I noticed this sign in front of a camera shop here in Manhattan a few weeks ago and remembered to take a picture of it the last time I walked by. "Digital Cameras Can Cause Blindness". It's of course a not-very-funny joke from a shop that develops film images, railing against the changes overtaking their business. They've got other signs up, too, "Digital Cameras Can Cause Stroke" and a host of other maladies, including strokes, sterility, sudden death, and the dreaded "poor quality photos"
Not really funny enough to stand on their own, and not really biting enough to be effective, the signs made me kind of sad. There are plenty of reasons to favor film cameras, if you're into that sort of thing, but none of them reflect poorly on digital cameras. They're just two different ranges of products with different (pre-pun cringe) focuses.
So why sadness at reading the signs? Because I was struck by the fact that this storefront marked the effort of an entrepreneur who ostensibly has an established business, but is so unwilling to accommodate the demands of his customers that he mocks and derides their choices instead of indulging their wants. (Note to female entrepreneurs: I say "he" in describing the theoretical entrepreneur because not only is this a particularly "male" response to the situation, but the store is in Chelsea, where approximately 170% of all stores are owned by men.)
Most people I know who are really into photography (the kind who would go to a store like this instead of getting their prints from a drug store) have both digital and film cameras, and use both in their arsenal of equipment. But for me, as a dabbler, I'm always going to choose digital. Fewer recurring costs, and it's easier to share pictures since almost everybody I care about is online. This guy could sell me a memory card, though. Or a spare battery. Or a carrying case. But he doesn't want to.
The broader point, I suppose, is that there are people who embrace change, and see it as an opportunity. I'd always assumed that those were the people who became entrepreneurs and tried to build businesses. People who are, for whatever reason, more risk averse would choose a more conservative employment path. But this is someone who seems to have a business, but doesn't have the heart or the backbone to do what it takes to make that business a success.
Some combination of hubris and conservativism and fear of what's new made them willing to publicly advertise their contempt for today, and their denial about tomorrow, and I wish there were a way to make people understand that sometimes the word "unfamiliar" just describes something terrific that you just haven't met yet.
I've been noticing more signs around here of people trying to stay relevant, with signs like "We process digital prints" and "Print your digital photos here."
I'm guessing they do enough buisness to get away with it. I'm sure though in "small markets" or like, mall stores, you couldn't pull that off.
And why the digital camera hatin' anyways? One time I was talking to my sister, saying she should get a digital camera rather than a film camera. To this she replied that digital cameras were "too easy", eluding to the fact that I guess I don't like wasting money on pictures that don't come out :)
The most serious photographer I know (he works for me as a developer during the day) has recently invested thousands of dollers in professional digital equipment and tools.
He's the ideal customer for a photography store - he buys accessories, bags, flashes, memory, prints (from digital), and in the past few months many lenses and other components.
In short, a store that would help him cater to his needs would have gotten a very sizeable amount of business, and likely many referrals to other photographers he interacts with while doing concert photography in the evenings (He shoots about 2-3 concerts a week)
For the utterly serious "old-fashioned" photographer, it seems that nature has played a cruel trick on them. The years they have spent in darkrooms are now trivialised by photoshop enthusiasts who put their pittance of a few hours (people like myself). I can totally understand where they're coming from. It would be so hard to accept the fact that your life's work has just become undone, and the uninformed majority no longer goes "wow" at the work of your hands.
And then there are people like my father who told me in the mid-90s that painting would be obsolete with the invention of 3D graphics. He also thinks all those gorgeous leather-bound print books will cease being manufactured. Personally, I'm all for the digital world, but I also think examining what makes an antiquated technology so beloved can only make digital products better (electronic books you can read in bed, anyone?). And I really hate it when cheap, flashy technology allows the uncultured plebs to discard and scorn truly beautiful, but more primitive works.
I know exactly where this shop is since I pass nearly everyday.
The irony that you took a digital picture of their store is amusing.
This is akin to saying that acrylics are better than watercolors. Two different mediums, each with their strengths... what matters is the person behind the camera.
you guys should visit India someday...digital cameras are still 'only for the affluent'...no such signages and very few stores selling dg cameras.
I think after a certain point people start stating unnecessary stuff. America has reached the pt. 20 yrs before India. (well 10 years if you give credit to the digital bridge!)
Not only that, but if their store would offer digital prints for the same price as film prints (rather than 20-50 cents), they'd be able to make a killing.
I just recently bought a Digital SLR because I can't afford to shoot and develop prints professionally anymore. The cost, if you use a pro shop, is roughly 18% a roll. You're right in stating Digital is a different medium, though not in as many ways as people might think. Even though pro Digital SLR's are only capable of 11mp images at this point in time, an 11mp image can produce photo quality prints at 16x20 or higher. Film negatives from a 35 mm camera produce around 30mp when scanned and remain the dominant medium for people who need very large images or very detailed scans. If you talk to any serious photographer (ie studio artists and such) they will tell you Digital Cameras just aren't up to speed yet.
