Will peak photographic perfection be achieved in the next 20yrs?

[Lee Rust]

What is reality?
Everyone has their own view, and few will agree at any given time.

 

[Paul Howell]

When I worked for UPI in the 70s our photo editor had a series of shots taken at the same event, a religious festive in India all taken by 5 different photographers. Some were Indians others Europeans, each had such a individual viewpoint that you would not have know that they were covering the same event. Moral of the story was not matter how careful a PJ is we all bring our baggage that tells a different story. Having a sensor that can capture micro detail, accurate color, correct perspective doesn't matter, it's the brain that pushes the button that makes the difference.

 

[Sean]

Ok, so for most this a more emotional subject, where I was attempting to boil a main part of the image down to a technically perfect baseline at $25 price point. Maybe one way to look at it, in order to clarify:

The year is 2032:

Theoretical Camera Kit 1:
$25 price point, fits in pocket.
let's say a metalens mated to a 5 gigapixel sensor, capable of 6mm to 1,000mm focal length
software: full AI camera simulator, lens simulator and film simulation suite

Camera Kit 2:
analog Leica M6 TTL Body * Leica Elmarit 28mm f/2.8 Lens
film Ilford FP4

Theoretical Output 1:
$5 price point, single sheet of wireless digital e-ink paper, 17x24 inches, 10 gigapixel resolution, infinite contrast

Output 2:
full analog darkroom print

So you go out shooting with each system. You capture a scene with the theoretical kit and the analog kit then go home. You open the theoretical image file. You apply AI filters "Leica M6 TTL Body * Leica Elmarit 28mm f/2.8 Lens * Ilford FP4" you do some cropping etc. You output the image file to the e-ink display using analog darkroom print filters which specify papers, grades, and so on.

You then process the film from your Leica and make a darkroom print.

Both printed images are then placed side by side. You shuffle them about a few times and look down. You have no way possible to tell which is which. They are identical to the human eye.

Another scenario is Theoretical kit is set to "Holga, 10yr expired Kodak100, push process 2 stops, add light leaks" the image is then indistinguishable from a traditional Holga photo which would have captured the same..

All of these stylistic choices done on a $25 metalens/sensor and it is impossible to tell it is a digital work.

At this point, is there still an analog market? I think we're going to be faced with such scenarios in the future.

 

[Sean]

I see fuji are running film simulations in camera now: https://fujifilm-blog.com/2017/12/08/in-focus-film-simulations-modes-used-by-the-professionals/

 

[NedL]

... Some will say, "I am not after a pure reproduction of reality, I am after an artistic abstract interpretation of my reality".

That made me laugh because my first thought was I'll probably start trying to carve my lenses out of ice and probably still won't own a "smart" phone.
Maybe I should move into a cave... to paint buffalo on the walls or something. Probably the "film simulation modes" will be more technically perfect than film, that's okay I hope people enjoy it.

 

[iandvaag]

At this point, is there still an analog market?

A reasonable question. I certainly don't know, but I can speak for myself: As long as film is being made, I will buy and shoot it. And if film is no longer available, I will make my own emulsion and coat film and paper. I am a total amateur when it comes to photography -- a lover. I make photos because I find it enjoyable and fulfilling to do so. Why do I shoot film? Because I am a film photographer. It's not really an answer to the question, but I choose to define myself this way.

To me it is all about the process. I do care about the results, but first and foremost I care about a process I find engaging. There are seemingly an infinite number of domains to analog photography; I could never get bored with it. Chemistry, physics, optics, mechanics, art, history, conservation, theory, practice, creativity and more. If I don't feel like making a black and white darkroom print, I can spend the day learning about and repairing an old shutter. When that tires, I can read a book about sensitometry and gain some insight into the fundamental physics. Later, I can wander through a natural grassland not too far from my home and carefully find a large format composition. Or instead, I could walk the downtown streets with a roll of Ultramax 400 in a point and shoot. Maybe I stay up late and hyper some film and capture some photos through a telescope. The next day when it is rainy, I can build a pinhole camera and do a long exposure out my window. Or maybe I set up some pumps with an arduino and make a pumped emulsion. Anyway, you get the point. I can't imagine getting bored with analog photography. It is infinite in all directions...

