Digital photography came the other way around

[Uaiomex]

Photography was more fun 30 years ago. The pursuit of quality had many different alternatives and each one had a different result.
When digital photography was in its beginnings I was very excited about all the different possibilities. Instead manufacturers decided to grab one film camera in its line and just put a smaller sensor. Voilá, here is your digicam!

Film was restricting for the shape, form, size, etc. of the cameras. Sensors can be fabricated in any size and put anywhere inside a camera. The possibilities for variety in digital cameras is mind boggling! Despite this, we are still in the middle (I think) of the transition after 12 solid years of very successful sales. The transition means this lack of variety of cameras to choose from and the so many missing features that pros loved so much and that disappeared with digital cameras.

Sensor design and manufacturing have proofed to be very complicated, but c'mon! we still don't have a true 645 sensor after all these years! (very close but not there yet).

Prices are still insane. Question No. 1: How many parts are in a last generation digital back? Question No. 2: How many parts are in $42,000 2012 japanese car? I know, oranges to apples (as usual).

Truth is, film photography came the other way around. Large format photography was born on the same day photography did. Digital photography started with the tiniest format possible to grab an image. I think, this is the origin of why so many professionals feel the emptiness of the format, of the approach, of the possibilities. Sometimes as a photographer, I feel like an orphan, like an abandoned child. Digital cameras are of course the true nirvana of the casual or recreational photographer.

So, the blame is not only on camera manufacturers. I see they are struggling to compete and even sometimes to survive but I see 2 things missing in their operations: True imagination and bigger balls. I could mention greediness but I remember they are not Mother Teresa.

Eduardo

P.S. I read Mammy645 post about "The digital revolution" in the "Great time to buy HB" thread and liked it so much that inspired me to write down my own thoughts on the theme (but didn't want to hijack). Thanks for reading.

 

[Shashin]

Why don't you show them how to do it and start your own camera company?

BTW, your understanding of photographic history is rather weak. Large-format was not large. There were really good technical reasons the film/plates needed to be large, one because some processes made unique final images and the other because the optics and emulsions would not make very good small ones.

 

[Uaiomex]

Your reading understanding is zero man!
Eduardo

Why don't you show them how to do it and start your own camera company?

BTW, your understanding of photographic history is rather weak. Large-format was not large. There were really good technical reasons the film/plates needed to be large, one because some processes made unique final images and the other because the optics and emulsions would not make very good small ones.

 

[shlomi]

Sensor design and manufacturing have proofed to be very complicated

The technical industry is very successful in producing sensors - that is not the problem.
It is more difficult to process the files to get good and balanced results with colors and noise the would work for the clients.
The 35mm companies don't go into the larger sensor cameras because then they would need to develop new glass, and also 99% of the market is just not interested.
The existing 35mm DSLR results are good enough for almost any pro or enthusiast.
This leaves a small niche for MF/LF.

The small volume of sales dictates the high price, not the cost of the sensors.

What is different now than 30 years ago, is that in order to create or even maintain a digital camera system, the cost of running the company who does that is much higher now, because it is not just mechanics, but also a lot of electronics and computers, which require salaries for more expensive engineering teams, than what was required for purely mechanical systems.

 

[Shashin]

I am sorry. I thought you were having a moan about the camera industry because they are not doing what you want them to do. Apparently, you have another message...

 

[symbolphoto]

There is a large difference between a complex sensor technology and glass/metal.

 

[gazwas]

I am sorry. I thought you were having a moan about the camera industry because they are not doing what you want them to do. Apparently, you have another message...

I think Eduardo makes a fair point and to dismiss his comments as you so swiftly do above is unfair.

I agree, in the good old days the camera was the limiting factor in the size of film we used rather than what sensors are available and the silly cost of MF systems today is unsettling.

I get the feeling that MF companies have left it way too late to change their ways now and we are pretty much stuck with what we have got. I would love to see 6x7 (or bigger) CCD/CMOS chips but alas that would need a new camera system and whole new range of lenses. Too much cost for any of the MF companies I would imagine. And having to rely on other companies to build your sensors whose interests in (photographic) IQ don't exactly follow that of a camera manufacturer just adds to the problems and costs.

