Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]From: William Davis <wishda@weblnk.net> Sent: Monday, October 11, 1999 10:04 Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica Users digest V12 #57 > Also, a backlash is forming among papers and photographers. > I am seeing more and more "proudly still using film" tags on > the end of wanted ads and hearing about top photographers > who refuse to shoot digital unless absolutely necessary. This is the best proof that digital is making serious inroads with respect to film. When people respond emotionally by wearing buttons or adopting slogans or stubbornly refusing to do something in a different way just because it is different, it means that they recognize that times are changing and it frightens them. If digital were not a serious threat to film, this wouldn't be happening--professionals would just laugh at it instead. Those who resist digital are being unnecessary alarmist. It will take quite some time for digital to replace film completely, unless there are some _serious_ breakthroughs in digital imaging technology to speed the transition. The main difficulty is in producing CCDs that can provide the same resolution as film _and_ that allow photographers to use the same lenses to cover the same visual fields. A 24x36 CCD is incredibly difficult to manufacture, however, and so this is holding back digital photography. A secondary obstacle to the transition is the huge amount of storage required to hold high-resolution digital images, but this will probably be resolved over the next few years, as storage capacities continue to increase. There aren't any other obstacles. > Images on digital cameras, even the high-end Kodak and > Fuji ones do not look the same as their film counterparts > and many, myself included, argue that they do not look > as good. Others argue that they look better. In the case of images from top-quality digital cameras, I usually find them equal to or better than film; but in the case of cheap cameras, they usually look worse. CCDs have inherent advantages over film from an imaging standpoint, so it is just a matter of time. But here again, the big blocking issue is the need for a 24x36 CCD imaging area that can seamlessly replace 35mm film. > Yet the motion picture and advertising industries stayed > with film. Video provides poorer resolution than film, and it is more difficult to deal with in post-production. It also allows far less flexibility in image format--the entire production chain must be oriented towards a specific format, and thereafter cannot be changed without replacing just about everything. Digital video is changing this, but a great deal of infrastructure changes must occur first. It will be a while. Most motion pictures pass through a computer at some point, though, because special effects often require computer-generated imaging (or at least CGI is cheaper and gives better results than optical effects). > While nothing is inherently wrong with the look of video, > its different look has come to define cheapness and amateurism. > I believe digital images will come to be viewed the same way ... Except that, in the case of still images, it is often impossible to distinguish between a digital photo and a film photo. It's a lot easier to see the difference with moving images. For what it's worth, there is one enormous danger to digital photography that virtually none of its opponents or advocates ever seem to consider. That danger resides in the fact that manufacturers are closely associating the digital-imaging CCD with the camera body. In other words, to replace the CCD, you have to replace the entire camera body--digital backs are not interchangeable (whereas 35mm film is completely interchangeable--any film will work in any camera). What this means is that, in the digital realm, photographers may be forced to buy new cameras every 6-18 months, or buy half a dozen bodies at once, just to have flexibility in the types of digital imaging that they use. This risk is so serious that I consider it a good reason to avoid digital entirely for professional use, unless and until camera manufacturers clearly demonstrate that they do not intend to lock customers into buying a completely new camera body every year in order to get a newer CCD. It surprises me that nobody sees this coming. What they don't see may hurt them. -- Anthony