Who would have thought this is where we would be?

Dogman said:
...I personally despise the "digital look" that was so prevalent 10-15 years ago and still rears its ugly head today. That look is the heavily photoshopped, overly color saturated, hyper-sharpened, eye searing aesthetic that I wish would just simply go away. Once you discount this crap, there's lots of good photography still being done and much of it is digital.
Click to expand...

And it was easily sorted out via the menu but no one seemed to bother. The conclusion I'd draw from that worries me a little...

Regards, David
 
It is amazing, although the vast majority of the benefit of these things benefit those at the bottom end of the market.

For example, consider the quality of pictures people were getting out of their 24-exposure disposable cameras in the early-90s. Out of focus crap, largely. Now, the iPhone/whatever-phone can automagically make excellent looking exposures (though not - yet - well-composed photographs). Add to that the fact that the images can be shared with friends instantly (remember all of your friends asking for "doubles" of your prints?), and the access to good quality photography has absolutely changed for the better.

At the very high end, digital photography and all of the wizz-bang stuff that goes with that in 2017 have created new photographic markets where none previously existed. ISO speeds beyond 6400 have allowed for photographs that simply could not have been made years ago with anything near the same (subjective) quality. Similarly, the ability for photojournalists to connect their cameras to WiFi networks and to instantly upload images to their employers has allowed for rapid turnaround that was impossible 25 years ago.

The flip side to this is that actually making photographs with digital cameras is - with very, very few exceptions - insanely complicated. Case in point: I have an iPhone 8 Plus, which produces absolutely lovely image quality. But the photo taking interface - irrespective of app used - is horrific, especially when I want to make any kind of manual changes. All that "Shot on iPhone" stuff is great, but actually making the image is not fun. The clumsiness of accessories such as the DxO One underscores this point. I'm not saying it can't be done; clearly, it can. But just as one can go east by flying west, phones do not (yet) make good image-making instruments.

In this regard, the Leica M10 is the best digital camera in the world. Every single parameter that affects exposure (shutter speed, f/stop, ISO speed) can be adjusted without resorting to a single menu. Similarly, there are no focus modes; just a rangefinder. Shame about the cost.

Fuji has tried to capture this ethos, but are falling back on common foibles: buttons that do more than one thing, cluttered focusing screens, deep menus, etc. The original X100 was probably closest to this vision of being as simple as possible (but no simpler). Since then, almost everything else Fuji have done on the X100 line has been about adding new features, rather than making important features work better (though, to be fair, Fuji have also done a lot of this, as well).

Don't get me started on Sony.

My point here is simply this: we've reached the point where subjective image quality is as good as it needs to be, for all practical purposes. iPhones can make billboard-sized images and shoot magazine covers. AI algorithms allow for passable fake background blur and correct for lens aberrations. Machine learning allows for excellent face recognition. And these things will only get better with time.

But, with very few exceptions (image stabilization, for one), the actual process of making of photographs is not appreciably easier now than it was 25 years ago. In fact, in many ways, it's much worse.
 
edge100 said:
In this regard, the Leica M10 is the best digital camera in the world. Every single parameter that affects exposure (shutter speed, f/stop, ISO speed) can be adjusted without resorting to a single menu. Similarly, there are no focus modes; just a rangefinder. Shame about the cost.

Fuji has tried to capture this ethos, but are falling back on common foibles: buttons that do more than one thing, cluttered focusing screens, deep menus, etc. The original X100 was probably closest to this vision of being as simple as possible (but no simpler). Since then, almost everything else Fuji have done on the X100 line has been about adding new features, rather than making important features work better (though, to be fair, Fuji have also done a lot of this, as well).

But, with very few exceptions (image stabilization, for one), the actual process of making of photographs is not appreciably easier now than it was 25 years ago. In fact, in many ways, it's much worse.
Click to expand...
This is silly. Everyone likes to flog how complicated the menus are. There are as simple or as complicated as you want to make them. It's up to you. I shoot digital with a Fuji XE2 and XT2. I set the menu settings when I first got the cameras and have never had a need to go in and make changes to any of the parameters. I just make images. Like the M10, you can set shutter speed, aperture and ISO manually on the XT2 without going into the menus. And it doesn't cost $10,000 with lens.
 
