If Digital Photography Had Never Been Invented…

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.

Watching what happened from the 1960s to the 1990s, where the interest in fine cameras and fine photography on the amateur level waned and almost disappeared, I suspect that Polaroid would have become the last bastion of photography and more efficient instant film cameras would have ruled.

Hey, you asked for an alternate reality. ;-)

G
 
Kodak's film sales peaked around 1999 at over 900 million units. By 2012, sales were around 20 million units a year, and at the same time, the number of photos taken each year increased astronomically. It wasn't film most folks liked, it was photos.

The telling question is, when film sales peaked, was there still any real innovation in SLR's still going on?

Technology marches on. The thing I wonder about is how long before people burn out on shooting billions of photos a year?
 
I imagine "tiny" communication devices the size of a small red brick with a mechanical dial (and a backpack full of batteries), that would have an even more tiny fixed focus lens on one side and a small crank lever to rewind the 1/3,5'' 18 frames color-microfilm, that you can drop off to any supermarket at any time and directly send the developed prints to your home and at the same time copies thereof to any other person in the world identified by his phone-number over acoustic coupler. There would even be long steel sticks where those devices could be attached to in a way, that you look into a mirror plane applied around that fixed focus lens to to take pictures of yourself, referred to as "fflexies" (fixed focus reflection self portraits) in the social paper community magazines. Those would be the total hype!
 
It would be a lot harder to take selfies.

nahhh 🙂

rff.jpg
 
The utility of 2d printed consumer imaging max'd out before digital imagery became a reality.
Where could film&paper go? .... instant prints? 3D prints? send copies to friends by postal mail?
For the consumer, the film/paper road was going nowhere, and it needed to go nowhere - it was at a consumer dead end (shoeboxes of moldy pictures).
 
I wouldn’t have pursued photography to the extent that I have, since digital’s convenience and forgiving benefits removed decades of inhibition that had discouraged me from going beyond the preset exposure modes on my SLR.

With digital, I felt inspired to actually broaden my understanding of photography, learning such basic terminology as focal length, ISO, f/stop, shutter speed, and how they all interacted to affect exposure and such. Obviously, this is a personal psychological thing, as the film-only days posed no physical impediments to acquiring the same knowledge (on the contrary...).

And if it had not been for digital, I could not have effectively “switched back” to film once I was comfortable with the technical aspects.

As for where film cameras would be without digital’s intrusion, it probably would have had little impact on what I’m using now, since technology became sufficient enough for me personally by the 1960s.

The price for film, however, would probably be more favorable.
 
Leica certainly wouldn't have the diversity of cameras they have currently and the R series would probably have continued on.

The other interesting thing would be the progress of scanners and the possibility of a desktop scanner rivaling what the drum scanners were able to produce.
 
In my old age I am well aware of the fickleness of consumer product marketing, so I hesitate to make too many H.G. Wells "what if" predictions about anything, let alone the possible direction photography without the digi invasion. But one's reality is always subjective, predicting is fun, and as we know, hindsight is always 20:20.

Yes, we would have Kodachrome. Also Ektachrome. Not, gods forbid, horrible Anscochrome nor Agfachrome. CT slide films had beautiful muted colors and mid tones, but all faded in a few years. Agfa knew this in 1970, but as one of their retired executives told me, did nothing about it. Just kept selling the stuff to us suckers. So I now have a filing cabinet full of faded images of Bali from 1969, when the island was truly pristine, before the jet age grope tour madness fatally damaged the Balinese culture. Those images are a great loss to me.

Also Panatomic-X, Plus-X, the original Ektar 25, the Agfa B&W range, the original Adoxes.

By the '90s most film cameras were as good as they got. My partner's cheap-feel plastic Nikon F65 with D Nikkors produces as good negatives as I can with my Rolleis and Fujis.My 2002 Contax G2 easily outshoots anything else I've ever owned and used.

Digital imagery in one form or another would exist. Reality however intrusive to some cannot be disregarded, and if year 2000 consumers had not embraced the fledgling digital technology en masse, I think it highly likely we would now have mass marketed (affordable?) digital backs for 35mm SLRs, also adaptor units to print digital images in optical enlargers. As China ever shows us, if there is a market, there will soon be a product.

Film processing had to change, and would have. Most '90s pro labs were big, costly to operate, and knew they could charge like wounded bulls and the suckers would still line up at the counter. There were few alternatives. The quality from local one hour shopfront labs staffed by surly 18 year olds unable/unwilling to clean fingerprints off an auto printer lens, was so bad that we avoided them like leprosy. It had to change, and it. In a mass exodus to digital.

Film era chemistry also had to evolve, and did, to products less environmentally damaging. Would coffee developer technology be big today Would we be recycling our coffee grounds to an Ilford depot for reformulating as Caffeine-X?
Would I have to pay A$10 for a roll of 120 fuji Acros and A$25 for 35mm Kodak Portra? And would any processor dare to advertise they returned images OL and then trashed the negatives? No, I think not.

Another viewpoint. Without digital and related technology, would we have had PCs, laptops, palmtops and the internet such as we do? Would we be posting all this today and discussing as we are? Probably, in one form or another. Blogging by telex wouldn't be much fun, though.

Fortunately or unfortunately, as the individual case or viewpoint may be, digital photography is here to stay. Film is now largely niche. Who can afford a 16x20" plate nowadays, never mind the camera? Does anyone enjoy the stink of fixer?
Like some posters, without the advent of digital I too would likely have given up photography. My Nikon D90 in 2008 freed me after forty years from the tyranny of the darkroom. A digital photography-free life would have driven me to other pastimes, like HC-B to his watercolors. Or hand-embroidering Velveeta landscapes.

For all this, many keen and intelligent photographers are still using film. Many others are returning to film and a few others are coming to film for the first time. We have almost as many options today as we did in the 1960s. There is hope.

Cell phones are here to stay, like them or not. Mobiles were in secret use by military and espionage types by 1980. I have this from the best authority. Dick Tracy and his snazzy wrist Rolex, or was it a wrist Bulova...

Ditto selfies, and why not? My grandparents took them. I have all mine on film back to the '60s. My nieces, nephews and my friends' and neighbors' kids still take them, but digitally and with cell phones. Not film. Times change, some things stay. Go figure.

Enjoyed all this greatly.
 
the implications behind not having a digital sensor are immense.
Seriously, just think about what that would have meant for satellite imaging....

No weather satellites would change our understanding of hurricanes, climate science, etc
No hubble telescope would change understanding of the universe.
Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, and even PLUTO would likely still not be seen.
No google map earth view. Cause satellite views are really cool 😛
Just think what may or may not have been allowed to have happen without spy satellites or early detection capability. We'd still be flying tons of U2's (or equiv) for ALL intelligence info.
Medical sciences would likely also be largely affected.

Photography as a hobby aside, the world would be drastically different than what we know it today without digital imaging. The effect on film and film emulsions would be just about the least interesting thing I can think about.
 
Can't stop progress.

Digital cameras came about because of this gent who worked at, of all places, Kodak:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Sasson



Well, in that «alternate universe» we're talking about, perhaps this reality's Mr Sasson would have invented a portable MRI for everone instead — and that could have been a huge progress, e.g. regarding early cancer diagnosis.

🙂
 
Star Trek.

The MRI machines are getting smaller:

http://www.fonar.com/index-no-flash.htm

Not many CCD or CMOS chips on them. Different technology between those little capture rascals and MRI.

My son works at GE healthcare. He started as an intern while attending U of Wis. in Madison and has been around the world with GE. Recently, he's back with healthcare.

http://www3.gehealthcare.com/en/global_gateway


What do you think?
 
the implications behind not having a digital sensor are immense.
Seriously, just think about what that would have meant for satellite imaging....

well, Hubble would have taken the shots on film and capsule sent back to NASA for developing. imagine all those star photos recorded in Kodachrome!

(kidding)
 
Star Trek.
[…]
What do you think?

No, not really «Star Trek» —*I've read about such a device in a «Perry Rhodan» sci-fi novel, or a novel by an author of that series:

In the 26th (or 29th?) century, they used film in their cameras, but: the lens was replaced with a magnetic contraption (IIRC).

Hence my idea that portable MRIs weren't such a bad idea 😉
 
Back
Top Bottom