The Filmless Camera

[Buckster]

Jerks ruined photography..

In what way?

 

[bhop]

Jerks ruined photography..

In what way?

Crippled film. (my opinion of course)

 

[Buckster]

Jerks ruined photography..

In what way?

Crippled film.

In what way did it cripple film, and how does that ruin photography?

 

[bhop]

In what way?

Crippled film.

In what way did it cripple film, and how does that ruin photography?

Most people stopped buying it and now we have way less options. Films I like keep getting discontinued. (neopan 1600, fuji 800z, kodachrome, and most slide films for example) I'm forced to develop and scan my own film because all the cheap labs are gone. (financially cheaper to do it myself, it's just a hobby after all..) This is the crippling i'm talking about, I think this is all because of digital cameras.

There's also the way everyone and their mother thinks they're a pro photographer now because they can get results right away while shooting in auto mode. I have no desire to become a pro, but i've read the complaints about the dwindling job market for professionally trained photographers (mostly in photojournalism) because everyone has a digital camera with them at all times in their phones. Even wedding photographers, which still seems to be a money maker for the good ones, well, they have to fight harder to get the jobs because everyone expects it cheap since "it's just digital and it should be instant and easy"..

Like I said, this is mostly my opinion. I'm sure most people would disagree and think that digital cameras are the greatest. I have no problem with that. I personally don't like digital cameras all that much with a few exceptions... I do like my x100 though. Maybe 'ruin' was a strong word..

 

[Buckster]

That's what painters said when the camera was invented. The professionals adapted.

That's what they said when Kodak put an affordable camera and celluloid film in the hands of every Tom, Dick and Jane, practically wiping out the glass negatives industry overnight. The professionals adapted.

That's what they said when color film came out. The professionals adapted.

That's what they said when "common man" 35mm caught up with MF and LF as acceptable for weddings and other pro uses. The professionals adapted.

That's what they said when Edwin Land announced that you didn't have to send your film in to get it developed anymore, if you didn't want to. The professionals adapted.

That's what they said when Photoshop and other digital editing software came out. The professionals adapted.

Now, that's what you and a few others are saying because digital cameras have come out and gotten to the point where they can produce results that rival film. Instead of curling up in a ball in the corner of the darkroom though, the professionals have adapted again.

None of those things ruined photography. It's just a perception by people who can't seem to adapt to the inevitable technological changes that are taking place all around us all the time.

Technology in EVERY field and occupation keeps moving forward. Professionals adapt to those changes. They learn to master the tools, old and new, and use them appropriately for the given situation. They don't whine about it. They grab ALL the tools available by the hoo-ha's, master them, and make their mark on the world around them, and make a living at it.

If they can't compete against Facebook fauxtographers and noobs who just walked out of Wally-world with a $500 camera and nary a clue, especially nary a clue in the BUSINESS of photography, they should be looking for a new profession anyway.

By the way, how many centuries did you think celluloid film in a light-tight box with a lens screwed onto it would remain the "cutting edge"? It was inevitable from the day film came out that it would someday be replaced.

Like Andy said in The Shawshank Redemption, "Get busy living, or get busy dying".

That's just my opinion, of course.

 

[jhodges10]

I liked the 3.5" floppy disk reminder. "Video floppy, not much larger than a 35-mm slide, can store up to 50 images..." Now THERE'S a reminder! Up to 50 images on a 1.44 MB floppy??? That's only a 28.8k image SOOC! It's not uncommon anymore to have a RAW file 1000x that!

I'm pretty sure somewhere in the article it mentioned that the floppy the camera used could hold more info than a 5-1/4" floppy could. Talk about a throwback.

 

[bhop]

That's what painters said when the camera was invented...etc....That's just my opinion, of course.

Yeah, I guess you're right about the pros, life moves on. FWIW, my reasons for not liking digital isn't because I think film is better quality. The modern batch has clearly surpassed 35mm in quality. There are just many other reasons I prefer shooting film. It doesn't really matter... i'm not anti-digital, I just wish it wasn't killing film off.

But anyway..