Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Ben Rubinstein on May 02, 2006, 08:20:09 pm
-
First of all this is something that I would love MR to write up properly for one of his articles, no doubt he would get tarred and feathered for it as usual but his predictions along the way have been pretty damn accurate. I came across the idea while looking through some of the old articles here on LL and while making some serious decisions vis a vis film for the future.
As far as my predictions go, I used to manage a high street lab up until the year 2003 when digital was becoming a serious consideration. At that time we had to make some major decisions about what the future held, oh and then I left!
Anyone who wants to add to it, please feel free. Studying history has always been the best way to predict the future, the history of digital photography is very recent though it feels longer, but it is still enlightening.
OK.
In the year 2001 the D30, the first 'affordable' digital SLR hit the market. (A bit before but let's not quibble!) If you had been told then that by five years from that point......
(not in any order, just as they came to mind)
#Digital cameras would be the majority sold worldwide by a large margin,
#Most professionals would use digital cameras for at least some if not all of their work,
#The resolution of many DSLR's would pretty much outstrip 35mm film and seriously contend with medium format,
#A FF chip of 13 megapixels would be availible in a camera the price of the D30,
#Camera phones would be among the most popular P&S cameras in the modern market,
#The canon 1V would be the last film flagship model canon made and would have almost stagnant sales,
#Nikon would bring out only on more flagship film camera while discontinuing every other film camera,
#Agfa, the first to market colour film would have disappeared,
#Ilford, the highly respected maker of B&W materials would have died only to be painfully resurrected and whose reps still walk about pessimistically and long faced,
#Kodak would be axing tens of thousands of jobs a year in the film industry while closing down film production lines,
#Kodak would have stopped making B&W paper,
#Entire darkrooms would be sold on ebay for a pittance as chemical printing becomes 'passe'
#Most labs have become entirely digital working with digital minilabs and scanners, labs printing traditional B&W are pretty rare,
#Great film cameras, especially medium format, would be sold for a fraction of their worth on ebay and so many of them reach the end of the auction without a single bid.
#Only one company would still be making an affordable film scanner (Nikon) and looks unlikely to bring out a new model or even continue the present one for much longer,
#Contax, one of the greatest names in photography would die,
#Minolta after a merger with Konica would be sold off to Sony after failing to keep ahead,
#Pentax would be hoding on by its fingertips to the medium format market,
#Mamiya so long one of the biggest names in medium format photography, would be all but completely dead,
#The modern photographer would be extremely computer workflow orientated from capture to presentation,
#Inkjet printing would come of age though still be rather fiddly and expensive,
#Kiosk printing would be the modern way to have snapshots printed with C-41 processing machines lying pretty unused in most highstreet labs,
#Professionals and amatuers would pay many times over what their film cameras cost for the digital equivelent and upgrade to the latest model with the resultant loss as digital creeps up and conquers the advantages of film one by one. Professionals are doing the math and ofsetting the cost of the digital age against tax and film costs whereas amatuers are spending a fortune for their hobbies unforseen in the film days,
#Many working professional photographers have not shot a roll of film in 2 years or more,
#The great Leica would also be hanging on by its fingertips awaiting a digital M which would revive the fortunes of the company as too many people abandon their film cameras along with film.
#That digital cameras would get so good that the lenses would be the factor holding back resolution and not the sensor or technology,
#That many lenses once considered 'good' would be consigned to an unopened drawer due to the ruthlessness of digital sensors emphasising errors that film grain long hid,
#Many people shooting with DSLR's will never have shot a roll of film in an SLR camera before in their lives including some talented professionals who have never seen a darkroom,
#That even the bastions of the 4X5 neg/slide would be challenged (note the word challenged) by medium format back for resolution, albeit at a fortune,
#Photography in general would have a huge revival compariable to the post war years due to the ease, low cost and sheer fun of the digital camera, especially when coupled with the sharing aspects of the internet,
#The litmust test of survival in the modern photographic world would be the innovation, marketing and fast production of competitive digital products without which the economics dictate that big companies cannot survive,
#Even well known small dealers and stores in the photographic world would disappear due to the globalization of the digital camera market via the internet, even large stores such as Jessops in the UK would be in trouble competing while digital camera stock seemingly changes by the month,
#35mm DSLR camera bodies would replace medium format film cameras in a huge number of studios across the world,
#A 1.5 year cycle would be 'normal' for new DSLR bodies and far from thinking it's crazy, people would be panting for the next model,
#The interchangeable backs that everyone thought would become the norm back then in 2001 would only appear, late, for a manual Leica SLR and but no other camera
I could go on for a while, just read the review of the D30 to see what the mindset was back then, remember what you were shooting and how far away the present day's realities would have seemed then, read through the 'whats new' from 2001 and see how fast and how drastically the photographic world has changed in such a seriously tight amount of time.