Heck, I'm not complaining as I feel what we have now is exceptionally good and any recent improvements have just been toys. I have got to the stage where IMO chip improvements are quite small and larger IQ gains can be had from upgrading lighting kit/modifiers etc, etc, etc.....

 

[T.Karma]

I believe I do understand what you mean. To me, the reason of lack of thrill with digital is that there is something wrong with digital in general.

Creativity throughout the ages of mankind has always been involving spirit, our human body and the materials that we used to express ourselves.
Craftsmen learned to deal with the laws of physics and grew by experience.
First the crafting material is unknown, but then gradually becomes the soil that we used to grow. There was satisfaction is this gradual mastership.

Digital has taken the material component away and tells us that 1 is 0 enough for us, that it can replace anything. Does it?

I believe our genetics are not made for living on digital information alone. We need to work with materials and our own hands. That is what we used to do for thousands of years.

So, I do not think it depends on the format. If perfect MFDB's would cost tomorrow 50.- per piece, the value inflation of 'the image' would be even worse.

 

[Shashin]

I think Eduardo makes a fair point and to dismiss his comments as you so swiftly do above is unfair.

Really? It is easy to criticize an industry from the outside without knowing how it works and then simply resorting to name calling saying they have no imagination and guts. Well, having worked in the industry and seeing many of my colleagues lose their jobs after decades working in these companies, I really don't agree. If Eduardo wants to blame someone for the state of the industry, blame the consumer for being cheap and wanting something for nothing.

I agree, in the good old days the camera was the limiting factor in the size of film we used rather than what sensors are available and the silly cost of MF systems today is unsettling.

So no one cared about the emulsions? Emulsion technology was constantly being improved. And to the point photographers went down in format because the emulsions were that good.

You say the silly costs of MF systems. Can you show the cost are simply the companies padding the prices? Larger formats were more expensive with film, but the camera companies did not need to worry about the film technology. If an emulsion was improved it would work in all cameras. You could also sell a camera for ten years or more. Now, you have the camera companies supplying the whole imaging train and need a very fast upgrade path or consumers will whine.

I get the feeling that MF companies have left it way too late to change their ways now and we are pretty much stuck with what we have got. I would love to see 6x7 (or bigger) CCD/CMOS chips but alas that would need a new camera system and whole new range of lenses. Too much cost for any of the MF companies I would imagine. And having to rely on other companies to build your sensors whose interests in (photographic) IQ don't exactly follow that of a camera manufacturer just adds to the problems and costs.

So you realize that large sensors are costly and unlikely to be produced. So how am I being unfair to suggest that running a camera company is hard? But yet it is fine for Eduardo to state the companies are just unimaginative.

Heck, I'm not complaining as I feel what we have now is exceptionally good and any recent improvements have just been toys. I have got to the stage where IMO chip improvements are quite small and larger IQ gains can be had from upgrading lighting kit/modifiers etc, etc, etc.....

So you don't agree the Eduardo is being fair.

But then I can't read and so I have no idea what Eduardo is talking about. Not that Eduardo likes to complain about the industry...

 

[Shashin]

I believe I do understand what you mean. To me, the reason of lack of thrill with digital is that there is something wrong with digital in general.

Creativity throughout the ages of mankind has always been involving spirit, our human body and the materials that we used to express ourselves.
Craftsmen learned to deal with the laws of physics and grew by experience.
First the crafting material is unknown, but then gradually becomes the soil that we used to grow. There was satisfaction is this gradual mastership.

Digital has taken the material component away and tells us that 1 is 0 enough for us, that it can replace anything. Does it?

I believe our genetics are not made for living on digital information alone. We need to work with materials and our own hands. That is what we used to do for thousands of years.

So, I do not think it depends on the format. If perfect MFDB's would cost tomorrow 50.- per piece, the value inflation of 'the image' would be even worse.

Nicely put and in a digital format...

 

[T.Karma]

Nicely put and in a digital format...

Discussing this in conference with people face to face would be a lot more fun you know.

