P3D Re: The future (digital vs. film)

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dr. George A. Themelis wrote:
> Related to this topic, here is an interesting point of view from the
> latest issue of "Shutterbug".  There is a new column "Q&A For Digital
> Photography".  Someone, after saying how impressed he was to see his
> father bring a digital camera in a family reunion and have a slide 
> show right at the spot with pictures he just took ("while everything 
> was very fresh and interesting") he concludes:
> 
> "I became fairly convinced that despite the quality compromise, 
> digital will replace conventional photography just as home videos have
> replaced home movie cameras, cassettes have replaced reel to reel.  In
> 10 years, maybe 15, surely 20... as the cost goes down and quality
> goes up, digital will be every man's standard.  Conventional 
> photography will be the realm of the hobbyists and professionals."
> 
> The response was:
> 
> "I quite agree with everything you said but with one exception.  I
> don't think it will take as long as you suggest.  This Fall's releases
> of new digital cameras models are characterized by the same quality/
> price inversion as is true of most of the computer products in the
> market.  The resolution limitation that you noted is no longer,
> and the prices are comparable to film cameras with similar features.
> 
> At the current sales' rate worldwide, combined with the growth rate
> of digital cameras are enjoying (last year 102%), they will have
> far outstripped the sales of film cameras in just about every 
> category by this time next year, especially if holiday shopping
> is good in '99 and the (US) economy remains bullish."
> 
> How about that???
> 

Well as an amateur photographer and a computer professional I think
there are a number of ways of interpreting recent and future events
with regard to digital photography.

In the letter writer's quote he mentions that videotape has replace
the home movie.  I think he is half right.  Video tape has also
replace snapshots.  Why worry about focusing, exposure, or even
composition or catching the right moment when you can just wave the
camcorder around and (at 30 frames per second) eventually get
something to look at.  I think that one of things that has lead to the
rise of the camcorder (and certainly the point&shoot) is the
frustration a lot of people in the late 1970's and early 1980's felt
towards the 35mm SLRs they bought during the heyday of its marketing
blitz.  I work in an office in the Empire State Building, and when I
look at the tourists I see camcorders, disposable cameras, and
point&shoots.  I don't recall ever seeing anyone with a digicam.

I also find the responce from Shutterbug strange, but then I often
find Shutterbug's responces strange.  Although I may have missed an
announcement (I didn't go to Photo Plus East this year), I know of
only one or two digital cameras that match the resolution of scanned
film, and they are both 4x5 scanning backs in the > $20,000 price
range.  Almost none of the consumer (< $1,000) digicams have even half
the features of any 35mm SLR (interchangeable lenses being a big sore
point).  I haven't seen any consumer digicams that offer manual focus
and exposure, SLR viewing, interchangeable (not auxiliary) lenses, and
capacity of 36 images at highest resolution out of the box (i.e., no
need to buy additional storage).

Shutterbug's idea of pricing is also strange, or someone is giving
away free computers (don't talk to me about the Wintel trash being
foisted on people by the ISPs), software, printers and supplies.
There is no way that the total cost of any digicam can be compared to
that of a 35mm film camera.  The $125 Olympus Epic Stylus point&shoot
that I got my wife last year takes better pictures than any < $1000
digicam, and you have to go to the really expensive professional units
(like the MF and LF digibacks) before it is far outstripped by a
digital system.

Shutterbug's sales numbers also seem strange.  Recently on either this
list of or rec.photo.equipment.digital someone posted figures that
suggested that digicam sales were only 1-2% of all camera sales.  In
order for digicams to out sell film cameras (especially in "every
category") digicams will have to be sold in massive quanties at places
like K-mart and Wal-mart.

The only area I've seen were digital imaging has almost (but not
totally) replaced film is astroimaging.  Almost all professional
astronomers now use CCD based systems, and the CCD has made huge in
roads in amateur astronomy.  The CCD is almost perfect for
astroimaging.  The only reasons the CCD hasn't completely replace film
in this area are that for amateurs CCD cameras and their support
equipment are much more expensive and cumbersome than film cameras,
and for certain purposes (astrometry) glass plates are still the most
dimensionally stable media.

> I think it would be a mistake for the stereo community not to embrace
> digital technology.  On the other hand, I am fairly convinced that I
> will be shooting film for as long as it is available in the market.
> "Conventional photography will be the realm of hobbyists"... After
> all, that's what most of us are, hobbyists!
> 

I certainly don't think digital should be ignored, but neither do I
have any worries that film is going to disappear anymore than paint or
charcol or watercolors did when film arrived.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"