As for my predictions for the future, for the next 5 years time and I believe them to be true if slightly conservative based on the past 5 years.
#Digital sensors will mature to the point where they have the latitude in the highlights of film but with the latitude in the shadows of digital. At that point film really will hold no more advantage in either latitude, DR or tonality and will very rapidly decline even among discerning protrait/wedding/street shooters who have stayed with film for just that reason.
#Once those sensors appear in DSLR's the entire crop of current DSLR's will drop very heavily in price, will be almost obsoleted by a camera that doesn't need to compress the DR to fit the sensor.
#DSLR's will have reached peak resolution at approx 22 megapixels, lenses may be improved to match but as the 35mm user rarely needs or even wants more megapixels this may not be as important for the companies as some discerning customers may wish.
#At that point the advantages that will sell new cameras will be better noise, better tonality, better DR and the aforementioned latitude in the highlights and possibly the migration to more widespread FF sensors. To keep the present upgrade cycle the companies have to offer something if not megapixels and sensor size is a good selling point if marketed well to the newer generation of photographers who have never shot film.
#I don't know enough about medium format in the digital world to predict but I assume that the megapixel upgrade cycle will peak at the same as DSLR's and the same enhancements to other aspects will carry over. I would hope for their to be at least one main competitor to Hasselblad, an industry with no competition is an extremely unhealthy one.
#I sincerely believe that 5 years hence C-41 processing of 35mm film will not be availible in regular highstreet labs, it will be sent out as B&W is at present to a pro lab on contract and will be pretty expensive. Only a very small range of films will be offered for sale, just as APS is sold now.
#The new generation of the incredibly popular frontier minilab will be offered in 2 versions, one with a neg scanner for pro labs and a smaller, faster and cheaper machine with no neg scanner at all for the high street.
#Kiosks including the 24 hour kiosks taking credit card being trialed here in the UK similar to a cash point, will be the norm in all malls, in restuarants, etc high street labs will suffer to the point of having to specialise in sales of cameras and such items as photo mugs, etc. This is happening already but will become far worse. Internet printing at cheap prices may take over the high street lab entirely, kiosks, internet and pro labs, no other choices!
#iPod/phone/internet/computer/camera, all in one, as cheap as the ones they give my wife for free every 6 months and very much the norm, all in one package. The digital p&s market shrinks to a normal pace and is superceded by the phone for the casual user.
#Ilford will not survive that long, I live in Manchester home of their factory and offices and the reps do not sound at all optomistic. All the film companies will cut down their selection, perhaps drastically. Pro film is funded by consumer film, if as I presume that no one will be buying consumer film any more in 2011 then pro film will either become very very expensive or cease to exist, at least in 35mm though not in medium format or large format.
#The plan to sell film to the 3rd world and developing countries floated recently collapses as even they realise how cheap a lower end digital p&s is, especially in comparison to film and processing. They may not have computers but they needed a lab anyway for the film...
#Only the higher end film scanners such as Imacon are sold and they are expensive, out of the reach of the regular consumer. Flatbed scanners scan film though not to the same standard, the need not being enough to drive the added research.
I really should get to bed, feel free to add if you've survived this long....
-
In the year 2001 the D30, the first 'affordable' digital SLR hit the market. (A bit before but let's not quibble!) If you had been told then that by five years from that point......
An impressive list pom, but all inevitable since the development of digital image downlink from satellite technology, don't you think? What possible aspect of chemical photography can possible survive the limitless capability of digital, given a few more years to get the prices affordable?
