What if digital came first

T

Traut

Well-known
Local time
9:05 PM
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
321
View My Gallery
I was contemplating with a cigar and adult beverage (or three) and wondered if digital cameras were in use and a new silver based imaging system were invented that did not require batteries, computers, software , etc. what would the impact and impressions be upon photography.

I for one would "jump in it".

Curious what others would think.


i.e. 5 speeds vs automatics, cotton vs polyester, leather vs plastic, et al
 
I think that if the situations and timelines had been reversed, then film would exist only for a handful of masochistic artists and their home-coated glass plates. There would never have been the volume-of-sales incentive to give rise to photographic film manufacturers.
 
Though digital imaging has existed since the 1920's, it was purely in the form of moderately and slowly evolving scanning processes. It worked, and it transmitted a digital image, but cumbersome and slow.

Well, modern style CCD and CMOS imaging sensors were invented in the 1960's, a combination of Einstein's photoelectric effect and transistors ... okay, not really that simple, but that was the idea behind it.

The problem in what you propose lies in the fact that without semiconductors, there would be no image sensors. So, in order for "film" to have come after "digital", transistors would have needed to exist in the late 1800's, and image sensors would have needed to be brought up in the very early 1900's. Also, quantum physics would have had to come around fifty years earlier than it actually did.

So, realistically speaking, it would have been impossible for digital to come before silver-based film.
 
jsrockit said:
I always wondered what if color film came first... would b&w film even have existed?
Click to expand...

Now THERE is a thought!

Painters never started painting in B&W before moving onto colour paintings 😛 (sketches don't count).

Then again, people will always have a "we can do it because we can" attitude towards such things, no matter what came before what.

Shades of grey have also been more challenging to control and keep consistent than colour shades when painting.
 
The question reminds me of one posed to Enzo Ferrari in the mid 60s. By then most formula teams had embraced fuel injection and when asked why Ferrari hadn't he replied something to the effect, if all cars were fuel injected and someone invented the carburetor we'd all marvel at the elegance and effectiveness of its design.
 
Ask the younger members - for them this proposition is true.

I suspect that film would have been (and for them, is) a novelty embraced to establish individuality, or enjoyed for its different look that appeals to the "artist". Look at the Tokyo Camera Style blog and what the kids are carrying, perhaps as fashion accessories as much as to take photos with.
 
I have thought this too, it would be an interesting marketing exercise. On one hand the old-school digital could make pictures immediately, at very high ISOs. But the new-fangled film cameras could have "sensors" any size you wanted, did not need batteries, and could be bought for a great deal less than the entrenched digital gear.

I expect you'd get a lot of semi-pro or enthusiast users moving to film, simply because it was the new big thing. Paparazzi etc. would stick with digital.

The same can be applied to tablets/netbooks. The tablet has replaced the netbook (at least psychologically, in the press etc.) but if the tablet came first, then the netbook, then you could market the real keyboard, the powerful OS, the freedom to install anything you wanted, multitasking etc.

I think we have this incredibly powerful idea which is present almost everywhere that newer is better, and that's hard to shake off. In reality, I think better ideas are better regardless of their age.
 
jsrockit said:
I always wondered what if color film came first... would b&w film even have existed?
Click to expand...


I agree. Black and white film is lifeless and unattractive to me.

I cannot imagine myself ever intentionally shooting black and white unless the fastest film possible was required to even get an image.


Texsport
 
bugmenot;1972232. So said:
Well that's alway a problem with counterfactuals. Once you start unravellling a loose end in the pullover of history it all comes apart!

But never mind the physics, if there had not been a growing market for easy to use consumer photography, nor a cheap and effective way of printing photographs in newspapers, photography might never have been of much importance until digital. (or at least analogue television).
Which would lead to a more pertinent question in respect of today's market: if you had always taken photographs with a 'phone or device of similar picture quality would you be attracted to something better? How many would demand 'print quality' rather than good enough to view on an HD screen?
Click to expand...
 
This is fun. I think of this when new computers come out. What if my old Macbook was the new model, replacing the Macbook Air? Add firewire, removable battery (also hard drive, RAM), DVD burner.

What if the CDAF from MFT/Nex were first, but someone came out with MF with depth of field scales, allowing for hyperfocusing? (I know some of the lenses have scales, but not kit lenses). What if lousy LCD screens that get washed out in daylight (no evf) came first, and someone introduced the VF from a Nikon F2, Pentax ME, or--good heavens--Leica M2? Or if someone introduced the Sinar P2 8X10 and Fujichrome (or, let me dream here, Kodachrome sheet film)?
 
Traut said:
I was contemplating with a cigar and adult beverage (or three) and wondered if digital cameras were in use and a new silver based imaging system were invented that did not require batteries, computers, software , etc. what would the impact and impressions be upon photography.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, a while back I was talking to the owner of the local pro lab. He said a few years ago (maybe ten) Kodak invited a lot of industry people to a convention (or something like that) and they made exactly that speech.
 
Never shot when younger, picking up a camera for the first time in the digital age at 24. My introduction was all digital, yet now I shoot mostly film, but to be honest, digital had and lost me. If there were small, capable digital cameras as there are now, back then, I doubt I would have wandered into the world of film in search of such. Now that I've discovered and enjoy the film process, I will remain a film user.

For the market at large, I imagine if digital came first, then only medium and larger format film would tempt anyone away from digital. Even then, it would just be a niche market in my opinion.

EDIT: will actually supplement the above, by mentioning the appeal of simply outsourcing all post-processing to someone else, by simply just shooting a roll and then just dropping it off at a lab, might prove appealing to aspects of the mass market. To be honest, for all the snap shooters out there, especially the older ones, am not sure why they bothered to switch from their 35mm film compact to a digital one, aside from cost. A lot of people I know, would be a lot happier with a fistful of 6x4's, and having someone else deal with all the non-shooting variables.
 
Traut said:
i.e. 5 speeds vs automatics, cotton vs polyester, leather vs plastic, et al
Click to expand...

By now most digitals are metal-cased while most new film cameras are, indeed, plastic (lens included)..

holga_camera.jpg
 
jsrockit said:
I always wondered what if color film came first... would b&w film even have existed?
Click to expand...

I've recently thought about this, and was reminded of HCB's quote about his Leica being a sketchbook for his artistic sensibility, and then thought about actual sketching being done in B/W with charcoal and/or graphite. My conclusion is that B/W was inevitable, as long as we've had graphite/charcoal monochrome sketchings as a preexisting reference point.

EDIT: If anyone doubts the artistic viability of sketching, try pricing a Rembrandt or Picasso sketching. You could oufit yourself with a nice set of Leica bodies and lenses for what it would cost you.

~Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom