What if digital cameras hadn't been invented...

[jsrockit]

I have no doubts it would have both survived and been improved, though this is an alternate reality we are talking about, so who knows.

I had always heard it was a lot more toxic and laborious...

 

[David Hughes]

---
Oh yes: the Contax Tix! A lovely little camera. But APS film format itself would likely have never existed were it not for the upcoming digital world, it was one of Kodak's visions for how the integration of automated control systems into film processing machinery would result in smaller, easier to carry, consumer cameras and more picture taking... allowing Kodak to sell more film at higher profits. History didn't go exactly the way they had foreseen, eh?

That's an interesting aside, as it were; if Kodak and Fuji had decided to abandon 35mm and just do APS I'd be quite happy. I've one or two cameras* I kept in the hopes that APS would return because they were excellent cameras. Looking at the advantages of APS from the makers viewpoint I can still see advantages but I'd hope FP4+ would then be marketed by Ilford...

OTOH, I'd miss 35mm slide film.

Regards, David


* The Minolta Vectis S-1 for an SLR outfit and the Contax Tix and/or Kodak T550 for a dear and cheap - but both very good to excellent pocket cameras.

 

[Archiver]

If there had never been digital imaging, I'd never have had the job I had at NASA doing digital imaging in the 1980s and my life would have been so vastly different that it is quite difficult to imagine what I'd have been doing in the late 1990s-early 2000s when digital cameras became accessible with consumer pricing.

While I would still have been a photographer if digital photography had not been invented, I would probably not work in documentary and corporate video, at least, not to the extent that I am now.

With an enthusiast/pro mirrorless camera from Panasonic or Sony and a good computer (or even a tablet), a person can shoot and edit a high quality short film, TVC or documentary that is broadcast ready. As I look back at the quality and type of technology that was video in the days of Hi-8, Betamax and S-VHS, I wonder how I would have fared at that. Or would I have moved from those things to shooting actual motion picture film like Super 16 or Super 35. But then, how would I edit this on my own? I'm really grateful that digital video technology has become what it has now.

My early photographic education consisted of my Dad teaching me the basics of photography with his Pentax ME, and poring over his collection of You And Your Camera, a partwork weekly magazine from Britain that spanned a number of years. But it wasn't until some years later that I really began to pay attention to light and composition with digital, which I translated back into film in the 2000s.

 

[DC1030]

I would have saved loads of money... and still use my Canon F1, Leica M6, Rollei TLR and watch film material getting better and better.
The need to alwayc buy new cameras came with digital, as "film" is build in in these things.
First 1 MP, then 3.3 MP, then 5, then 8... stopped buying new stuff five years ago now as I don't see any significant improvements anymore... even started to use my 2007 M8 again, and guess what? still the same good quality...

 

[Archiver]

I would have saved loads of money... and still use my Canon F1, Leica M6, Rollei TLR and watch film material getting better and better.
The need to alwayc buy new cameras came with digital, as "film" is build in in these things.
First 1 MP, then 3.3 MP, then 5, then 8... stopped buying new stuff five years ago now as I don't see any significant improvements anymore... even started to use my 2007 M8 again, and guess what? still the same good quality...

I'm with you on that. Instead of buying bodies every few years, I'd stick with two or three that I like, including the Pentax ME, Leica M7, Zeiss Ikon. I often think that if shutter sound wasn't an issue, I could probably shoot with the Pentax and two or three primes and leave it at that.

 

[Godfrey]

I would have saved loads of money... and still use my Canon F1, Leica M6, Rollei TLR and watch film material getting better and better.
The need to alwayc buy new cameras came with digital, as "film" is build in in these things.
First 1 MP, then 3.3 MP, then 5, then 8... stopped buying new stuff five years ago now as I don't see any significant improvements anymore... even started to use my 2007 M8 again, and guess what? still the same good quality...

I'm with you on that. Instead of buying bodies every few years, I'd stick with two or three that I like, including the Pentax ME, Leica M7, Zeiss Ikon. I often think that if shutter sound wasn't an issue, I could probably shoot with the Pentax and two or three primes and leave it at that.

I dunno. I always enjoyed experimenting and working with different kinds of equipment, despite that I'd had the Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, Nikon F, and Leica M outfits for thirty years by the time 2000 rolled around. I probably wouldn't have been able to afford some of the higher-end Hasselblad gear that I acquired in the late-'90s and early-'00s (and later) because it wouldn't have been devalued as much, but I can't say that experimenting with new and improved digital cameras cost me much more, if any, than buying and processing 1500-2500 rolls of film per year did.

Photography has always been an expensive endeavor. Digital cameras, once past a certain threshold quality level, have the potential to reduce the cost substantially if you apply some discipline to your buying habits since you really don't need to constantly buy and process new recording media. I never cared to worry about the costs of it—If I could afford it, why not?

And I never spend/spent what I couldn't afford anyway, on anything. That's just common sense.

G

 

[Beemermark]

Like Raid I resisted digital as long as possible. Someone gifted me a new Leica digital P&S in '05 or '06 and I played with it, shot a few pics, and put it back in the box. Still in the box today. Then later I bought a Nikon D200, liked it, bought a D300, almost immediately traded for a D700, and finally bought a D750. Somewhere in there I bought a Leica M8 which was later traded for an M9.

Today, being retired I probably shoot 80% B&W with my Nikon F2 and brace of Leica's. I shoot for the pure enjoyment of it, no other reason. Digital is just TOO immediate. I like the time delay in shooting a roll of film and then developing it. I do miss slide shows. There is simply no comparison in looking at a photo on a small monitor compared to filling a wall size projector screen.

 

[Godfrey]

Just because you can see results in a hurry with digital doesn't mean you have to. I have work I shot, entirely on digital, from as far back as 2017 that I haven't gone through, done my selection process, or rendered. I tend to shoot in small batches of exposures and process quickly when needed, but larger sessions or project I treat in exactly the same way I do with film: capture a whole bunch, be sure that the negs look usable as quick as possible, keep on shooting and start looking at things a few months later when the urge of the moment is past and I can be more objective about what is actually in front of me.

So you like slide shows? Buy a digital projector. Not too expensive anymore and far more you can do with projected images using any of the many display/AV integration apps around.

I never "resisted" digital. I simply couldn't afford it personally until a certain point, and then wasn't happy enough with the quality it could achieve until another point. Now, whether I work with digital capture or film capture, my results are pretty much the same either way, as is the total involvement and time to finished product. In capture, 80% of my time is spent not pressing the shutter but setting up, understanding the situation, evaluating focus zone, light, and exposure; in post processing, all of my time in getting the images into my image processing tools (with either medium) is streamlined and most of my working time is spent in selecting, cropping, and rendering. Digital or film capture is mostly irrelevant, other than the different setup requirements due to differences in the capture medium's response curves, and the film processing/scanning requirements.

G

 

[JeffS7444]

I'd probably do most actual shooting with deluxe premium compact cameras like Minolta TC1 or Fuji GA645zi, and who knows, maybe I'd be using those very models if film camera technology had stagnated: Can't rule out the possibility that the mid-1990s would've been film's peak years with or without digital, and maybe the real beneficiary would've been camcorders!

As for darkroom, I was ready for something to reduce the amount of time I was spending there.

But short of some real upheaval in the world, I think internet-like technologies and some form of electronic imaging were bound to happen in one form or another, and in fact were happening in the form of FidoNet, packet radio, crazy attachments that allowed you to use your dot-matrix printer as a scanner (ThunderScan), distribute data in print form (Cauzin Softstrip) and so forth.

 

[Pál_K]

It's simple, just suppose that digital cameras hadn't been invented and the internet had still to come.

Would you be a photographer?

What camera would you be using and so on...
...

For most dinosaurs like myself, yes, we would be photographers.

My serious interest and my earliest photography began in 1964, before I was even a teenager. Actually, I was interested in television cameras even before that.

My first 35mm SLR was in 1971.

Around the 1990's, although I continued to make photos, I ignored the photo industry because I disliked autofocus and all-electronic cameras. I stayed away until around 2005.

I used the DiGiTaL ReVoLuT10n to buy amazing film cameras and lenses at very low prices.

I bought my first serious digital camera in 2013.

 

[CMur12]

I did most of my photography before digital, and I never even transitioned to auto-focus. Instead, I moved more into medium format TLRs.

Film is still my preferred approach, and my old manual-focus 35mm SLRs and medium format TLRs are still my tools of choice.

I have a good DSLR that I need to learn to use, and digital has some attractive advantages. Still, I would have been happiest if digital never came along.

- Murray

 

[Archiver]

I'd probably do most actual shooting with deluxe premium compact cameras like Minolta TC1 or Fuji GA645zi, and who knows, maybe I'd be using those very models if film camera technology had stagnated: Can't rule out the possibility that the mid-1990s would've been film's peak years with or without digital, and maybe the real beneficiary would've been camcorders!

As for darkroom, I was ready for something to reduce the amount of time I was spending there.

Interestingly, digital means that unless I have a full frame compact like a Sony RX1r or Leica Q, I won't get the same image quality as with a full frame DSLR or mirrorless. For this reason, I tend to carry a smaller sensor pocket camera and a larger sensor ILC.

But with film, you will get the same image quality from a Minolta TC-1 or Contax T3 as you would with a SLR and high end 28 or 35. Unless you want the flexibility of multiple lenses with wide apertures, and are happy to shoot with a 35 or 28, you can get away with carrying just a film compact.

Often, I carry a compact like the Panasonic LX10 or Sony RX0 for snapshots, and something bigger / with faster glass for portraits and things. In the 2000s, it was a Canon G7 and Fuji Natura Black film camera, or Canon G10 and Contax T3, or G10 and Zeiss Ikon with Nokton 35. So if digital never happened, I'd carry a Contax T3 equivalent or Ricoh GR1v equivalent for general work, and a SLR or rangefinder with a fast 50 for low light, indoor or portrait work.

 

[tsiklonaut]

Cameras is one thing, but I find the other things happening would be MUCH more interesting!

Although it was already a very developed technology I think the film emulsion would have another step or two of evolution left with the rest of the process chain keeping up to it.

Since in the 90s people started to like "smooth" pictures that digital found it's popularity thanks to interpolation and noise shaping. Thus if there was no digital the film would had to fill the niche entering 2000/2010s had it's haydays still continued:

• some very low B&W grain technology would had come out, i.e. the next level ot T-grain or similar with ASA 100 film having a grain like ASA 25 film
  
• ditto on slides, Velvia and Provia would had another cousin or two for landscapes and portraits respectively. A Velvia 20 and Provia 50F with a grain RMS 5 or lower with almost no grain even on high enlargements.
  
• on the other end the very high speed films on the photography market coming from the high-speed surveillance market needs, i.e. a nominal ASA 6400-25 000 or so box-speed emulsions would readily be available on shop shelfs. Due to new emulsion technologies those ultra-high speed films would have a grain comparable to today's ASA 1600 films.
  
• lots of new niche films, mostly by smaller producers trying to find their bread, i.e. Lomo-alike, but much better since the expecations would be higher due to lots of competition pressure by the big manufacturers as well. Lots of unique B&W infrareds, many different versions of Aerochrome-like color-infrared films, maybe even C41 netagive versions or IR, also more ortochromatic films or even blue-only channel films for very dramatic image effects straight-out-of-camera to stand out in the highly competitive market.
  
• ease of film developing would have some serious evolution. I.e. single-step JOBO processor for home use that any idiot can use, with ready development cartridges plug-in (just like on an inkjet printer). Just push a single button and some 15 minutes later the developed film comes out from other side (like on an inkjet printer). You can probably attach an optional dedicated feeder-scanner on the other side and also a printer in the same compatible chain. Cartridges would be originals by the manufacturers but third-party companies would step-in to cheaply refill them and offer cheaper alternatives. Thus a convenience-based ready-solutions for home users at a very affordible costs.

Other things:

• drum scanning service (with 5000+ dpi a norm) would be common due to high demand on high-end picture quality by the pros. Thus the semi pros or even amateurs could afford it on a daily basis thanks to the special market situation.
• also the image editing software capabilities and feature varieties for film scans would take a different turn and be through-the-roof by now with all sorts of image manipulation possibilities to combat film's limited latitude and noisy grain and we've probably have a completely different "feel" in images compared to todays digital dominated image flow we see everywhere.
  
• digital printing would be hybridized with analog darkroom possibilities to combine the best of both, i.e. digital contact sheets from drum scans that can be enlarged on art- or museum grade FB silver gelatine, this service would also be affordable due to high competition.
  
• some amazing slide projection evolutions, 4x5" slides a norm on house-sized screened NatGeo-ish presentations by the top pros with stunning large format full-analog quality and slide brilliance, probably 3D included for once-in-a-lifetime audience experience that even todays digital projectors couldn't keep up with

 

[airfrogusmc]

I would still have my 500 C/Ms and I would still be using my Canon F-1s and I probably would also have a film Leica.

 

[Ricoh]

If digital cameras were but a dream...
Would film be cheaper than it is today? I think so, supply demand and competition...
More camera technicians remaining being able to fix our mechanical marvel boxes.
That would be great!

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Cameras is one thing, but I find the other things happening would be MUCH more interesting!

Although it was already a very developed technology I think the film emulsion would have another step or two of evolution left with the rest of the process chain keeping up to it.

Since in the 90s people started to like "smooth" pictures that digital found it's popularity thanks to interpolation and noise shaping. Thus if there was no digital the film would had to fill the niche entering 2000/2010s had it's haydays still continued:

• some very low B&W grain technology would had come out, i.e. the next level ot T-grain or similar with ASA 100 film having a grain like ASA 25 film
  
• ditto on slides, Velvia and Provia would had another cousin or two for landscapes and portraits respectively. A Velvia 20 and Provia 50F with a grain RMS 5 or lower with almost no grain even on high enlargements.
  