 

[gazwas]

Really? It is easy to criticize an industry from the outside without knowing how it works and then simply resorting to name calling saying they have no imagination and guts. Well, having worked in the industry and seeing many of my colleagues lose their jobs after decades working in these companies, I really don't agree. If Eduardo wants to blame someone for the state of the industry, blame the consumer for being cheap and wanting something for nothing.

50% true but a company that doesn't plan for the future is always going to fail regardless of how many skilled people worked at them as nostalgia doesn't increase sales. Consumers don't always want cheap but they do demand value for money. Offer the same product for 12 years with marginal improvements and your going to see customers expecting cheaper or they look somewhere else whether it costs the same to manufacture or not.

So no one cared about the emulsions? Emulsion technology was constantly being improved. And to the point photographers went down in format because the emulsions were that good.

Really.... from 5x4 Ektachrome to 35mm Kodak Gold 100 because of the grain structure. Never spoken to any photographers who shot a different format for anything other than convenience. You might be right but I've no experience of this.

You say the silly costs of MF systems. Can you show the cost are simply the companies padding the prices? Larger formats were more expensive with film, but the camera companies did not need to worry about the film technology. If an emulsion was improved it would work in all cameras. You could also sell a camera for ten years or more. Now, you have the camera companies supplying the whole imaging train and need a very fast upgrade path or consumers will whine.

Nobody is insinuating they are padded and over inflated by the camera companies but just the obvious fact that MFD cost seriously silly money.

So you realize that large sensors are costly and unlikely to be produced. So how am I being unfair to suggest that running a camera company is hard? But yet it is fine for Eduardo to state the companies are just unimaginative.

Unimaginative is perhaps too strong a word but certainly when MFD was in its glory years, possibly more emphasis could have been placed on the future of the format other than even more Mpix but it wasn't. For what ever design/component/cost reason we only got good screens 12 months ago.

So you don't agree the Eduardo is being fair.

Your just twisting words to spark a reaction.

But then I can't read and so I have no idea what Eduardo is talking about. Not that Eduardo likes to complain about the industry...

Lost me on the last comment sorry......?

 

[fotografz]

Photography was more fun 30 years ago. The pursuit of quality had many different alternatives and each one had a different result.
When digital photography was in its beginnings I was very excited about all the different possibilities. Instead manufacturers decided to grab one film camera in its line and just put a smaller sensor. Voilá, here is your digicam!

Film was restricting for the shape, form, size, etc. of the cameras. Sensors can be fabricated in any size and put anywhere inside a camera. The possibilities for variety in digital cameras is mind boggling! Despite this, we are still in the middle (I think) of the transition after 12 solid years of very successful sales. The transition means this lack of variety of cameras to choose from and the so many missing features that pros loved so much and that disappeared with digital cameras.

Sensor design and manufacturing have proofed to be very complicated, but c'mon! we still don't have a true 645 sensor after all these years! (very close but not there yet).

Prices are still insane. Question No. 1: How many parts are in a last generation digital back? Question No. 2: How many parts are in $42,000 2012 japanese car? I know, oranges to apples (as usual).

Truth is, film photography came the other way around. Large format photography was born on the same day photography did. Digital photography started with the tiniest format possible to grab an image. I think, this is the origin of why so many professionals feel the emptiness of the format, of the approach, of the possibilities. Sometimes as a photographer, I feel like an orphan, like an abandoned child. Digital cameras are of course the true nirvana of the casual or recreational photographer.

So, the blame is not only on camera manufacturers. I see they are struggling to compete and even sometimes to survive but I see 2 things missing in their operations: True imagination and bigger balls. I could mention greediness but I remember they are not Mother Teresa.

Eduardo

P.S. I read Mammy645 post about "The digital revolution" in the "Great time to buy HB" thread and liked it so much that inspired me to write down my own thoughts on the theme (but didn't want to hijack). Thanks for reading.

I think this is all indicative of an unnatural fixation with the tools of photography that became ingrained because digital was comparatively weak at first, then kept improving rapidly, forcing undo attention on the "how" as opposed to the "what". ... prior to that everyone used the fairly mature film processes and tools that many people alive and shooting today enjoyed, and some even recall fondly.

The maturity of the film process included the tools that held the media, refined over 100+ years of use and development. They work pretty well and for the most part are still the benchmark as far as tools that facilitate capturing ideas onto a media are concerned ... regardless of what media.

I would diplomatically suggest that if the fun has been sucked out of photography, it is because of the fixation on the how as opposed to the what. In past there just wasn't that much to fixate on. You learned your camera and made images ... often the same camera/lenses for years and years, even decades. Yes, film improved, but so has sensors, and more importantly the software processing. I can extract more out of old files than I ever could when I shot them.

The relentless call for "more this" and "better that" is a call that will be met by the makers as long as we continue whining about this and that ... our whining is good for business.

What is missing is a relentless personal call for better photography ... perhaps we are so distracted by the how, we have neglected the what? Maybe that is the orphan in all this.

Perhaps true imagination and bigger balls might be better applied to the user of the tools than the maker of the tools?

-Marc

Addendum: I was struck by this topic because for the past week I've been planning, thinking and developing ideas for a shoot next week ... and working out the logistics, props, locations etc. to assure a successful shoot. Not once did I think about the camera ... I have confidence in it and know it well enough to not think about it except what to use to make the ideas I am fixated on, which took all of 5 minutes.

 

[JimCollum]

I believe our genetics are not made for living on digital information alone. We need to work with materials and our own hands. That is what we used to do for thousands of years.

So, I do not think it depends on the format. If perfect MFDB's would cost tomorrow 50.- per piece, the value inflation of 'the image' would be even worse.

That's what I don't understand in the whole digital vs analog debate. There is *no* difference in degree of difficulty between a digital and analog camera. You can go as shallow or as deep with either one. If you want to go beyond a simple analog point&shoot.. you can learn everything there is to know about the operation of a manual camera in a weekend class. It's not rocket science. As far as analog vs digital output.. also none. I can push though as many darkroom prints /hour as my 24" HP z3100 printer. I can, if I choose, spend days working on the output for both as well. I probably go back and change my 'final' digital files as often as I would change the look of my analog prints.

My guess would be that the decrease in quality of photographic output has more to do with cultural changes (attention spans of a flea, instant gratification, decrease in importance of 'quality') than on the tools being used.

 

[BANKER1]

Jim,

Your point is well made and eloquently stated.

Greg

 

[dick]

I think Eduardo makes a fair point and to dismiss his comments as you so swiftly do above is unfair.

I would love to see 6x7 (or bigger) CCD/CMOS chips but alas that would need a new camera system and whole new range of lenses.

No... there are lenses, SK Apo-Digitar in particular, that have large image circles (plenty of room for shifting 654) that would be fine for 6 * 9 digital.

 

[dick]

I think this is all indicative of an unnatural fixation with the tools of photography.

I would diplomatically suggest that if the fun has been sucked out of photography, it is because of the fixation on the how as opposed to the what.

What is missing is a relentless personal call for better photography ... perhaps we are so distracted by the how, we have neglected the what? Maybe that is the orphan in all this.

Perhaps true imagination and bigger balls might be better applied to the user of the tools than the maker of the tools?

-Marc

Addendum: I was struck by this topic because for the past week I've been planning, thinking and developing ideas for a shoot next week ... and working out the logistics, props, locations etc. to assure a successful shoot. Not once did I think about the camera ... I have confidence in it and know it well enough to not think about it except what to use to make the ideas I am fixated on, which took all of 5 minutes.

I agree, but most photographers sub-conciously work round the limitations of their equipment - mostly with MFD the limitations of DoF rather than thinking about using DoF merge or movements to prevent their artistic creativity being limited by their choice of equipment. An MFDSLR might be convenient to carry, but I find it limiting in use (except when using DoF stacking for a scene too demanding for tilt) compared to a view camera.

That's what I don't understand in the whole digital vs analog debate. There is *no* difference in degree of difficulty between a digital and analog camera.