Film won't go out of vogue completely for decades, if at all. Its like the book illustration. Heck, it might even play into the hands of small shops, because the really big companies are going to stop serviceing film eventually as the majority of the consumers go to digital formats. That means that those who will still use film will be forced to use the small pro shops. Being a niche market, the pro shops will be able to charge more. And the ones who will continue to use film, ie the hobbiests and such, will be willing to pay the prices dictated by that kind of market.
It's interesting... when I wrote this post, I didn't think it was about digital cameras at all.
I was going to site the example of the music industry and its running-scared-and-lawsuits approach to digital download...
Some people just can't figure out that it is not the 20th century any more.
I am a photographer and used to teach photography. I've had a darkroom for years (and for about 8 years it's been dormant).
I used to make photographs with one paragraph stories printed on top of them (you can see one here). It was a complicated darkroom process to get the text onto the image.
The last time I was in the darkroom I made the inevitable mistake. Without thinking twice I said to myself: "Oh, I'll just Undo."
That was the end of my darkroom days and I haven't looked back since.
One thing people are ignoring: as film photography gets increasingly a niche product, the cost of film and processing will go up significantly -- it's not going to be a mass-produced, competitive industry any more. Pro photographers may sniff at consumer tastes, but the reality is that the 99% of film sold to consumers heavily subsidizes professional film manufacturing and camera building. Sure, the Nikon SLR is a great pro camera, but I'd bet the huge majority are still bought by tourists. How much will the price increase if dabblers are no longer interested in one? 3X? 4X?
If you cut the film hardware and processing business down to 5% of its current size, it's going to be a niche industry with maybe only one, or two, major players. Using film will grow increasingly expensive as digital continues to get cheaper. It's a death spiral.
No, it's not that Anil took a digital photo of the sign, it's that he took a shitty digital photo of the sign.
A tech-support client of mine is a professional, high-profile photographer with a slew of magazine covers, movie posters, advertisements and the like to his name. You'd recognize a lot of his work if you saw it, or at least the people in it. He's 99 percent digital and has been for about a year. He'll never go back.
Which leads to what I think Anil's point was: The print shop/service bureau the photographer works with is making a killing off of him. They've recognized that he does at least 20GB of data per shoot, so they now offer on-site data storage, which, incidentally, also means that all of his work is on file with the bureau so it's easy for him to ask for a certain file, edit, select or fix, and they'll be the ones to get the business. *That's* how you take advantage of a changing market. He hardly manages his data at all, which not only means that they bureau is filling a new niche, it means they're taking business away from *me* since I would be the one speccing, installing and maintaing any high-volume data storage site my client would otherwise have needed. Smart folks.
I had another meeting with a photographer whose only just now getting into digital. It's painful for him, because it means new equipment, many new ways of working. But his clients are asking for it. Savvy media clients demand digital because they know they can get that file they paid for at any time and do anything they want to it and repurpose it for any media permitted by the contract without having to have the photographer as a middleman, or screwing with who owns the negative, or paying for expensive scans which, no matter how good, always have generational quality loss. It's a cost, quality and time savings for the client, since for most print work, the difference between film and digital is invisible or irrelevant.
About 10 years ago, a friend of mine complained that the new, digital method of page layout was putting old-fashined typesetters out of business. Oh, the poor typesetters. I told her that they'd have to learn the new way of doing things or they'd lose their jobs. Some things never change.
For all intents and purposes, 35mm is now dead in Fine Arts photography (it's been so in photojournalism for some time).
I just finally got my EOS-10D in the mail this weekend (image quality is phenomenal). Assuming $12/roll for film and processing, it'll pay itself off in about 130 rolls; I just shot about 10 'rolls' this weekend.
(This is not even accounting for the benefits of instant review, completely customizable white balancing via the RAW format, the ability to do near limitless [and reversible] post-processing in Photoshop, and virtual one-step reproducibility for prints)
I for one, don't personally know of any photogs making the switch who've missed the darkroom (except in that nostalgic, good old days way).
Leonard, or anyone, a question. It used to be that mag spec stories were submitted via slides. So now how are they submitted via digital - on a cd? Emailed?
An ex-silver, ex-darkroom lover (but I don't miss the smell of the chemmies)
When I have kids and teach them about photography (something I am hoping to do so I can learn it myself) I will buy them an old Nikon manual slr and a cheap light meter - (unless they have a digital that can simulate the experience, not a bad mode to add to Digital SLRs {photography class mode}). Understanding what makes a photograph, and how light responds to neutral observers as opposed to the heavily processed 'images' we see in our minds is important, and I think it is a good base to have. That said, I just got a Nikon D100, and I have basically shelved my film camera. The only issues I have will be resolved in the near future.
As far as the main point of the blurb, it may not be that they are fearful of change, but rather have relatively large investment, or comparative advantage in the one area. Assuming that, the free market as a tool for bettering society question becomes, how do we make it easier for people to change course, or to fold up shop when the writing is on the wall.
Understanding what makes a photograph, and how light responds...