• on the other end the very high speed films on the photography market coming from the high-speed surveillance market needs, i.e. a nominal ASA 6400-25 000 or so box-speed emulsions would readily be available on shop shelfs. Due to new emulsion technologies those ultra-high speed films would have a grain comparable to today's ASA 1600 films.
  
• lots of new niche films, mostly by smaller producers trying to find their bread, i.e. Lomo-alike, but much better since the expecations would be higher due to lots of competition pressure by the big manufacturers as well. Lots of unique B&W infrareds, many different versions of Aerochrome-like color-infrared films, maybe even C41 netagive versions or IR, also more ortochromatic films or even blue-only channel films for very dramatic image effects straight-out-of-camera to stand out in the highly competitive market.
  
• ease of film developing would have some serious evolution. I.e. single-step JOBO processor for home use that any idiot can use, with ready development cartridges plug-in (just like on an inkjet printer). Just push a single button and some 15 minutes later the developed film comes out from other side (like on an inkjet printer). You can probably attach an optional dedicated feeder-scanner on the other side and also a printer in the same compatible chain. Cartridges would be originals by the manufacturers but third-party companies would step-in to cheaply refill them and offer cheaper alternatives. Thus a convenience-based ready-solutions for home users at a very affordible costs.

Other things:

• drum scanning service (with 5000+ dpi a norm) would be common due to high demand on high-end picture quality by the pros. Thus the semi pros or even amateurs could afford it on a daily basis thanks to the special market situation.
• also the image editing software capabilities and feature varieties for film scans would take a different turn and be through-the-roof by now with all sorts of image manipulation possibilities to combat film's limited latitude and noisy grain and we've probably have a completely different "feel" in images compared to todays digital dominated image flow we see everywhere.
  
• digital printing would be hybridized with analog darkroom possibilities to combine the best of both, i.e. digital contact sheets from drum scans that can be enlarged on art- or museum grade FB silver gelatine, this service would also be affordable due to high competition.
  
• some amazing slide projection evolutions, 4x5" slides a norm on house-sized screened NatGeo-ish presentations by the top pros with stunning large format full-analog quality and slide brilliance, probably 3D included for once-in-a-lifetime audience experience that even todays digital projectors couldn't keep up with

Thanks for the thought experiment, it was an interesting look at the future we didn’t get. 4x5 transparency projectors, projecting higher quality transparency emulsions, that’s an intriguing thought.

 

[Archiver]

Thanks for the thought experiment, it was an interesting look at the future we didn’t get. 4x5 transparency projectors, projecting higher quality transparency emulsions, that’s an intriguing thought.

Tsiklonaut's musings on the alternative future of film are amazing, and well within the realm of possibility, had things gone down that path.

Do medium format projectors exist? If so, it must be incredible to see medium format slides.

 

[Godfrey]

I have to wonder what developments in film and processing chemistry technology would have happened given the rising need for more environmental awareness and controls should the pace of film use have remained constant or increased.

Already by the 1990s, certain glasses had had to be eliminated from lens designers' portfolio due to environmental hazards in manufacture, the amount of silver in film production had been reduced, and processing chemistry had been reformulated in some cases to manage chemical toxicity and waste handling. Remember that Kodak also was one of the larger cattle ranchers (bone is the foundation of the gelatin used for manufacturing film emulsion) and that itself has environmental impacts that are non-trivial.

The manufacture of digital imaging machines has its own issues with environmental impact, but they are different from the issues faced by film manufacture and processing...

It's an interesting thought experiment when you expand the scope of the question.

G

 

[Photog9000]

At this point in life (retired), I think I would have finally made the jump to getting a Leica (used) and a couple of lenses (maybe three-28mm, 50 & 90mm). Today, I have just two digital cameras (Fuji X100S - one with a TCL and one with a WCL) for my base along with an old Electro35 GS that belonged to my dad. While I shot K64 and Tri-X back in the day, today I only shoot my beloved Tri-X. I wonder if (and that is a big IF) I would have gotten any better at wet processing?

 

[tsiklonaut]

Tsiklonaut's musings on the alternative future of film are amazing, and well within the realm of possibility, had things gone down that path.

Do medium format projectors exist? If so, it must be incredible to see medium format slides.

Thanks! It is just a good visionary-thought experiment indeed, but a very fascinating one.

MF slide projection exists. Up to 6x6 it was quite common, even automated ones exist. But 6x7 onwards they became rare, 4x5" or up are exceedingly rare.

I have a 60/70s made Liesegang Avanti II that takes up to 6x12. I project my 6x7, 6x6 and 6×4.5 with it and it always blows away the audience I've had during events that I took it out for at my house. It theorethically may take 4x5" too, but have to make a DIY loader for that.

Margus