Sometimes I think of this, and I just saw a couple decades of it really. The little slab of tech that is a phone does things unthought at the turn of the millenium.

I travelled for a few days and borrowed my friend's LX100 which was a very versatile compact as well as being able to record (4K) video, of which I only took a few clips. On travel I'm quite liberal shooting and got about 1000 shots over the 4 days.
Together with it I decided to take the Fuji 6x9 for a more thoughtful shooting approach and aesthetic. In a way it is great to have both options available.
To be honest, the costs of (120) film sometimes make my shooting a bit more restrictive and selective, making me miss some shots and taking others that ain't quite right.
My friend took a quick look at the shots and I just thought that in the last years I'd say my photography has improved. Not because of gear improvements but really due to the sheer shooting I do in digital and on the phone. Seeing and doing constantly.
 
FujiLove said:
A couple of quotes from Nobuyoshi Araki...

"Photography is finished. What’s taken with a digital camera is something different than a photograph - it’s something that needs to have a new name.”

-----------------------

“…digital cameras are for stupid people. Pictures taken by a digital camera only show the instant moment. A digital camera copies the presence of reality. What you see is what you get. However, there may be something added to the frame during the process of developing or printing when it comes to gelatin silver print. There could be sentimental feelings in those photographs. This kind of “mysterious secret” goes into the process of using a film camera. It is humane, so it is appropriate for photographic expression. I do not feel the body temperature of the subject in digital image. There is no physicality. A digital camera turns a photographer into a robot, with no feeling."

-----------------------

"I don’t like being shot with a digital camera, especially a really good one. It’s too good, you know? I feel like digital cameras miss what’s most important, emotion and wetness. These things get lost in digital photography. And before you know it, you get used to that. I’m not talking about shades or shadows being lost, or anything like that. But I almost feel as if digital photography takes away the shadow of the person taking the photo. That’s why I don’t use digital cameras."
Click to expand...
Nobuyoshi Araki is certainly entitled to his opinion, but just being famous is not enough. It would be helpful if he expressed a rational explanation instead of "mysterious secrets" to support it. He is advocating film photography as religion. As if great prints arise on the third day after being consigned to the bin. For example, how does film or paper developer imbue the image with sentimental feelings? One would think that is the job of the artist.
 
ptpdprinter said:
Nobuyoshi Araki is certainly entitled to his opinion, but just being famous is not enough. It would be helpful if he expressed a rational explanation instead of "mysteriousness secrets" to support it. He is advocating film photography as religion. As if great prints arise on the third day after being consigned to the bin. For example, how does film or paper developer imbue the image with sentimental feelings? One would think that is the job of the artist.
Click to expand...

I now take less offence to being called 'silly' when you also imply the same about Araki.

You should publish books and become a world famous photographer like...umm...Araki.

:bang:
 
FujiLove said:
It has nothing to do with being famous. I have no idea who he is, aside from obviously being a photographer.

I guess there are many things in life which are wonderful but difficult to explain, and you either 'get it' or you don't. Fine wines, Ferraris, vinyl records, film.

I could ask you to explain exactly why your favourite music is so good, note by note, but you wouldn't know where to start. And it doesn't matter anyway. You would still love whatever you love and know it's just right when you see or hear it.
Click to expand...
You and I could have a discussion about our favorite music, but I wouldn't say what you preferred is for "stupid people", which is what Araki said about people who use digital cameras in preference to film. Hardly the stuff of "mysterious secrets" or "either you get it or you don't".
 
Years from now and not too many I suspect we'll all be using electric vehicles. It's progress like it or not and it's changing every facet of our lives. Photography is another victim of this change and for me the secret is not to begrudge it because we don't own the past.
 
FujiLove said:
You're right in that digital is amazing.

The problem is that although digital has given so much, it has also taken something fundamental away. There's some intangible thing that's lost when digital equipment is used. A lot of people much more eloquent than myself have described it over the years, but for me it's the fact that digital captures almost exactly what you see, and there's simply nothing interesting about that. And to my eye, the things it does change when it translates the world into a flat image are often detrimental to the photograph.

Thankfully we live in an age where film photography is still possible, and both film and digital are relatively cheap and available.
Click to expand...

Yes I buy the argument that digital may take something away but as I say have no problem with people using film if that is what appeals to them so why does it take anything away for those not using it? Except perhaps that it is now more expensive.