As my primary medium, I take high resolution stereo (3D) medium format chromes for viewing in a backlit handheld viewer. I have yet to see any digital capture and display medium come anywhere near this. But even if such a digital system showed up tomorrow that had twice the apparent horizontal field of view, 10 times the resolution and 4 more stops of dynamic range, I doubt I would be highly interested. I care about the results, but I care even more about the process. I find it fascinating to make a cyanotype, because I get to mix the solutions and coat the paper. When I look at a cyanotype that I made, I can appreciate the subject of the image, but I can also think about the intervalent charge transfer in the Prussian blue. And those are both beautiful things. Even if there was no technical difference between my hand made cyanotype and the digital-originated facsimile, I still would prefer to spend my time making the cyanotype, because the process is the reward for me. So for me, it has very little to do with the actual material and technical qualities of the final result. I know that sounds weird and most people will say "that is not valid; art should stand on its own merits." To that I reply: I make art for myself and you are under no obligation to appreciate it. My aspiration is to remain and evermore become an amateur of photography.

 

[Sean]

A reasonable question. I certainly don't know, but I can speak for myself: As long as film is being made, I will buy and shoot it. And if film is no longer available, I will make my own emulsion and coat film and paper. I am a total amateur when it comes to photography -- a lover. I make photos because I find it enjoyable and fulfilling to do so. Why do I shoot film? Because I am a film photographer. It's not really an answer to the question, but I choose to define myself this way.

To me it is all about the process. I do care about the results, but first and foremost I care about a process I find engaging. There are seemingly an infinite number of domains to analog photography; I could never get bored with it. Chemistry, physics, optics, mechanics, art, history, conservation, theory, practice, creativity and more. If I don't feel like making a black and white darkroom print, I can spend the day learning about and repairing an old shutter. When that tires, I can read a book about sensitometry and gain some insight into the fundamental physics. Later, I can wander through a natural grassland not too far from my home and carefully find a large format composition. Or instead, I could walk the downtown streets with a roll of Ultramax 400 in a point and shoot. Maybe I stay up late and hyper some film and capture some photos through a telescope. The next day when it is rainy, I can build a pinhole camera and do a long exposure out my window. Or maybe I set up some pumps with an arduino and make a pumped emulsion. Anyway, you get the point. I can't imagine getting bored with analog photography. It is infinite in all directions...

As my primary medium, I take high resolution stereo (3D) medium format chromes for viewing in a backlit handheld viewer. I have yet to see any digital capture and display medium come anywhere near this. But even if such a digital system showed up tomorrow that had twice the apparent horizontal field of view, 10 times the resolution and 4 more stops of dynamic range, I doubt I would be highly interested. I care about the results, but I care even more about the process. I find it fascinating to make a cyanotype, because I get to mix the solutions and coat the paper. When I look at a cyanotype that I made, I can appreciate the subject of the image, but I can also think about the intervalent charge transfer in the Prussian blue. And those are both beautiful things. Even if there was no technical difference between my hand made cyanotype and the digital-originated facsimile, I still would prefer to spend my time making the cyanotype, because the process is the reward for me. So for me, it has very little to do with the actual material and technical qualities of the final result. I know that sounds weird and most people will say "that is not valid; art should stand on its own merits." To that I reply: I make art for myself and you are under no obligation to appreciate it. My aspiration is to remain and evermore become an amateur of photography.

Great post thanks. It seems a common theme in the analog space for sure.

 

[awty]

Hopefully they will fix the anomaly of people videoing in portrait..

 

[Lee Rust]

Even though enthusiasm for film photography may be resurging right now, the long-term prospects are dim if there is no ready supply of new cameras. The used equipment market seems to be getting tighter and most modern consumers prefer to buy fresh product from within the everyday retail realm.

 

[Kino]

At this point, is there still an analog market? I think we're going to be faced with such scenarios in the future.

I think we are already there in so many ways, philosophically speaking, with current technology and the present interest in film photography is more of an "Arts and Crafts" type rebellion to the domination of lifestyles.

Craft in general, be it metalworking, woodworking, film photography and so on, is a reaction to digital everything.

People miss working with their hands with physical objects in a disciplined manner to create art and useful objects.

Look at the explosion of videos on YouTube dealing with restoring obsolete machinery, reviving dead automobiles, leather work, bellows making, camera repair and on and on.

 

[Lee Rust]

Digital devices take most of the personal satisfaction out of a task because we don't actually get to do it... we just get to watch.

 

[David Brown]

Digital devices take most of the personal satisfaction out of a task because we don't actually get to do it... we just get to watch.

I respectably disagree with this.