But Coach, with instant review on the LCD, your kids will be able to learn all about lighting in a very short time. I started to pick up photography as a kid in the mid-80's and what turned me instantly off from it was being a sugared up kid with no patience, and having to wait several days to get prints back. I couldn't remember what I was experimenting with unless I wrote it down in painstaking detail, so I didn't learn, I got lazy, and I quit.
Then a decade later I got a digital camera, and the thing that constantly amazes me is how quickly I can learn what something like a fill flash does, how effective it is on my camera, and I know when to use it. Your kids will learn how to take a photo, and they'll be damn good because they can take a thousand photos in a day, and delete all but 10 of the best.
Yup, and digital video's completely replaced film, too. Errr, or not.
As has been mentioned above -- decide what you want to do, and choose your medium accordingly.
mathowie,
You are probably right. What would be nice would be having a setting that forced manual setting of iso, aperature and shutter speed. But, perhaps it is patience from age that allows us to care about what makes a great photograph rather than just capturing a scene- do not know, myself.
Vidiot, digital video has replaced film- for consumers, and it will for the pros when the technology gets there. I believe Star Wars II was shot with very expensive digital video cameras. Eventually handling the enormous data sizes in high quality - think 70mm film quality, will be easy on an inexpensive laptop, but today it chokes any computer system (quick back of the envelope calculatin puts the data requirements at - 86,400,000,000/sec - assuming 48bpp, ~60mp and 30 frames a second) - So video, a more technically complicated medium is probably where digital cameras were 10 years ago.
And back to mathowie, doesn't there seem to be something fundamentally different about digital and film in the sense that digital has the potential to record time bits as well. Film can only add up all of the photons that hit a certain spot, but digital has the potential to record when that light hits the ccd (granted it would be complicated real time programming to get it right. Digital also has the ability for unlimited dynamic range - assuming we allow for greater bits per pixel. So, for example, a digital camera has a different ability to include a function that counteracts camera shake than a film camera does (in post production if the time bits are saved)
A little while ago there was an article from some science magazine making the blog rounds about approaches to digital photography that were fundamentally different from imitating the operation of a film camera. The idea was that instead of trying to get a sharply focused image from objects in some particular plane, you could use a specially scalloped lens that produced a blurring pattern unlikely to be found in nature, then detect that in the resulting image and deconvolve it after the fact. The upshot was that you could get a depth of field impossible with traditional imaging (for a given aperture), at a small cost in increased noise.
Things are probably going to evolve in that direction as processing power gets cheaper. To reconnect to the more general themes of this discussion, it's the usual evolution of a new technology; in the beginning it imitates what older technologies did in the same niche, then gradually comes into its own.
A couple big areas where digital photography eally makes sense is in advertising and journalism. I've just finished a temp job as a real estate photographer at my local paper (shades of Julius Knipl--see my blog). In addition to doing photos of houses and aprtments for the weekend Real Estate section, I did photos for ads for a daycare center, a construction company, and the paper itself. Having a digital camera meant that I could leave the office at 8:15 am and the designer could have a finished ad by 10 am--no waiting for photos to be developed (let alone finishing a roll of film) and all the work could be done in photoshop and quark.
I understand that digital has become the preference for photojournalism--can we really imagine embedded journalism with photographers forced to ship either their film or their developed photos physically halfway around the world? My stint was at a small-town paper, without a lot of cash to throw around, but in New York, I bet there's an awful lot of a) newspaper business, and 2) freelance photography business to be had in digital camera backs, flash cards, software, card readers, and the like. Not to mention the demand for lenses, straps, and other accessories that, for professional photographers, remains the same.
So I think there's a market for your Chelsea photo shop--but NYC is an economic disaster. With reduced tourism in the wake of 9/11 and raised taxes--on top of the usual sky-high rent and excessive overhead--I imagine your Chelsea photo shop just reached its breaking point.
The only question I have is this: how "out of business" are they going? There's stores on Fifth that have been going out of business for years, seemingly. I bought my last SLR camera at a going-out-of-business sale near 42nd at 5th, in 2000--but when I moved from NYC in 2002, the store was still there, or at least *a* store selling the same stuff was still in that location, looking apparently the same.
For all the readers coming in from Popular Photography, there's an update on the store's closing.
I became a Uh-1h (huey) helicopter mechanic right when the Uh-60 Blackhawk was coming into the Army inventory. Huey mechanics were asked to cross over to the new aircraft. I did not. I was comfortable with the Huey.
Fifteen years later, I was "laid" off by the military. Cutting back on personnel (1992) they were pushing out any and all soldiers they could. Guess what, the Huey was obsolete and so was I.
Ten years later, I find myself in the same predicament with photography.
I have two (2) Canon Elan IIe's, a Mamiya 645AF and a phototherm processor, not to mention a full wet lab.
Guess what. I also have an Epson 2000p, Epson 2200 and an Epson 2450 film scanner. I also just ordered a Canon 10D.
I am not about to do a repeat of 10 years ago. And I will also not follow the store with the signage and others like it.