[Leica] Re: Leica Users digest V12 #58

[William Davis <wishda@weblnk.net>]

 ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:27:06 +0200
> From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica Users digest V12 #57
> 
> 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.


No, not alarmist. Those who balk have logical reasons for doing some.
Some of those reasons include concerns about the archival abilities of
digital (I can go back and look at negatives taken by my paper 100 years
ago. Could my ancestors still do that with digital?}, cost (in real
terms, converting to digital is more expensive when you consider the
need to upgrade and the higher failure and maintenance rates of computer
and digital camera equipment) and, perhaps most importantly, image
quality. Many photographers and publications resell their pictures. A
digital image's aftermarket value is much less than a slide or a
negative. No magazines, calendars or posters are going to be made with
even the high-end digital images. This also becomes a factor for
photographers who depend on their portfolios for works.

<snip>

> 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.

They realize this. One of the main reasons my newspapers has avoided
buying a high-end digital camera (or even the mid-grade Nikon D1) is
because of this. Right now we have several consumer (still $1,000+)
digital cameras for reporters to use for mugshots and other images where
quality is not that important. Even so, it is easy to see that the
cameras break more easily than the Canon Rebels they replaced and the
expensive digital memory cards get corrupted much too easily.