I shoot both film and digital. Removing as many of the variables as possible, it is the same experience shooting for me. For instance, I have an A-mount Sony and a Minolta Maxxum 7. The two cameras have virtually the same controls and feel. I just can’t “chimp” the images after the fact on the Minolta. Otherwise, metering, framing, adjusting exposure, etc. are very much the same.

Printing is another matter, but there I find that the work processes are so different as to not be comparable at all. Where I disagree is: “we don't actually get to do it... we just get to watch”.

“Processing” an image on a computer is completely different than doing the chemical thing in a darkroom. But I am doing it! People say that the computer does everything. But this is wrong; one has to tell the computer what to do!

Oh, yes, one can go on “full auto”, even in lightroom or photoshop. However, the vast majority of film photographs ever taken were done this way too. People took pictures, either with a box camera with no controls, or later with fully auto point and shoots, sent the film to a lab (or drugstore) and accepted what they got back. Seriously, all they did was “watch”.

 

[David Brown]

So you go out shooting with each system. You capture a scene with the theoretical kit and the analog kit then go home. You open the theoretical image file. You apply AI filters "Leica M6 TTL Body * Leica Elmarit 28mm f/2.8 Lens * Ilford FP4" you do some cropping etc. You output the image file to the e-ink display using analog darkroom print filters which specify papers, grades, and so on.

You then process the film from your Leica and make a darkroom print.

Both printed images are then placed side by side. You shuffle them about a few times and look down. You have no way possible to tell which is which. They are identical to the human eye.

One can do this already. I have a pair of prints from my friend Mike Castles ("photomc" here on Photrio). He deliberately made two images of the same still life, one with a view camera and film, and one digital. He printed both on the same watercolor paper: the film with platinum/palladium, and the digital emulating that process. I have shown these two prints to numerous photographers, and none of them was able to distinguish the two beyond a lucky guess.

 

[mark]

At this point, is there still an analog market? I think we're going to be faced with such scenarios in the future.

We have already gone through this scenario many times. Cameras were invented but people still paint, Acrylic paint was invented but people still use oils, Kodak started saying you push the button and we do the rest, yet people continue to process their own. Color showed up and BW stayed around. Digital showed up and the market was flooded with analog gear but people buy it and companies see that, so it is still around. There will always be people who prefer to work with their hands no matter the technology that is out there and a company to fill the need. there is still a strong market, in wood working, for quality new hand tools even though the market is flooded with old ones. I don't like photographing with my phone, no matter the quality or price point. I like to get my hands dirty.

You say it is an emotional subject for folks and yes, it is. It is our emotions that drive us down this path.

 

[Wallendo]

Ok, so for most this a more emotional subject, where I was attempting to boil a main part of the image down to a technically perfect baseline at $25 price point. Maybe one way to look at it, in order to clarify:

The year is 2032:

...

All of these stylistic choices done on a $25 metalens/sensor and it is impossible to tell it is a digital work.

At this point, is there still an analog market? I think we're going to be faced with such scenarios in the future.

Historically, this question has already been answered. Modern film and modern digital has much higher color accuracy and image resolution than a paintbrush on a 2'6' x 1'9' canvas, yet people still travel to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa.

In your theoretical example where digital is indistinguishable from analog, there may not be much of a role for analog

Ok, so for most this a more emotional subject, where I was attempting to boil a main part of the image down to a technically perfect baseline at $25 price point. Maybe one way to look at it, in order to clarify:

The year is 2032:

Theoretical Camera Kit 1:
$25 price point, fits in pocket.
let's say a metalens mated to a 5 gigapixel sensor, capable of 6mm to 1,000mm focal length
software: full AI camera simulator, lens simulator and film simulation suite

Camera Kit 2:
analog Leica M6 TTL Body * Leica Elmarit 28mm f/2.8 Lens
film Ilford FP4

Theoretical Output 1:
$5 price point, single sheet of wireless digital e-ink paper, 17x24 inches, 10 gigapixel resolution, infinite contrast

Output 2:
full analog darkroom print

So you go out shooting with each system. You capture a scene with the theoretical kit and the analog kit then go home. You open the theoretical image file. You apply AI filters "Leica M6 TTL Body * Leica Elmarit 28mm f/2.8 Lens * Ilford FP4" you do some cropping etc. You output the image file to the e-ink display using analog darkroom print filters which specify papers, grades, and so on.

