Switching to digital.....

[CMoore]

I realize my experience is anecdotal, but it is what i have noticed.
Frequently, when i have talked to older photographers, i noticed that many many times, the year 2006 was mentioned by people that had "held out for as long as they could".
Just simply curious.....circa 2006... did Digital cameras and sensors really start to overtake whatever reasons there might have been (for professional photographers) to stick with film.?
Like i say, this is just MY Experience, but it struck me as odd or interesting that so many photographers finally made the switch in the 2006 time frame.
Was that kind of peak in Digital Camera Technology, or was it just a coincidence for me to hear that number mentioned a lot.?
Thank You

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think that people stampeded to digital because:

• It was new and new is always better
• They thought that film would die soon
• Their friends switched
• High speed turnaround was needed for business reasons
• They did not have space for a darkroom but they had a computer and printer
• They liked doing post processing
• They wanted to fire sale their equipment so that those that shot film could now afford to buy cameras that they could only dream about before

 

[Paul Howell]

I was working part time at a Moto Photo in the late 90s and early 2000s, casual shooters moved to digital early, a digital point and shoot with 4MP sensor had better resolution than a 35mm point and shoot with ISP 400 color film. Advanced amateurs made the move a little later, those I spoke to it was all about not needing a wet darkroom, cheaper in some respects as no need to buy film, able to process and send a image from any computer (later smart phones). Pros because clients asked for digital files. I read an interview with Nat Geo's Tim Curry, he was sold when doing a shoot in Egypt he was able crawl into a tomb, with a D90 get the shot without setting up lights. I was freelancing for couple of publishers, book covers and author shots. 2002, all digital. The next wave came with smart phones, folks gave up point and shoots for the on board camera. I think the tipping point was when sensors got to around 8MP, and cameras dropped in price. The first generation Kodak full frame DSLR cost around $13000. By the time of the Canon D20 prices where in the price range folks could afford. I came very late to the digital party, I had really good analog gear, Kowa. Mamiya, Pentax, and Sigma, had darkroom, and did (do not) enjoy post processing as much as I enjoy working in my darkroom. One guy I printed for at Moto Photo got out when his wife bought him a D100 and had a yard sale to sell his Nikon bodies and darkroom gear so she could get the third bathroom back. Told my wife never to touch my gear.

 

[Cholentpot]

2006-2009.

DSLRs got good enough to replace 645 cameras used by wedding photographers. They never really used 35mm as a whole, at least the guys I knew. They used 120 film. When digital got good enough to replace it they went. No more multiple magazines, jammed rolls finicky backs. Wedding photogs are a huge business. When they switched it all followed.

 

[spijker]

The Canon 5D was introduced in Sept 2005. If I remember well, it was the first full frame DSLR aimed at amateurs at a more affordable price. That might have been the trigger for a lot of Canon film SLR users.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

By 2006 something like a Nikon D50 had enough resolution to match scanned prints at the discount drugstore minilab. Co-workers would tell me that their 8x10 from the minilab wasn't as good as the digital camera image that they saw on their monitor.

The true resolution of film was hidden because it was scanned at low resolution and then compared to digital.

I bought a pocket-sized 8MB digital camera in 2005 because I wanted to understand the technology. I then bought an X-Pro1 in 2012 because I Iiked its external controls and hybrid viewfinder. I bought a D700 later in order to have one of the best full frame Nikons. However, I don't see myself buying another digital camera - my preference is for something like a Leica M6 or a Canon EF.

 

[guangong]

I spend enough time behind computers already. I have an Olympus 4/3 camera for foreign travel, but I shoot film, well...because I enjoy film and it does not require a computer. My friend shoots birds, insects and other active little creatures, where digital makes sense. Like Sirius Glass, I appreciate the opportunity to buy stuff I could never afford...so viva! digital!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak quit making B&W papers and ran into some severe problems. The bottom fell out of the analog market.

PE

 

[etn]

I remember the mid-2000‘s as the „film is dead“ years. When seeing my 1950‘s Rolleiflex, every single acquaintance would ask „Do you still find film for this dinosaur?“ (yes, thank you). A good portion of them - generally the ones with the least of a clue - would go on for hours about how much better digital is in any and every respect. (Ever seen a medium format slide projected, you smart ass?)

To me, it was not until the mid 2010‘s that digital offered enough compelling reasons as well as affordability to get one - and then only for specific tasks. An addition, not a switch. I still shoot and project MF slides. I would certainly have reacted much differently if I were a pro - read: shooting for money, though.