In essence though I do not see a need for a film v digital mentality as some others here do. I am a guy who stuck with a Leica M3 instead of say a Nikon D5 right up to the end of the film epoch and for about 10 years beyond. I enjoyed the fact that it is me making the image not the camera and understand fully this impulse. Even now when I use a digital camera I often shoot an M8. All that has changed is the capture and storage medium. And when I do use say, an Olympus OM D EM5 I always shoot in aperture or program mode. No fancy-shmancy shooting modes for me. In a sense I am still what I was back then - a seat of the pants photographer. Just no longer a film photographer. But then again I can never claim to have been someone who developed and printed their own film images so perhaps to some here I never was a "real" photographer.

In starting this thread my purpose was more to marvel at the tremendous technological changes that have occurred so quickly over the past couple of decades. And what I was trying to convey also was a sense of how many different technologies have converged and contributed to that technological change (this is a common feature of technological change incidentally). And it is marvelous. Incredible in fact.

But speaking personally there is no doubt that for me (I repeat for me) digital has enabled me, catalyzed me, even in a way motivated and inspired me to get out there and make images, partly because it is easier to get good images due to all this technology (even when I do the lion's share of the work myself rather than leaving to the camera), partly because it is cheaper but also because it opened new doors for me - such as post processing which I just could not do before. I was a film photographer for perhaps 20 years before I took up digital photography and loved it. But I have moved on - that's life. The kick I get is no longer from nursing a nice old chrome and glass contraption by the fireside like it was my family cat which used to be me (OK it still is to some extent) but now I enjoy creating images more.

For those who want to stick with film photography that's cool. I still have a few film cameras and aspire to do the same occasionally when the mood takes me.

But I am still a little surprised at the vehemence of some people's attitude which is frankly anti digital. But countless millions have voted with their feet and gone to "the dark side" So is the anti-digital feeling because they feel under threat? Someone here made the comment that most of the advances I enumerated have benefited the bottom end of the market. True but only to a point (how many high end very successful working photographers shoot film these days? -Possibly none I would say except for specialist "art" photographers.) But what should be understood is that mass markets have almost always been what has driven photographic technologies. There has never been a time (except perhaps at the very beginning) when this has not been the case for obvious reasons - without the masses the simplest cameras would be prohibitively expensive or we would still be looking at images using camera obscuras involving a pinhole in a window blind projecting a reverse image on the wall behind and sketching it on a piece of paper.

We cant stop the pace of change. Why? Because sales fund research and development, R and D provides new products and the new products and prospective sales of them keeps the the production lines running and the cycle starts again. Basic economics says that when the hurdy-gurdy stops and camera makers stop innovating new products the market dies because the dollars needed to keep the production lines open will dry up. I suppose something of that sort will happen one day (digital technology is pretty much a mature technology and product by now after all) but then something else will come along to take its place then there will be a new cycle of technology.
 
Keith said:
Years from now and not too many I suspect we'll all be using electric vehicles. It's progress like it or not and it's changing every facet of our lives. Photography is another victim of this change and for me the secret is not to begrudge it because we don't own the past.
Click to expand...

Nor the future.

It's an amazing time, I wonder if the folks who were wet-plate users felt the same when dry film took over?

The nexus of computer processing improvements (speed, density, software, price, manufacturing, etc.), Internet access becoming ubiquitous, cell phones becoming the electronic Swiss-Army Knife of today, and sharing everything becoming they way to stretch everyone's 15 minutes of fame.

So many changes in business and economy have helped too. A focus on ever increasing quarterly profits, one of the worlds largest markets middle class population has mushroomed, world-wide logistics prices have dropped (thank you shipping containers) and is well understood.

I love the feel of older products for the first three quarts of the last century (e.g. 1903, Nikon S2 and F2) and equally love more recent products (e.g. iPhone 5, Solid State Disk-Drives, Nikkor 28/2.8 AIs).

Digital photography has allowed me to keep my fingers in the hobby when cash becomes tighter (I've been cycling through doing good to not over the past 13 years). My source for free film, chemistry and paper passed some years back. While I am frustrated with some aspects of iPhone photography, I love the fact that it's always with me. I've got some shots I never would have tried fifteen years ago. Odds are that even with my Ricoh GRDs I would not have it with me, nor pulled it out.

