If Digital Photography Had Never Been Invented…

[thereabouts]

And I'm going to define that as if the digital sensor, as an image capturing device, had never been developed (because even film cameras had electronics in them) and we still used film.

If that were the case, what kinds of developments would have been applied to cameras? Where was the camera industry going before the digital sensor was developed. And how about film itself?

An alternate reality discussion, of sorts, I suppose.

 

[JP Owens]

Film cameras had pretty much gone as far as it could at the end of the film camera era. Same for film technology itself. But photography, in general, beyond the P&S stuff, was pretty much dead in the late 1990's. Computers, the Internet, computer games and digital music devices were the "thing" then. Digital photography caused a massive resurgence in interest in photography.

 

[sevo]

If there had been a physical reason to make microelectronics impossible (say, structural limitations that prevented IC scale integration), there also would have been no sophisticated AF (which needs small image sensors), and electronics in cameras in general would have remained at the late sixties stage - perhaps we might eventually have had AE in large format cameras (as studios could have arranged themselves with a cabinet-sized outboard processor), but CdS style match needle metering would have been pretty much the apex of portability. In another scenario, of a universe without photo sensitive electronic materials, there would have been little use for electronics in camera other to use as timers and motor control processors...

As far as film is concerned, we'd probably have seen improvements in colour fidelity, but not that much in terms of speed or resolution gains - there were no huge revolutions in the pipe, film improved fairly gradually from 1990 to 2000, to about one stop gain at equal quality, so that we'd now be a mere another stop on. In the eighties and nineties, there already was a move towards bigger formats for higher qualities, as film consistently was improving slower than the print industry - perhaps we'd have progressed to 6x7 as the standard PJ format, to deal with the requirements of magazines and (analogue) HDTV.

 

[jarski]

Interesting scenario, world of computers and networks, forums, social media etc. But no digital photography 🙂

My own photography would probably be non-existent, or limited to few holiday snaps using disposable cameras. Photo bug bite me in 2003, after buying my first Sony p&s digital camera.

 

[Darthfeeble]

Labs would have probably come up with quicker and less expensive ways to develop. There would still be ones on the street corner and probably there would have been improvements in paper and such. There might have been better or improved film as the plastics industry came up with new materials. Maybe even less toxic chemistry too.
Or even self developing film......

 

[sara]

We would still have...Kodachrome........

 

[JoeV]

It's difficult to speculate about developments that have yet to be made, but film speeds might have achieved break throughs equivalent to digital sensors through innovative techniques. We can all too easily dismiss such speculation today because of our arrogant culture, but such technical progress is directly driven by economic concerns. In our case, digital eliminated much incentive for further groundbreaking research.

 

[Greyscale]

Facebook would just be called Book.

 

[BillBingham2]

We would still have...Kodachrome........

That would be soooo worth it!

B2 (;->

 

[sevo]

In our case, digital eliminated much incentive for further groundbreaking research.

There is something like a decade each between E6/C41, T-crystal films, the second generation of ordered crystal films and the last new "modern" films released (e.g. Ektar, new TX) - the differences between each generation were visible but hardly groundbreaking (and the changes weren't even universally acclaimed and adopted). With all the lab-to-market transition involved, the development of film in its effects for the consumer has only ended about one film generation ago. Had research continued for another decade, films that gain another stop speed at equal resolution (or 0.7 times higher resolution at equal speed) would be about due now.

Once a craft has established, there is not that much groundbreaking going on, but it settles to smaller scale discoveries - the only "fundamentally new" thing in photography to happen in recent times were electronic sensors, and nothing similar could have happened in film. The next big step is expected to be computational photography (which may do away with the need for quality lenses, as the image can be calculated from of a large amount of relatively low quality data).

 

[Ko.Fe.]

By 2018 film will be sold in Ontario same way as cigarettes, because film is not clean and anti-animal in manufacturing. As result only 10% of population will still take stills. Progressives will introduce new part of citizenship exam. Drawing with pencil.

 

[x-ray]

If there had been a physical reason to make microelectronics impossible (say, structural limitations that prevented IC scale integration), there also would have been no sophisticated AF (which needs small image sensors), and electronics in cameras in general would have remained at the late sixties stage - perhaps we might eventually have had AE in large format cameras (as studios could have arranged themselves with a cabinet-sized outboard processor), but CdS style match needle metering would have been pretty much the apex of portability. In another scenario, of a universe without photo sensitive electronic materials, there would have been little use for electronics in camera other to use as timers and motor control processors...

As far as film is concerned, we'd probably have seen improvements in colour fidelity, but not that much in terms of speed or resolution gains - there were no huge revolutions in the pipe, film improved fairly gradually from 1990 to 2000, to about one stop gain at equal quality, so that we'd now be a mere another stop on. In the eighties and nineties, there already was a move towards bigger formats for higher qualities, as film consistently was improving slower than the print industry - perhaps we'd have progressed to 6x7 as the standard PJ format, to deal with the requirements of magazines and (analogue) HDTV.

In the 60's I worked my way through college as a PJ and after college went into commercial photography. In the 60's with the introduction of the Nikon F and With in releasing popularity of Leicas medium and large format went away for ever. By the time I started full time as a PJ in 1968 there were only a couple of PJ's that I knew using MF. I never saw anyone use LF.