The reason I am most thankful to digital, however, is neither the alleged ease of use, nor the possibility to „spray and pray“, nor its low-light capability. No. What digital really did to me is, it opened a whole new world of FILM photography. The second-hand market was suddenly flooded with great and affordable cameras we could only dream about a few years earlier. I got my Hasselblad about the same time I got my digital. Guess the one I am using most. Guess the one which is retaining its value.

 

[railwayman3]

I remember the mid-2000‘s as the „film is dead“ years. When seeing my 1950‘s Rolleiflex, every single acquaintance would ask „Do you still find film for this dinosaur?“ (yes, thank you). A good portion of them - generally the ones with the least of a clue - would go on for hours about how much better digital is in any and every respect. (Ever seen a medium format slide projected, you smart ass?)

It always amazes me how normally polite people seem to think it's OK to mock someone's choice of camera, car, other gadget, etc. More than once I've been tempted to reply by paraphrasing something Churchill was supposed to have said, along the lines of "I know you don't like my camera......I TBH, I don't like your face, but I can buy a new camera tomorrow!"

 

[CMoore]

I remember the mid-2000‘s as the „film is dead“ years. When seeing my 1950‘s Rolleiflex, every single acquaintance would ask „Do you still find film for this dinosaur?“ (yes, thank you). A good portion of them - generally the ones with the least of a clue - would go on for hours about how much better digital is in any and every respect. (Ever seen a medium format slide projected, you smart ass?)

To me, it was not until the mid 2010‘s that digital offered enough compelling reasons as well as affordability to get one - and then only for specific tasks. An addition, not a switch. I still shoot and project MF slides. I would certainly have reacted much differently if I were a pro - read: shooting for money, though.

The reason I am most thankful to digital, however, is neither the alleged ease of use, nor the possibility to „spray and pray“, nor its low-light capability. No. What digital really did to me is, it opened a whole new world of FILM photography. The second-hand market was suddenly flooded with great and affordable cameras we could only dream about a few years earlier. I got my Hasselblad about the same time I got my digital. Guess the one I am using most. Guess the one which is retaining its value.

It always amazes me how normally polite people seem to think it's OK to mock someone's choice of camera, car, other gadget, etc. More than once I've been tempted to reply by paraphrasing something Churchill was supposed to have said, along the lines of "I know you don't like my camera......I TBH, I don't like your face, but I can buy a new camera tomorrow!"

OK..... i am awarding both of you The (non existing) Member Of The Year Award.!

Man - Oh - Man ..... i would LOVE to see MF projection. That must be a treat.
Heck... i would just love to see a MF projector.!

 

[removed account4]

OP Most professional photographers went digital as soon as they could. They were no longer able to rely on any of the materials makers (film and paper). Kodak stopped making paper and one by one the companies began to tank. They had to make plans and fast, and the writing was on the wall earlier than 2005.

 

[etn]

More than once I've been tempted to reply by paraphrasing something Churchill was supposed to have said, along the lines of "I know you don't like my camera......I TBH, I don't like your face, but I can buy a new camera tomorrow!"

Lol, love that one! I will definitely remember (and use) it! Thanks!

 

[etn]

OK..... i am awarding both of you The (non existing) Member Of The Year Award.!

Man - Oh - Man ..... i would LOVE to see MF projection. That must be a treat.
Heck... i would just love to see a MF projector.!

(Real) thanks for the (non existing) award

MF projection is indeed a treat. Give it a try if you can. Although I will be in CA in a few weeks, I will not bring my beast of a projector with me to show you - but let me know if you happen to be in Munich at some point in the future!

This is how mine looks like. It weights 14 kg (about 30 pounds I think). Actually, no need for a PCP: when I started shooting MF slides I had a Yashica Mat and a cheap (but great) projector. I found both for less than $200 each. After I changed job and consequently had more disposable income available, I switched to a Rolleiflex and a Hasselblad projector. There is a difference, but not to the point of making the less expensive option look bad!

(Yes I know, I need to dust it off...)

 

[etn]

OP Most professional photographers went digital as soon as they could. They were no longer able to rely on any of the materials makers (film and paper). Kodak stopped making paper and one by one the companies began to tank. They had to make plans and fast, and the writing was on the wall earlier than 2005.

Other factors played a role too in my opinion. First, most clients require pictures in digital form anyway, to be included in one sort of computer publishing or another. Second, how can one remain in business with film when his/her competitors turn results faster and with less costs (no developing/scanning etc.) ? There is arguably still a place today for film-based pro shooting, but it is certainly a niche.

 

[Alan Johnson]

2006 was the release date of the 10 mpx Canon digital rebel (400D in UK).It approached color film quality.

 

[removed account4]

Other factors played a role too in my opinion. First, most clients require pictures in digital form anyway, to be included in one sort of computer publishing or another. Second, how can one remain in business with film when his/her competitors turn results faster and with less costs (no developing/scanning etc.) ? There is arguably still a place today for film-based pro shooting, but it is certainly a niche.

You are 100% spot on.
There really was no point to continue using a product with and unknown availability, and lots of middlemen ( processing middlemen ). Besides commercialphotography has always about fantasy and photoillustration anyways from manipulated dags, to photochrom postcards to ansel adams...no point in using olde tech. It would be like modern Tour de France riders using a 18kg, steel La Francaise bike ( like Maurice Garin in 1903 ).
As Gill Scott-Heron said: "... The revolution will put you in the driver's seat. .... The revolution will be no re-run brothers; The revolution will be live."

 

[Chan Tran]

Generally if the photographers were using 35mm then in 2005 the digital cameras were available that can be equal or better than 35mm film.

 

[Nodda Duma]

2006 was the release date of the 10 mpx Canon digital rebel (400D in UK).It approached color film quality.

Yep. That was the ticket for pretty much every amateur I knew to look at and switch to digital, though not necessarily that camera. By the way, many amateurs getting into photography at that time didn’t even have a darkroom; they were already scanning (since the late 90s) and making digital prints. Kodak paper was already in trouble because the quality of scanners and printers were already supplanting wet prints.

It was the sensor at the heart of the digital rebel, really, that dropped the bottom out of the film market. Cheap, low noise, and high resolution. The sensor made its way into a bunch of SLR and P&S cameras that year. I was characterizing it and all the others coming out in the early 00’s for use at work. Kind of why I was already sick with digital, familiar with how the sensor scene was evolving, and why I stuck shooting film (didn’t want to do the same thing at both work and home).

 

[Photo Engineer]

It still is ironic to me that back about 30 years ago, the Kodak Technological Forecasting committee said that digital would not be really important until about 2020. They forgot about Moore's law.

PE

 

[bdial]

Man - Oh - Man ..... i would LOVE to see MF projection. That must be a treat.
Heck... i would just love to see a MF projector.!

I know where a couple of 6x6 projectors are for sale. I've been tempted, but so far, successful at resisting. Partly because I don't want to try and source slide mounts that size.

It still is ironic to me that back about 30 years ago, the Kodak Technological Forecasting committee said that digital would not be really important until about 2020. They forgot about Moore's law.

PE

Kodak/Eastman had a bit of a talent for things like that, so it seems.

 

[Paul Howell]

2006-2009.

DSLRs got good enough to replace 645 cameras used by wedding photographers. They never really used 35mm as a whole, at least the guys I knew. They used 120 film. When digital got good enough to replace it they went. No more multiple magazines, jammed rolls finicky backs. Wedding photogs are a huge business. When they switched it all followed.

We processed for a lot of wedding photographers, most shot with 645 or 6X6, they turned to Digital when the labs started to go of out of business. The last guy I know moved from 6X6 to 35mm, cut his prices, he shot with a Canon 1N until Walgreen stopped processing film in store. The last labs in the Phoenix Metro area only process C41 once or twice a week, with that turn around he could not stay competitive, but was an age that spending a lot of money for a MF digital or even full frame Nikon or Canon did not make sense. The labs run their printer every day, so drop off a memory card and you get prints the same day.

 

[Jim Jones]

I shifted to digital around 2011 as my photography increasingly became pro bono and more people had digital printers. No more contact sheets and delays in finishing a series! It helped that in a local photo contest where prints were limited to a maximum size of 10x13 inches (really!), the best of show from 350 prints was captured with a 8mp Canon SureShot A590. 8mp was little handicap for such small prints. Even today I do miss the quality of 35mm and larger film in big prints. However, careful digital capture and processing is closing this gap.

 

[faberryman]

Coincidentally, the mid-2000s saw the wide-spread shift to broadband internet.

 

[CMoore]

OP Most professional photographers went digital as soon as they could. They were no longer able to rely on any of the materials makers (film and paper). Kodak stopped making paper and one by one the companies began to tank. They had to make plans and fast, and the writing was on the wall earlier than 2005.

Yeah...that sounds right.
I wish i could remember who it was....in a video i watched not too long ago.
They were "Old-Timers" that worked for some AP Time/Newsweek kind of a place. Their employers were pushing Digital from The VERY Beginning.!
They were saying how "slow" the up and down loading was (at first) and how clunky the gear was; but that their employers saw the future of photo-journalism.....especially for people that were out of country or far away from the home office. These were Guys/Gals that were reporting on Volcanoes, Wars, Floods, and the building of airports and skyscrapers. They were not members of Group f/64. ....... the quality of their pictures just need to be "reasonable"