My guess would be that the decrease in quality of photographic output has more to do with cultural changes (attention spans of a flea, instant gratification, decrease in importance of 'quality') than on the tools being used.

At the point-and-shoot level digital is easy, especially due to instant feedback, but, if you make full use of the potential of digital imaging,,, I think it is much more difficult than analog has been since you had to coat your own glass plates!

 

[gazwas]

No... there are lenses, SK Apo-Digitar in particular, that have large image circles (plenty of room for shifting 654) that would be fine for 6 * 9 digital.

I don't foresee a time when Phase or HB make a camera to attach LF lenses and this market is well catered for by Arca/Alpa/Cambo etc. Even if they did launch such a camera, many of these lenses either don't cover much more than the 645 format or are up to much beyond that size due to lens curvature so 6x7 would push the limits of most current optics.

Then you would say goodbye to true focus, lens profiles, metadata etc, etc.

Would be a nice idea though.

 

[dick]

I don't foresee a time when Phase or HB make a camera to attach LF lenses and this market is well catered for by Arca/Alpa/Cambo etc.

Hasselblad did have a moment of creativity when they made the ArcBody, which used large format lenses to give movements on MF, and they also made the Flexbody, which made good use of the spare image circle of their normal lenses, including the Macro 120.

Most current MFD lenses do not have any or much spare image circle, and the Hasselblad HTS cannot be used with the current Macro 120, which is the lens that I would like to use with tilt.

My Sinaron and SK Apo-Digitar 120 macros are "Proper" macro lenses optimised for around 1:1, and are not ideal for the larger-set table top pictures, as is the Hasselblad HC11 Macro 120, which would be a state-of-the-art tool with the 200MS and remote DoF stacking with Phocus.

Even if they did launch such a camera, many of these lenses either don't cover much more than the 645 format or are up to much beyond that size due to lens curvature so 6x7 would push the limits of most current optics.

The SK Apo-Digitar 47, 60, 100, 120, 150, 180 and 210 lenses have image circles of 100mm or better.

...It is a matter of supply and demand, but if "they" could mass produce a large sensor everything else would be relatively simple... most of the Technical cameras use a sensor adapter plate about 100mm square, do they not?

Then you would say goodbye to true focus, lens profiles, metadata etc, etc.

Would be a nice idea though.

We could say good bye to the mirror box as well... one of the main problems with the current Hasselblad system is that many of the functions are in the camera or view finder, so you lose them when you put the digiback on a view camera.

 

[MaxKißler]

It's difficult for me to have an opinion on such a debate since I grew up shooting digital but as time goes on and I am constantly dealing with photography to improve myself, I came to my own personal conclusion: When it is about photography itself there is absolutely no difference in digital and analog capturing. Let me explain:

There is this german word called "Gestaltung" that describes the key element in photography aswell as other arts quite well. I have yet to find an adequate translation for it. Maybe the Gestaltung is similiar to what some would call "vision". An idea that is being visualized. I don't like the term vision as it it is very hard to grasp (less so is Gestaltung at least for me). What is vision and is there a way of learning it? Or are you either born with it or not?

If I look at the images I took just a year ago, I'd say they sucked bigtime. In five years from now I'll probably be thinking the same about the images I take today.
At the same time I feel that the images I take today are so much better than what I've done a year ago.
I'm trying to say that an important aspect to photography is also experience and how it is influencing yourself and improving the images you create. It is this experience that helps me "gestalt" an image.

What I'm trying to express is: Your comprehension of Gestaltung based on your photographic experience creates an image. Therefore it is completely irrelevant whether this image is being captured digitally or on film.

Back to the technical aspects of photography:
Sure things got smaller but there is still a differentiating look between formats.

Regarding my wallet:
There is a series of images I'd like to create that require view camera movements.
-Back in the days of film I would have to spend thousands on a view camera plus lenses and enough film.
-Today I got the view camera and lenses for next to nothing but have to spend thousands on a digital back (Yeah I know I could be shooting film ).

So in the end I totally agree that there are some technical differences between digital and film but the things we should care about have not changed. To create astoni... oh wait, to please the client. :facesmack: