Switching to digital.....

[Eric Rose]

Pros drive the market, at least it did back then. Now it's "influencers" whatever that is.

Back in the mid 2k's pros needed to insure their future business and they couldn't rely on Kodak, Agfa and Fuji any more.

Nikon and Canon could see this coming and poured tons of R&D into producing cameras pro could use into the future. Once pros went digi and so did the wannabes. The tsunami wave was started.

In a weird way the best thing to happen to photographic expression in the last 50 years was the demise of Kodak.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

I switched in 2003because by then I was able to get usable results for DTP.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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

It was time then even someone with advanced digital P&S will overshoot (professional photographer) with Hasselblad for portraits, real estate, yachts, food and product photography.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The only good thing about the rise of digital cameras was having all the professional equipment and darkroom equipment dumped on the market. Now I have bought all the cameras, lenses, and darkroom equipment that I used to dream about.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The rise of digital photography let me buy two mint Hasselblad lenses for 25% of their original price, plus other nice film cameras for dimes on the dollar (e.g. Leica R8, Maxxum 7, Elan 7NE, F-1N).

In fact, the frenzied update cycle of digital cameras, which seemed to peak in 2013, let me buy a D700 - the one camera I constantly read about that people regret selling.

 

[__Brian]

The demise of Kodak and good quality processing at reasonable prices is what pushed me to digital for personal use in 2010. As a computer engineer working in a research lab, I was working with digital imaging sensors in 1981. Post processing was fun, you got to write all of your own code. I still write my own code to process Leica DNG files, some of the subroutines and algorithms go back to 1982.

I remember sometime in the early 90s calculating the mbyte/sec equivalent of 35mm bulk loaded film going through a Nikon F2 with MD-2 in mirror lockup mode to compare with a digital camera writing to disk to convince a young engineer that film was not dead. I will admit that progress has been made in the last 25 years in the digital imaging field.

 

[1kgcoffee]

Back to the original question - the first camera I purchased was in 2007. A Canon S3 is with a CCD sensor that in some ways took better images then cameras of today. Lower resolution but better color. I never purchased a film camera before then but wish I had instead.

2007 was when digital became 'good enough' and super convenient. But by that time many were simply using disposable cameras rather than good quality glass. Also mistakenly believed that film chemicals were very harmful to the environment and wished to see film done away with which is another reason I went with the digital.

 

[blockend]

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!"

Lady Astor to Churchill, reputedly,
"Mr Churchill, you're drunk"
"Yes, and you, Madam, are ugly. But tomorrow, I shall be sober."

The biggest drive towards digital photography was the ability to share images online, quickly. Most photos are illustrations of some variety - here we are on holiday, can anyone solve this problem, the old car, the new baby - people's expectations of the medium go no further than a simple document of events. In that context a print is superfluous, the computer screen fulfils the role. For a while it looked like the photographic print may be dead, an assumption aided and abetted by Kodak stripping product lines as fast as they were able. Even today prints are a kind of reaction to the prevailing mood, beloved of camera clubs, old ladies, artisans and students - if we discount the printed page which is itself dying out.

I held on to to film exclusively until September 2011. Digital cameras seemed expensive for what they offered until then, the results weren't noticably better than 35mm cameras I already owned. The Canon 550D (T2i) made me test the digital waters because it was reasonably priced (the 600D was about to be released), and took high quality video on a bigger than camcorder sensor, which was obviously the way forward for moving images. Much as I like my digital cameras, the way they are heading is superfluous for most people's needs. Massive files, image quality differences that can only be seen in equally huge prints, and expensive lenses to bring out those differences. The typical camera club exhibition print is between 15 and 36" and it's impossible to see much difference between a £250 set up and a £5k one, and what there is is absorbed by superior technique, lighting and subject matter. Film side steps technological inflation and offers something timeless.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Pros drive the market, at least it did back then. Now it's "influencers" whatever that is.

Back in the mid 2k's pros needed to insure their future business and they couldn't rely on Kodak, Agfa and Fuji any more.

Nikon and Canon could see this coming and poured tons of R&D into producing cameras pro could use into the future. Once pros went digi and so did the wannabes. The tsunami wave was started.

In a weird way the best thing to happen to photographic expression in the last 50 years was the demise of Kodak.

I disagree; Kodak always developed top product. Much of that is lost forever now and so s an excellent place of photographic research. I still miss easy availability of TriX and TMax,although, Ilford has filled many gaps.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I disagree; Kodak always developed top product. Much of that is lost forever now and so s an excellent place of photographic research. I still miss easy availability of TriX and TMax,although, Ilford has filled many gaps.

I recently attempted to order some Tmax 400 in '120' and was told by my supplier that they only had one 5-pack in stock. Lets hope that Kodak can once again become better distributed as they make excellent quality products.

 

[Eric Rose]

I disagree; Kodak always developed top product. Much of that is lost forever now and so s an excellent place of photographic research. I still miss easy availability of TriX and TMax,although, Ilford has filled many gaps.

You missed my point Ralph. I never said Kodak et al made crappy products.

 

[CMoore]

(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!

View attachment 227178

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

Very Nice.!
Wow..... 30 pounds. That is serious photography.

 

[David Brown]

I didn't "switch" because of any level of the technology, I just sort of evolved into digital. Still not completely sure that I have switched ...

I began doing darkroom work in 1969. Fifty years! I am good at it. In the early days of digital, I resisted converting because I had a very high level of expertise with black and white film (monochrome) and darkroom developing and printing.

Color film had never really “taken” with me. In the 1970s, I shot weddings; but all of the color film was processed and printed by a pro lab. (Not the there’s anything wrong with that.) I did attempt to convert my darkroom to color. I bought a color enlarger (the only enlarger I’ve ever bought new), and all of the temperature control gear necessary to process and print color films, but it just never caught on with me the way monochrome did. I used color prints and slides for snaps and travel, but not for my “work”.

I did purchase a digital camera in the late 90s to use for snapshots and vacation photos, and upgraded at a “consumer” level periodically, culminating in purchasing a full frame “pro” level dslr in 2011. I learned the basics of Photoshop. Nothing exotic, just enough to print what I wanted from an image.

In 2014, I began a project of photographing historic pipe organs. The project needed to be in color, so I elected to do the work with digital photography. Other than the weddings, snaps, and travel, it was my first serious work both in color and with digital. I, as would be expected, learned a lot. I am doing a lot more color work, now, but decided to stick with film for monochrome.

In 2018, I began a project to do more studio work with still lifes and other tabletop setups. I had assumed that most of it would be monochrome and film, but the early experimentation was digital, to save time and money! I ended up with digital images that equaled or surpassed the film work!

I still have the darkroom and all my film cameras. I may or may not ever shoot another frame of film. (Probably will) I could print from existing negatives for years.

 

[CMoore]

In 2014, I began a project of photographing historic pipe organs. The project needed to be in color, so I elected to do the work with digital photography. Other than the weddings, snaps, and travel, it was my first serious work both in color and with digital. I, as would be expected, learned a lot. I am doing a lot more color work, now, but decided to stick with film for monochrome.

.

I find that fascinating.!
Those organs are marvelous works of art, all in themselves.
Do you have a link to that project, or is it in your website somewhere.?
.....Thank You

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I had to delete a long string of off-topic posts here and just found out that the new software doesn’t leave the “deleted post” stub with the explanation.

Please try to keep the discussion to the original question of whether 2006 was a big turning point from analogue to digital, and what may have caused it. The effects of the digital turn are interesting, but are topics for other threads.

 

[removed account4]

CMoore
The US Fed government had been pushing some of their agencies hard to go digital for years before 2006. It was around that time that I called Jack Boucher, the Chief of the HABS program and asked him if they were going to switch. I mentioned that the state versions of the HABS programs were doing their best to push projects submitted in that format .. He said not as long as he was Chief. At that time states would give the option, now they pretty much only ask for files and pigment prints, and local towns and cities that require similar work do the same ( I am submitting a job like this maybe next week all files and pigment ). Now 16 years later, the Fed HABS program still wants film but if you give them a pigment print, instead of a AZO/LODIMA/CONTACT print they are happy about that too. While they still take paper prints, materials are sometimes scarce.

 

[CMoore]

CMoore
The US Fed government had been pushing some of their agencies hard to go digital for years before 2006. It was around that time that I called Jack Boucher, the Chief of the HABS program and asked him if they were going to switch. I mentioned that the state versions of the HABS programs were doing their best to push projects submitted in that format .. He said not as long as he was Chief. At that time states would give the option, now they pretty much only ask for files and pigment prints, and local towns and cities that require similar work do the same ( I am submitting a job like this maybe next week all files and pigment ). Now 16 years later, the Fed HABS program still wants film but if you give them a pigment print, instead of a AZO/LODIMA/CONTACT print they are happy about that too. While they still take paper prints, materials are sometimes scarce.

Interesting.
Our daughter's, Father In-Law worked for..... Sacramento County i believe. He retired about 8 years ago. He worked crime scenes, finger prints. When HE retired, he said they were using a Canon AE-1P.
I assume the negs were scanned, then stuffed into a computer, and printed with a machine if needed.....but after reading your post, i will have to ask him some more specifics.
Thanks

 

[etn]

Very Nice.!
Wow..... 30 pounds. That is serious photography.

If serious photography was about size and weight, we would all be shooting Fuji GX680
I'm glad I don't have to carry that projector more than the few meters between the shelf and the table I use for projection!!!

 

[Patrick Robert James]

From my recollection 2006 is a way too late date. Photojournalists started en masse well before that with the Nikon D1 and the Canon 1D in around 2001 I think it was. The cameras that truly turned the tide for professionals were the Canon 1Ds, D60 and the Nikon D100. Ironically, the 1Ds was the camera that put Canon over the top compared to Nikon. A lot of pros switched because of that camera. Pros that could afford the 1DS went for it. Remember, as a pro you have to have a backup, so that was like 16 grand... I can't remember what year those came out, but that did it for the most part. I know by 2003 pretty much everyone I knew was digital. Other cameras influenced things too. In spite of what people say about Kodak, the 14n was a pretty dang good camera as long as you had enough light. I knew a 4x5 studio shooter that made the switch when the Kodak 16mp digital back for the Mamiya came out. Again, I don't know what year that was, maybe 2002?

The biggest hindrance to digital at first was the price. From a business standpoint it had to be justified. Combine that with the expectation commercial clients had of digital saving them money on consumables and a lot of the profit came out of being a professional. A pro would buy two 1Ds, have a 16000 bill, and all the income from film was gone. Some guys did some creative accounting to make extra scratch, like creating a rental company, then renting their gear back to themselves so they could charge clients a "rental" fee and get away with it.

Hard to believe that was almost two decades ago...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

You missed my point Ralph. I never said Kodak et al made crappy products.

then, why did you say we were better off without them?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Photojournalists used the Kodak Digital Camera at the Olympics in Atlanta. That was 1996.

PE

 

[MattKing]

I think including the "professional photographers" as part of the criteria really skews the answer to the question.
As interesting as they might be, professional photographers' needs have been different then what the market dictates since shortly after George Eastman revolutionized photography.
The great majority of people who take pictures want easy and convenient and immediate more than they want anything else, and digital has great potential for that.
The market wars for dominance in the areas of newer and better and higher quality features are a mixture of hype and serving the needs of an almost infinitesimally small portion of the market.

 

[faberryman]

The market wars for dominance in the areas of newer and better and higher quality features are a mixture of hype and serving the needs of an almost infinitesimally small portion of the market.

Meaning those few that haven't shifted to using a smartphone for all their photographic needs.

 

[MattKing]

Meaning those few that haven't shifted to using a smartphone for all their photographic needs.

Or even those who have switched to smartphones - the top level smartphones frequently have great emphasis placed on their picture taking capabilities in their marketing.

 

[faberryman]

...the top level smartphones frequently have great emphasis placed on their picture taking capabilities in their marketing.

What else are they going to market? That they actually work as phones? The carriers are the ones that market that.