kidding.

I think America is on it's ass and couldn't find it's ass with either hand if it tried.

[Jim collum]

I use film all the time - regardles of the size of the film.
(I do own a digital camera, but I use it very rarely, and never if I want to use the results as "photographs", if that makes sense.. (I use it to register my students and so on for my school..))

There is one big reason for this (using film): most of the images I do, can't be done digitally - in Photoshop or other programs. They can proberly be re-done there, if the person using the progam is good at his/her work.....(but that's another story)

I don't care about the pixel discussion. It is really boring.

I respect the use of digital cameras, as a use of a tool, but it will never be my tool...

i think it's safe to say that most people wouldn't be able to do your work with digital *or* film. You have an amazing eye (i love following someone's homepage link and finding work like yours). If you ever have an exhibit on the West Coast of the US, please post it here.. i'd love to see actual prints.

jim

[Emil Schildt]

i think it's safe to say that most people wouldn't be able to do your work with digital *or* film. You have an amazing eye (i love following someone's homepage link and finding work like yours). If you ever have an exhibit on the West Coast of the US, please post it here.. i'd love to see actual prints.

jim

Thanks, Jim.

I have never had an exhibition in the States (only had a couple outside Denmark (Prague and Oslo)).

But I'd LOVE to try!!

(don't think I have the money, though...:o )

[Brian Ellis]

It's not just the digitization that kills much photography. I for the first time in years bought a Photo mag, Outdoor Photography. I was impressed, well horrified really, by the magazine full of perfectly exposed and focused pictures all well framed and not one really good photograph in the whole mag.

It's almost as if they expected the camera to literally do it all. It was one of the things that decided my future path. I wanted to do photography again, as I did for years, but not like this.

I bought a Chamonix 45N. One of the smartest things I've done in years.

I subscribed to Outdoor Photography for about a year in the early '90s. I stopped subscribing partly because I didn't like the photographs that were held up as being the standard to which I should be striving. Back then everything in the magazine started out on film of course, digital was in its infancy. I still thumb through the magazine on news stands occasionally and I don't see any difference between the type of photographs that were in it when I subscribed and the photographs in it today. But I wouldn't say the photographs in it were or are "bad" photographs. They just weren't the kind of photographs I wanted to make when they were done with film cameras and now that they're presumably done with digital cameras they still aren't.

You hopefully will enjoy using your new Chamonix more than you would a digital camera but it isn't going make "good" photographs any more than a digital camera would make "bad" photographs. It's trite but true - good photographs and bad photographers, however defined, are made by photographers, not equipment.

[Drew Wiley]

Donald - around here a lot of homes do have things like copper gutters and welded in
place stainless deck railing. These aren't McMansions but finely crafted homes. When someone does build something extravagent, it's built like a yacht. So where do these
folks get all the money to do this? By designing all those disposable techie gadgets
and its software! (Plus Biotech, cute weapons systems which blow up things -
definitely disposable!). Another irony is that these are the same kinds of people who
run into me with the 8X10 out in the redwoods or along the coast and say, "What
a lovely camera, do you have a darkroom too? Wish I had one of those."

[paulr]

I don't think the quick obsolescence of digital gear is intrinsic to its "digitalness," and I don't think it's a symptom of some larger societal decadence.

We just happen to live at a time when the pace of change in digital technology is overwhelmingly fast. This is especially the case in photography, since digital photographic technology has only been viable for a few years ... so the curve is really, really steep right now. I suspect it will mellow out within a decade. Not stop ... but slow to the point where you can hang onto a camera for as long as you want without it becoming a door stop. Better and cheaper ones will always be coming along, but we'll reach the point where cameras will remain useful for a long time.

I'm looking to digital audio (which has a 20 year head start on digital photography) for clues. In the recording world they've gotten to the point where there's just no need for higher digital standards. Even the most old school, hard core mastering engineers confess to not being able to hear the difference between 24 bit/96khz recordings and 24 bit/192khz. It's as if they've reached a number of megapixels that goes beyond what anyone can see (and yes, I realize the analogy isn't perfect, because you don't make enlargements from audio tape ... but please bear with me ...)

However, different pieces of digital gear still sound different from each other. One company's 24-bit/96khz A/D converter sounds better than another's. Because a significant amount of the circuitry (probably most of it) is still analog. And these circuits will continue to refined and tweaked and slowly improved, just as they've always been. And of course, the technology at every level continues to get cheaper, though not at the pace that it once did.

Digital cameras aren't at this plateau yet. But it's bound to happen someday.