You then process the film from your Leica and make a darkroom print.

Both printed images are then placed side by side. You shuffle them about a few times and look down. You have no way possible to tell which is which. They are identical to the human eye.

Another scenario is Theoretical kit is set to "Holga, 10yr expired Kodak100, push process 2 stops, add light leaks" the image is then indistinguishable from a traditional Holga photo which would have captured the same..

All of these stylistic choices done on a $25 metalens/sensor and it is impossible to tell it is a digital work.

At this point, is there still an analog market? I think we're going to be faced with such scenarios in the future.

In such a scenario, there would be little benefit from shooting analog. Analog, however, would be resistant to an electromagnetic pulse which would erase most digital information (the basic plot of the TV show "Dark Angel" from 2000-2002.

From a more practical viewpoint, devices can only be made so small before problems set in. Digital storage will need new technologies to store the amounts of data required for a 5 gigapixel image with high dynamic range. Apple and others have done a great job with creating great images from tiny lenses and sensors, but this process can't go on forever. In a world where lossy audio has beaten out hi-res audio, I doubt there is much demand for ultra hi-res cameras outside of military, espionage, and scientific purposes.

 

[Lee Rust]

I respectably disagree with this.

I shoot both film and digital. Removing as many of the variables as possible, it is the same experience shooting for me. For instance, I have an A-mount Sony and a Minolta Maxxum 7. The two cameras have virtually the same controls and feel. I just can’t “chimp” the images after the fact on the Minolta. Otherwise, metering, framing, adjusting exposure, etc. are very much the same.

Printing is another matter, but there I find that the work processes are so different as to not be comparable at all. Where I disagree is: “we don't actually get to do it... we just get to watch”.

“Processing” an image on a computer is completely different than doing the chemical thing in a darkroom. But I am doing it! People say that the computer does everything. But this is wrong; one has to tell the computer what to do!

Oh, yes, one can go on “full auto”, even in lightroom or photoshop. However, the vast majority of film photographs ever taken were done this way too. People took pictures, either with a box camera with no controls, or later with fully auto point and shoots, sent the film to a lab (or drugstore) and accepted what they got back. Seriously, all they did was “watch”.

I do plenty of digital photo processing myself, easily tapping at the trackpad to instantly effect complex image transformations that in the not-too-distant past might have taken many, many hours of work, expensive materials and hard-won skills. However, my previous comment pertains to much more than just photography. To me it seems that in almost every aspect of our high-tech culture we are steadily offloading our collective abilities and knowledge onto the smart devices with their artificial intelligences. If our only concern is getting complex tasks done quickly and efficiently, then this is wonderful. However there is something that is incrementally lost in the bargain... our individual human agency. With every click or swipe at the icons of the latest app on the latest device we move just a little bit closer to helpless dependence. Personally, I don't think this sounds like a very happy destination. Somewhere in the middle there is a healthy balance to be struck between technology and humanity. We need to start paying more attention to where we're going, and perhaps the back-to-film movement is a manifestation of such an awareness.

Years ago I encountered an animated Pixar feature called "Wall-e" that immediately struck me as a very perceptive illustration of this situation. It's a fun movie and of course there's a happy ending, but only because the humans finally come to their senses.

 

[wiltw]

Just imagine the perfect camera exists.

1. Now imagine that some company invents new memory storage that encodes incoming data in a lossless manner that store 50GB uncompressed photos into 10GB of compressed space and then down to 1GB of supercompressed space. Then electronics for each step require camera redesign, to connect and use that newest memory, and
2. then circuits come along that are electronically increasingly efficient so that the 'old' camera which took 500 shots per charge morphs in one that takes 1000 shots per charge and that morphs into one that takes 10000 shots per charge.
3. and then cameras start to shrink in size even more, as processor circuits shrink by 1/2 that can accomplish the same functions, and they shrink another 1/2 (now 1/4 the original size) with 10X as many functions, allowing camera bodies to shrink with each step
4. and then revolutionary changes in plastics allow stronger, more rigid, and less susceptbility to damage, and at the same time gets 1/4 of the weight of current engineering plastics
5. and then we add voice control, then thought control of cameras, and then...

Five MORE steps in the continuing evolution of the camera...no better photographic function, but better ergonomics, smaller size, less weight, less storage space consumed, and countless other improvements, few of them being 'better photograph'

 

[MattKing]

And after all that, the camera that sells the best is the one that makes it easier to take "selfies".

