If you work in the camera industry, February is an exciting month. That’s when you head down to Florida for the annual Photo Marketing Association convention, where your company will introduce its latest camera models, making the ones everybody got for Christmas obsolete. But this February is more exciting than most. Big changes are in the photographic air.
First, there’s the astonishing collapse of the film camera market. By some tallies, 92 percent of all cameras sold are now digital. Big-name camera companies are either leaving the film business (Kodak, Nikon, Fuji) or quitting the camera business altogether (Konica Minolta). Film photography is rapidly becoming a special-interest niche.
Next, there’s the end of the megapixel race. “In compact cameras, I think that the megapixel race is pretty much over,” said Chuck Westfall, media director for Canon’s camera marketing group. “Seven- and eight-megapixel cameras seem to be more than adequate. We can easily go up to a 13-by-19 print and see very, very clear detail.”
You have a lot to look forward to: hydrogen-powered shirt-pocket cameras, 4-inch OLED touch screens, GPS features, software that snaps only the best facial expressions and wireless circuitry that beams the result to friends and fans.
I won’t be there; but, I always look forward to what comes from this show.
John,
Enjoy the blog and love listening to you on TWIT.
How about killing the black italics on blue background, non italic text on white would be much easier to read.
-B
I’m still a avid user of my film SLR. However, the one I use primarily is a 15 year old Nikon D6006. My back-up is a 26 year old Canon. Is there any wonder that they don’t want to make new consumer film cameras? On the other hand, they’ve begun releasing professional films that are specially adapted for scanners.
The whole film vs. film argument has been silently settled for consumers over that last few years as most film labs have switched to the newer, more-versitle and cheaper digital photolabs. Even those consumers who still use film are undoubtedly getting digital prints. I’m finding it harder to find photo-labs that still practice optical printing.
In a few years the only way consumers will be able to take non-digital pictures is to develop their own film or use slide films.
In any case, the next SLR I buy will be digital. The process is much better for travelling, hiking and just snapping picks of the babies.
Something else. The lastest digital printing machines do a lot to compensate for consumer bad-photography. I’ve heard rumors of new camera hardware that will compensate for bad exposure on CCD level.
At some point a digital camera will be able to adapted to lighting the same way our eyes do. The art of photography will die.
Is this century not to know its own ‘Ansel Adams’?
How about looking forward to a feature that doesn’t seem to be readily available yet: Bluetooth?
One of my biggest peeves is not having a simple and wireless way to transmit my photos from my camera to my computer (and vice versa). Sure a card reader can get the job done, but sometimes the option isn’t always practical or available.
Anyways, looking forward to see what comes out of the convention.
At some point a digital camera will be able to adapted to lighting the same way our eyes do. The art of photography will die.
I strongly disagree.
Capturing “crap” exactly the same way the human eye sees “crap” will not make that crap “art”.
The art of photography is in the composition. The good ones are able to frame the “shot” in their mind’s eye – before – taking the picture.
One of many sites showcasing such work:
http://www.nwpphotoforum.com/ubbthreads/information/artist_showcase/showcase.php?Cat=0
Kent,
Sorry to take issue with your post, but…
>The lastest digital printing machines do a lot to compensate for
>consumer bad-photography.
Just like photographers have been doing on enlargers for years. Not the kind of service you’d get from the “lab” at the local Wal-Mart, but what anyone who’s doing their own or using a quality lab would get.
>I’ve heard rumors of new camera hardware that will compensate for
>bad exposure on CCD level.
And this is different from using the best film for the shot how? Or is the issue that it’s automatic (something I don’t like myself) thus saving people from themselves? When I would go to take pictures in my youth I’d use the film that was going to help me the most in that situation. Having the right film in the camera saved me more then once.
>At some point a digital camera will be able to adapted to lighting the
>same way our eyes do. The art of photography will die.
Except that the art of phtography has nothing to do with how the exposure was taken. The art of phtography is a process of ‘seeing’ the picture, capturing the image, and printing the result. A skillful phtographer can enhance the photograph at each stage.
In other words, give a high end SLR (digital or film) to a soccer dad at a wedding and you’ll get the same pictures you’d get if he had a point and shoot pocket job. Give that same camera to a good pro and they’ll capture memories for a lifetime.
>Is this century not to know its own ‘Ansel Adams’?
Do you really think that Ansel Adams wouldn’t have used a digital camera if he could have? I bet he would have, and he’d take it to levels we can only dream of. The next ‘Ansel Adams’ may hold a digital camera, but will that make their picture any less art? They’ll still need to know how to ‘see’ the picture, read and use the light, compose and frame the image, and process the result. And of those skills only the processing has changed at all.