Advances in lens speed and quality plus the Nikon F and high quality teles and later zooms pretty much killed MF and LF forever. Film improved as well with higher speed finer grain emulsions. Compactness was a huge factor. Just imagine the equivalent of 20-36 exposure rolls in 120 or 4x5.

If we were still shooting film we would be seeing advanced super compact SLRs with f1 and 1.2 lenses using smaller format film like half frame or smaller. Auto loading cassettes would be used.

As for studio photography, the nature of LF studio work dictates hands on controll not automation. Studio work is very structured with constant lighting conditions and often very complex. Conditions and lighting don't change. There's no need for automation in this kind of work.

Cameras and optics would have continued to be refined. Film emulsions would have advanced with better high speed emulsions. We would have seen better dye stability in color films as well as simplified and more environmentally friendly processes. Smaller formats would have been introduced as emulsions improved.

In the 50 years I've worked as a professional we've evolved from large and ultra large format in the studio. In the 70's I regularly shot 11x14 ektachrome on sets and products. 11x14 started going out in the early 80's and 8x10 and 4x5 were the standards in product work. By the 90's I still shot LF but much less and 6x6 became the standard. Part of this was an evolution from studio to location work where portability was important.

Journalism did the same thing evolving from 4x5 and even 5x7. 6x6 became very popular and then 35mm. It would never have reverted back to MF or LF.

One thing for sure, there would be a higher quality of images. The world wouldn't be flooded with low aesthetic and technical quality we see all over the Internet.

 

[x-ray]

To add to my previous post, I knew several of the really old timers in photography. I knew and worked for a photographer that opened his business on 1902. He shot tons of commercial jobs on his Eastman circuit camera. I contacted many 12 inch x 6 foot negs. He also shot many assignments on 16x20 glass plates and 12x20 film. I can't tell you how many prints I made off of 16x20 plates. I had another friend that was 102 years old and had been a photographer. He was born in 1882 and said he went many years into his career before he saw acshutter on a lens. He used his derby to cover the lens and act as a shutter.

Photography would have continued the evolution no question. Film, lenses and cameras would have continued to improve.

 

[raid]

Lenses would still be improved. Cameras reached perfection.
I would have returned to developing B&W film.

 

[TXForester]

We would still have...Kodachrome........

Yes and I would not have to put a filter in front of a sensor with a base ISO of 200 to get suitably slow shutter speeds. We would still have ASA 25 and 64.

As far as capturing the light, who knows? Were any of the film companies working on new emulsions not based on old tech. Maybe they were still at the idea stage when digital killed research. We have no idea, and certainly no idea what future, science discoveries could have been applied to film.

With cameras there could have been many advancements. However those advancements would have come slower than they did with digital. The ease of digital image making for the average consumer increased its popularity and camera sells. That is incentive for advancements. Lower camera sales would equate to slower advancements. We could have had auto focus and metering advancements. Advancements in flashes, flash triggers etc.

Beyond the camera and film there would still be advancements in editing software, but somewhat limited by the amount of data that is stored in the film image. However tools like HDR would still be possible with multiple exposures on film. One thing that could have been nice would have been incentive to improve film scanners. We would still be sharing digital copies of film images. Images for online use would still be needed for advertising, editorial use etc. Maybe by now, there would be decent flatbed scanners for 35mm.

 

[sevo]

Advances in lens speed and quality plus the Nikon F and high quality teles and later zooms pretty much killed MF and LF forever. Film improved as well with higher speed finer grain emulsions.

As I said, ever since 1980, film improved slower than display and magazine print resolutions - if we were still using film, and assume that the demands on print resolutions progressed as they did in a digital environment (where less than 24MP are already hard to sell), it is predictable that 35mm would be barely marketable in the near future (at least not without using sub ISO 100 film off a tripod), so a swing back to larger formats would be imminent.

 

[FrozenInTime]

I was looking forward to the ISO 24,000 B&W film Kodak had in development.

http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/new-films-shown-at-icis-by-fuji-and-kodak.18571/

APS was also looking promising - The Contax Tix loaded with 400CN B&W film was superb.

 

[x-ray]

As I said, ever since 1980, film improved slower than display and magazine print resolutions - if we were still using film, and assume that the demands on print resolutions progressed as they did in a digital environment (where less than 24MP are already hard to sell), it is predictable that 35mm would be barely marketable in the near future (at least not without using sub ISO 100 film off a tripod), so a swing back to larger formats would be imminent.

Since the 80's there were huge improvements in film. Drum scanners were becoming the norm allowing much finer reproduction. Press and plate technology improved dramtically as well. Finally around 2000 we started seeing direct to press technology / digital presses. Quality was fantastic. Film and lenses had evolved right along side of printing technology. As good as lithography became it still lacked the ability to reproduce everything on the film.

From the early 70's on I worked in the advertising field as a commercial photographer and worked side by side with color separators and printing houses. No way even at its best can it match the quality of a fine quality 35mm transparency. Garbage in garbage out. Though the final product is only as good as the people running the scanner and press and the amount of pressure applied to them to get that high quality result.

 

[madNbad]

It would be a lot harder to take selfies.

 

[Out to Lunch]

If Digital Photography Had Never Been Invented…

.... we probably would not be having this discussion.