Re: [Leica] Is digital photography necrophilia?

[Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@pacbell.net>]

Dante

All true, but since when has the "truth set us free"?

Jerry

Dante Stella wrote:

> <Digital diatribe>
>
> 1.      The true nature of the paradigm shift
>
> In the old days, your PJ could wander around with his Leicas and
> whatnot.  A couple of years ago, American Photo did a layout of the
> absolutely massive amount of equipment people were taking to Iraq - it
> was something like two D1xs, battery chargers, inverters, microdrives,
> laptop computers, and full chemical gear.  That makes an F3 with MD-4
> look like a positive flyweight.  In the image processing arena, digital
> is shifting much more of the burden from laboratories, which were
> expected to be good at outputting and which could be expensed.  Digital
> has pushed this "workflow" (what an absolutely offensive word) into the
> lap of the photographer whose dayrate has climbed not one bit since the
> 1980s (if even that late).  But wait - now that they have art
> directors, it doesn't take any skill in a photographer, so let's use
> students and interns and get work for hire.
>
> It's a little bit more egregious in the portraitist context, because
> once a digital photo is emailed, it can be proliferated on an
> exponential scale without any control over the future revenue stream.
> A smart worker would calculate a present value for all future rights
> and charge that, but for every smart one there are a hundred whores who
> will try to reach a race to the bottom in rates based on a much
> shorter-term business model.
>
> In the amateur world, digital shifts the burdens of processing onto the
> hobbyist who just doesn't have time to belt out 36 4x6 prints at a
> shot, starting with downloading, resizing, sharpening (once reserved
> for lousy film scanners and out of focus shots but now de rigeur) and
> so forth.  Digital doesn't make it cost any less, with the outrageous
> cost of inkjet refills and glossy paper.  Sure, there is instant
> gratification, but in terms of more focused work, the convenience is
> simply not there.
>
> 2.      The broken promises of digital
>
> In the old days - and at least as late as my childhood, manufacturers
> have always tried to make rank amateur formats easier.  The original
> Kodak could not be opened by the end user.  The brownie format (120)
> came about to help eliminate the need to deal with plates.  Then 126,
> 110, Disc, APS - well, you get the picture.  35mm film is rapidly
> losing adherents in new cameras, but is it because its sales spiked
> when they figured out how to make idiot-proof 35mm point and shoots?  I
> tend to think that it only became as popular as it did because someone
> figured out how to make a mass-market product for it in the 1980s and
> 1990s.  Digital is the same idea, different medium, but it has failed
> to eliminate the need to go to the store to have film developed - now
> you go to have your digicam shots printed.  Sort of defeats the
> purpose.  If you do it at home, on a per-print basis with a color
> printer, it ends up costing more and lasting shorter.  Wow.  Progress.
>
> In the SLR world, the empty promises are even more egregious.  First,
> manufacturers start belting out subframe DSLRs, touting their
> compatibility with existing lenses.  Yeah, I guess.  It's not too much
> fun to have your 105/2 AF-D DC Nikkor become a 150.  Totally defeats
> the purpose.  But it's worse with wide lenses, where suddenly you have
> to get reeeaalllly wide.  This benefits sports photogs, yes, but they
> are a very small part of the DSLR market.  You would think that at
> least as a consolation the viewfinder would have a larger magnification
> - but no.
>
> Then the empty promise of smaller, faster cheaper lenses.  Where?  A
> 12-24mm Nikkor is one stop slower than an 20-35/2.8, not that much
> smaller, and not much cheaper (is it even?).  And some DX lenses are
> now sporting absolutely massive 77mm filter threads.  Not that cameras
> are getting any smaller.
>
> Then there are the chromatic aberration, moire, and noise issues
> inherent to moving from an extremely thin organic medium with suspended
> crystalline grain to a checkerboard CCD or CMOS chip.  Foveon is not
> really a solution; their chips are absolutely tiny, and your sole
> choice of camera is Sigma.
>
> But the bigger question is why are manufacturers still designing DSLRs
> that look like film bodies?  With Nikon, you have to guess that it is
> capital investment.  It sure doesn't explain Canon.  The genius of the
> new Olympus is that it is an SLR which doesn't feel like it has to look
> like a 35mm SLR.  But is a 4/3 chip better?  Maybe from a cost
> standpoint (35mm-full-frame chips have close to a 100% rejection rate,
> which is what makes them so costly), but the smaller physical pixels
> (which will only get smaller when the pitch increases) are fighting a
> battle against higher s/n (since it takes a certain number of photons
> to register a pixel).  Maybe the solution is not a 24x36 sensor, but
> one that is even bigger?
>
> 3.      Message versus medium
>
> The computer is a great equalizer of equipment, which is part of why
> digital is so popular - it's "good enough."   This goes a long way
> toward the advantage of good optics.  The flip side of the coin is that
> on a computer screen, no one can tell how the image did originate,
> making it a great equalizer in another way: the photographer's skill
> becomes important.  Once it's on a computer, it's on a computer.  And
> it may be better to be downsampling than interpolating, if you get my
> drift.
>
> Do people still ooh and ahh at Weston, Strand and Adams in real prints?
>   Yes.
>
> I think the point (getting a bit lost as the coffee wears off) is that
> you shouldn't worry about what you are using; it is what you are going.
>
> 4.      Why digital?
>
> Manuacturers need planned obsolescence to keep things moving.  TTL
> metering, autowinding, and ultimately autofocus drove an upgrade path
> in SLRs.  When the Nikon F5 came out (as well as its Canon
> counterpart), there were simply no worlds left to conquer.  Film SLRs
> from the 1970s were overbuilt quality-wise and still in service for
> those who didn't want AF, and there was nothing new to sell people who
> were into AF.  By contrast, digital is an immature technology with
> plenty of room for improvements in sensors.  With far fewer mechanical
> parts, digital is potentially cheaper to manufacture and assemble, and
> with better and better image-processing (just like computers),
> incremental improvements can be made.
>
> This, of course, assumes that once the market saturates with DSLRs of
> one resolution class (now 6MP), that there will be some breakthrough in
> sensor technology to drive the obsolescence of the D1x, D100, S2, 10D,
> etc.
>
> 5.      Upshot
>
> Wait and see.
>
> </Digital diatribe>
> ____________
> Dante Stella
> http://www.dantestella.com
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html