I’d have to agree with Mark about Ansel Adams. In fact, there was a whole class of critic who was always pissed off about the fact that he was a darkeoom photographer. Only today he’d be using a Mac.
Couldn’t resist it.
I love Ansel Adams. You’re right about how prodigious he was in the darkroom. Indeed, he was a photographic master from start to finish.
I had a chance to see different Adams prints produced from the same negative twenty years apart. It was clear that his technique was evolving through-out is life.
What you’re saying is that the art of phototography is evolving. I agree with this. Perhaps I sounded a bit more alarmed than I really am. I should modify my comments to that effect.
Would he use a MAC? Probably so. But, would be have to? Would you?
Tee-Hee. Partly, I put that in to tease John. He knows that after 22 years in the beknighted land of M$oft, I switched to OS X and a Mac just about a year ago. I’m happy as an Ipswich clam.
Ansel Adams got his fame because he was the first to photograph Yellowstone, Yosemite, and much of the other wilderness areas. Much of his work was done from the back of a mule. The camera and tripod were extremely heavy. He painted glass plates with chemicals to take the pictures. You may imagine the loss of great shots through breakage.
He also tried to underexpose his pictures because he knew the ultra violet radiation at the higher altitudes would distort his exposures. This is one of the reasons he did so much extra work in the darkroom. It is easier to bring up an underexposed shot then it is to bring one down.
I read a piece where Adams was at one of his exhibits in the 1930s. When asked about if he would hike through the mountains again to get these pictures. He said yes. Then he pulled out a small 35mm from his jacket pocket and said he would use this camera. So I would imagine he would use digital equipment today.
His photography helped Teddy Roosevelt set up the National Park service with Yellowstone as the first National Park.
Adams was a true photography pioneer.
***
I disagree with the statement that the camera will shoot what the eye sees. Our eyes have an extreme range of built in software. We automatically compensate for lighting conditions including color temperature, back lighting, focus, ambient light, contrast, and to a large extent movement. Our eyes will compensate for these differences often in the same scene.
Cameras have always captured much less simply because their range is usually uniform across the shot. Our eyes will focus repeatedly looking at a scene with much greater depth of field. A camera will be relegated to a single focus. The beauty of a photograph is in what IS captured, not what we saw. As someone pointed out above, that is what differentiates a photo from a true work of art.
Darn I love my digital camera. I can take all the shots I want and not pay for film or processing.
Just my two cents worth.
It was pointed out to me that unlike the uniform light-sensitive emulsion of photographic film. The CCD of a digital camera is composed of a matrix of light sensitive cells not dissimmilar to the contruction of your retina.
As computing power is miniaturized, it should be possible to sample small regions of the CCD for exposure levels and use a filter to vary the level of exposure in different regions of the CCD. It is already possible to adjusts the equivalant ISO of an entire CCD. Why not design a CCD capable of adjusting its equivalant ISO region-by-region. This would have the effect of adjusting the exposure levels in much the same way our eyes do.
For example, you would not need to use a fill-flash to equalize the exposure of a face and a lighted backround as the camera could adjust the sensitivity of each CDD-cd to compensate for the different exposure levels.
This would require a level of pocket-size computing power not available to present Cameras. However, handheld games are pretty computer intense and how small are those getting.
Such function could be optionally disbled for pictures where stark shadows are desirable. However, many professionals spend thousands of dollars on lighting in order to control the exposure for portraiture. A camera able to adjust for uneven lighting would be a real time saver.
Kent
That is a good point about the CCD and processor power. Again I ask, is that what we want? A good photograph takes into account what the photographer wants us to see. If everything was equal then there would be such a loss of drama. Would the cost and difficulty of use forbade it’s use by the “point and shoot” crowd?
I’m not suggesting you’re wrong. You make some excellent points. I’m just offering a different view to the discussion. Thank you for commenting, you made me rethink a few things.
Pat, Ansel Adams didn’t take his first photograph until the late 1920s, after Roosevelt had passed away. Perhaps you’re thinking of John Muir and their Yosemite trip in ’03?
(By the way, I understand that Roosevelt hated “Teddy,” and preferred “T.R.”)
Thanks Pat. I like the challange of taking pictures the old fashioned way myself. There is a lot more to taking pictures then getting the lighting right.
Here is a peace offering. The photographer Bob Kim won the Popular Photography International picture contest with some astonishing composite pictures using a Hassleblad, fujichrome and Adobe Photoshop. Enjoy.
http://www.bobkim.net
Allen
I think you are correct. After we moved into this house I left most of my books packed away in the attic. I was going off of memory. My apologies to all and thank you for the correction.