It seems to me that the current "wave" of digital imaging is very similar to when Kodak introduced the Brownie. ...pretty much bringing photography to the masses. Not sure of the timeline, but I sure that after a while, the number of photographs taken by the masses dropped. ...leaving a certain percentage of people that continued on with photography.
There are always forum posts about somebody who had no or very little knowledge about photography jumping with fists full of money ....
I can only think that in a few, ten years, the amount of images produced, uploaded, shared will be less than now. .... People snap pictures ... and very few of them put enough value in those images to make sure those images last past the next camera upgrade, computer hard drive crash, flash card format or online image hosting company goes out of business.
At least with film, the negative were lost in the box for years until someone found them. I don't think that we be the case now, digital is too fragile.
What do you think?John
I think you are correct that that digital photography is somewhat similar to the brownie introduction. The original appeal of everyone being able to have snaps of family, friends and events was revolutionary. The number of photographers did not diminish afterwards, almost every family had a camera. Pictures became more common place but thousands are still produced every year.
The jumping in with fistfuls of money is not only a digital story but film also. How many hobbyists own Leica, Hasselblad or other expensive equipment? This site is a good example of people who own some expensive equipment. There are many people here who own a large number of expensive cameras. Many people here keep buying 'new' bodies and lenses in search of better images.
I do not think the number of pictures taken and uploaded will drop that much. It will probably level off. But maybe people will edit what they save and throw out the massive amount of blurry or 'meaningless' pictures. Maybe there are photos that have lesser value to people but that is not only a digital issue. Film users also take blurry, out of focus, badly composed and badly exposed photos. But film users seem to never throw out a bad negative or slide. You are right about people changing the perception of some photos. They will realize that some 'events' are meaningless years from now and delete pictures. Some people seem to take pictures of everything and many of them too. As we know, the cost of the equipment does not increase the quality of the images.
I think the people worrying about hard drives or memory cards loosing their collection are overblown. I do not know anyone (photographer or not) who has lost a full hard drive of information. I had a laptop zapped from a lightening strike but I got everything that was on the hard drive. Keeping your collection intact takes a little bit of work. Camera or card upgrades are irrelevant. You don't keep photos in the camera and shouldn't just keep buying cards. You have to be aware of how to keep them. Hard drive, CD, DVD etc are the current way and you have to be aware of newer more effective ways when they are developed.
Yes, negatives will hold up well if they are kept. There are many being converted to digital and then thrown out by generations behind the shooter. Slides can easily be seen but negatives are 'hard'' to decipher. You can tell they are pictures but not always who or what they are of. Future generations may not value negatives as much as the one who took the picture. They also may be kept in the box for decades more. Eventually a generation may not have knowledge of film, enlargers or even film scanners (generations down the road).
And to your thread question... When the digital wave dies years from now it will have been replaced by a newer, easier way to produce images. Digital will not die soon and be replaced by film.
Kodak has told us they are making themselves into a digital company. They say this because they have seen what mass consumers want and are making it for them. They have seen their film sales drop 95% over the last dozen years (I would guess that Fuji's numbers are similar). Eventually Kodak will see film as such a small part of their business that it will no longer cost effective to produce. People will only pay so much for film. (polls here say the 1/4 people get 1 good shot per roll, 1/4 get 2 or 3 shots per roll) If you are currently paying for a roll and developing to get a small numbers of keepers, then there has to be a cost that will become unacceptable. If you are paying 5 or $10 for that keeper now, how much are you willing to spend in the future? Medium format is very expensive for me --$5 every time I trip the shutter (or more for a keeper if I bracket). There will someday be a price that I will not be willing to pay. I am not sure what that price is right now.
I guess none of us will really know what happens when the digital wave dies since none of us will be around to see.
Steve