 

[Sean]

And after all that, the camera that sells the best is the one that makes it easier to take "selfies".

Instagram in 5yrs:

"Insta, post my daily selfie please"
"sure thing. what location?"
"hmm a Paris cafe"
"time of day?"
"dusk"
"what is your mood?"
"happy and chilled out"
"is there anything else?"
"no, let's keep it simple today, just my usual hashtags"
"very well, you're selfie has been generated, shall I submit?"
"um, make my shoulders a little bigger, and let's go with 4days unshaved"
"hows this?"
"looks good, you can submit"

 

[Kino]

If it's a good meme, use it again...

 

[removed account4]

That made me laugh because my first thought was I'll probably start trying to carve my lenses out of ice and probably still won't own a "smart" phone.
Maybe I should move into a cave... to paint buffalo on the walls or something. Probably the "film simulation modes" will be more technically perfect than film, that's okay I hope people enjoy it.

future's gonna be bright, bring your shades !

 

[Wallendo]

Instagram in 5yrs:

"Insta, post my daily selfie please"
"sure thing. what location?"
"hmm a Paris cafe"
"time of day?"
"dusk"
"what is your mood?"
"happy and chilled out"
"is there anything else?"
"no, let's keep it simple today, just my usual hashtags"
"very well, you're selfie has been generated, shall I submit?"
"um, make my shoulders a little bigger, and let's go with 4days unshaved"
"hows this?"
"looks good, you can submit"

This sounds a little like the opening chapter of Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", the inspiration of the movie "Blade Runner", where every morning people wake up and can program their moods for the day using a mood organ.
From a philosophical perspective, it bothers me that people are now using photography, not to explore their own experiences, but to create artificial digital experiences from a universe that doesn't exist. In moderation, such images can be fun, but it seems that these tricks are taken to extremes frequently. We have a whole generation whose memories are of trips and adventures that never happened. In all honesty, however, the instagram crowd is really just a small subset of the population at large.

Film photography has never really represented true reality, but has mostly represented interpretations of reality. Fake imagery goes back over a century and a half: one of the famous portraits of Abraham Lincoln is really just Abraham's head pasted into a portrait of John C. Calhoun. Stalin routinely removed people from photographs, etc. Careful framing and cropping can create extremely misleading images. But there was always some basis in reality to most images. With instagram, much of that connection is lost. What will future historians think of our times when searching through instagram archives?

 

[CropDusterMan]

I think we are getting to a point where any improvements are almost moot points. It's purely marketing from this point on
I feel. I have all the modern stuff. For digital, I have the M9, M240 and Leica Q.
Using Leica lenses, I get fantastic quality. I demo'd the M10, and other than improved ISO performance, it wasn't worth the
upgrade. A photographer I assisted in NY for years has the Phase One system, and he paid upwards of $50K for the system,
and although it is likely the finest camera resolution out there...who the hell is ever going to need that?! It's a giant sensor, giant camera
and massive price tag, and you have to be tethered to a goddamned computer.

I see his images, and they are wonderful...gorgeous photos of Hollywood celebs, sharp, great files, but I would never buy one.

On the other hand, show me an 11x14 of Cartier-Bresson's shot on an old film M3 and that image is timeless and gorgeous.
I think the world would have been just fine without fucking digital cameras. Lol.

J

 

[Ces1um]

Even if we can record something perfectly, someone will see an opportunity for improvement and improve upon that perfection. It's human nature. The painter Paul Delaoche exclaimed, 'From today, painting is dead', when he saw early Daguerreotypes. However, such improvements such as stereo viewers, color photography, cinema, and digital photography were still ahead.

This is spot on.

 

[Kahovius]

At this point, is there still an analog market? I think we're going to be faced with such scenarios in the future.

Many will find this tangential, perhaps, but... I believe it's important to note that photographic equipment still needs to interface meaningfully with humans (who are considerably slower to evolve). One of the main reasons I prefer working in analog over digital is that no digital camera I've tried so far gives me the same user experience an old manual, mechanical camera does. (I could not imagine shooting winter landscapes in sub-zero temperatures with something that fits in a pocket and has to be controlled through fiddly plastic buttons and menus or, even worse, a touch screen!) I'm not sure this sentiment is widely shared, but I am firmly of the opinion that we reached "camera ergonomics perfection" sometime in the 1960s–1970s, and that usability has gone steadily downhill from there. The same could be said of reliability.

Great thread!