It's going to be a fun ride to see where we go over the next few years. I remember hearing 24MP for a frame of 135 film. I never thought we would be there so quickly. Now we see that it's not just Mega-Pixels, there's so much more involved in Image Quality.

Cosina, Sony, Apple, Nikon, dang it's a fun time to be alive. Now if I can just get my son's to pay for some of their food or move......

B2 (;->
 
Enjoy Film, But Digital Doesn't Suck

Enjoy Film, But Digital Doesn't Suck

Steve M. said:
My thoughts are......I disagree with your post's intent 1000%. Resolution does not mean anything at all, the image quality of digital sucks, although I do appreciate the convenience factor.
Click to expand...

If digital "sucks", high-end work would be dominated by film. By high-end, I specifically mean large-budget projects. We can argue endlessly about subjective conclusions. However, money is a practical, objective metric. How much profit can the photographer and creative agency earn? How can they grow their business? Their goal is to make are as much money as they can. Creative talent, originality, and aesthetic excellence are common. Leveraging those talents into financial success is not.

No doubt film is used for a small number of high-budget projects. But digital images dominate the marketplace. Convenience is insignificant to clients who pay for the best. Here's a real-life example of what goes into a high-end project. In the total cost of these projects, digital's convenience advantage is trivial.

Let's assume creative directors and successful high-end photographers are lemmings running down the digital trail. But one brave creative director realizes digital "sucks" and runs in the opposite direction. All they have to do is demonstrate film's inherent superiority to their best clients (those with the deepest pockets). That agency would make a lot of money stealing demanding clients from people using inferior digital imaging. Before long the best agencies and clients would demand film. How come they don't? How come creative directors at agencies aren't making money by switching to film-based projects?


Steve M. said:
And these new lenses, sharp though they may be, generally have lousy IQ.
Click to expand...

I think you are absolutely wrong. The IQ of modern lenses is far superior.

So we have unresolvable, diametrically opposed, subjective conclusions. Even worse, we don't even know what each of us thinks desirable IQ means. Companies sold inferior lenses decades ago and some companies sell them today. You wrote "Just because something is new does not make it better. It has to actually be better." It is equally likely just because something is old does not make it better.

Steve M. said:
Just like a lot of us have new fangled electronic cameras, both film and digital, and a strictly mechanical one when the modern one doesn't work.
Click to expand...

I have used digital cameras since the Nikon Coolpix 950. From 2008 - 2016 I used 3 different DSLR systems and a mirrorless system multiple times weekly for interior photography gigs. I had to photograph home exteriors in all types of weather. I shot a few sporting gigs in rain. I hauled all my gear all over the place. It was not treated gently. I did not experience a single camera or lens failure. I admit I did buy a new camera battery every year (even though the old one(s) still worked). However, my mechanical light stands would fall apart and a tripod gear head died. I also killed several rolling gear bags and numerous tripod bags.

Overall, both mechanical and electronic failures are well-modeled by a Gaussian distribution. Somebody has to experience premature failure and others won't ever experience a failure. It's not fun to be unlucky.

A completely different point is: film scans are digital images. After it's digitized does film suck? Why not? It's a digital image. How is a film scanner sensor intrinsically different than a camera sensor? What about film photographers who digitize their film images using a digital camera? And what percentage of film images are printed using wet, analog methods?

I believe excellent work can be done with both analog and digital cameras.

I believe excellent work can be done using a hybrid analog/digital production.

I believe excellent work can be done with old and new lenses.

I believe we should celebrate people can enjoy photography regardless of how they to make their images.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PatrickT
How long do we think digital Leica M cameras will last?
4 5 6
Replies
108
Views
5K
boojum
boojum
T
Film versus Digital, and vice versa
2 3
Replies
42
Views
3K
Tim Murphy
T
J
  • Featured
  • Article Article
What's happening with Photographic Film in 2025? Is this robust niche still growing?
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
4K
Ljós
L
das
  • Locked
The Effect of Tariffs on Camera Lovers
Replies
10
Views
1K
splitimageview
splitimageview
B
17"x22" Ink Jet Prints vs. Original Max Resolution Digital Files
Replies
6
Views
232
boojum
boojum
Back
Top Bottom