My bet on the future is on the digital application of the old Polaroid theme. Not the technology but the technique of taking a photo for instant prints and copies. Tack a current Canon Selphy printer onto a 5D and you're there today.
If they make it I'll be there.
-
Pom you make me think, laugh and, perhaps most of all, fear the cost of such years....
-
If you had been told that five years from 2001 . . .
we would have 8Gb memory cards,
we can buy 4Gb memory cards for $130, and 2Gb cards for $70,
we could take acceptable low light photos, without flash intrusion,
the best source for equipment would be an online store 8000 miles from my home,
this online store would sell more photographic equipment than all the photographic retailers in my country combined!
and then the "dark" side, that . . .
digital point 'n shoots would have model lifespans of 3 months,
dSLR's would have model lifespans of only 9 months,
within a month of a new model release discussion board speculations start about the next model,
half of my hard drive space is taken up by photographs taken only in the last 18 months,
my budget model mobile phone's camera now has a higher pixel count than my (then) top-of-the-range digital camera.
-
The only thing that will slow the accelerating rate of change will be demand. We are seeing more and more people using digital cameras that far outstrip their capabilities or need. How many people want more than a 4x6 picture? What do most picture takers know or care about colour management, etc? What I'm saying is, the main driver for changes in digital cameras is soon going to diminish and the economics off change will put the brakes on this field.
-
And in 10 years LLVJ will have a feature interviewing Mr "X" - the Ctein equivalent of silver halide darkroom prints!
-
Among all the other digital amazements is the fact that, when I'm out photographing, the only thing constraining me from shooting is the volume of data that I'll accumulate and have to process or delete once I get back to the "darkroom".
Oh yah, and dragging the "contrast" slider in ACR and watching the histogram expand and contract.
As the song "Itchycoo Park" says, "It's all too beautiful"
-
I forgot my prediction for inkjet in 5 years time.
IMO the same kind of people printing at home now will still be printing at home albeit with better materials (I expect the huge choice to consolidate a lot) and ink, I would also hope that the cost of printing and the chore of colour calibration will be far far less orenous even for the pro. However I do believe that the majority of professionals who neither have the time or patience for home printing and those who print large volumes of work such as large sections of the industry, will still be sending out to the labs who will still be using chemical printing for efficiency, volume and cost reasons where a chemical print process will always beat inkjet (note I didn't mention quality or longevity, I have no doubts that would be a historical concern by 2011), especially for price with that kind of volume of printing.
For example I myself often print thousands of 7X5" prints at a time. When I take it into the lab I know that I will be getting all the prints with exactly the same colour and density balance as I editied them for, no print to print variation (they calibrate each roll of paper loaded and test the chemistry twice a day) perfectly sized and cropped, on nice photo paper with a garunateed 100 year life and no metamarism, all without having to do any work whatsoever such as changing ink cartridges (how many cartridges would that many prints blow through!), worrying about drying times, worrying about complicated colour calibration, worrying about cutting and cropping, all at a fraction of the price it would cost me for inkjet printing. The cost and ease may be better in 2011 but I'll be damned if I can bothered even then....
Personally I believe that inkjet printing is in the realm of the hobbyist and fine art pro photographer but little else. That is probably why Fuji is still in business for all the drop in film sales, the fuji frontiers are still churning out prints across the world at a frantic pace, albeit now from kiosks instead of the film scanner which lies idle next to it.
-
#Kiosks including the 24 hour kiosks taking credit card being trialed here in the UK similar to a cash point, will be the norm in all malls, in restuarants, etc high street labs will suffer to the point of having to specialise in sales of cameras and such items as photo mugs, etc. This is happening already but will become far worse. Internet printing at cheap prices may take over the high street lab entirely, kiosks, internet and pro labs, no other choices!
#iPod/phone/internet/computer/camera, all in one, as cheap as the ones they give my wife for free every 6 months and very much the norm, all in one package. The digital p&s market shrinks to a normal pace and is superceded by the phone for the casual user.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64318\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Excellent post Pom, well thought out and comprehensive.
To put this into perspective it is just one aspect of the digital revolution which is touching us in some many different ways. The revolution in photography is nothing compared with the revolution that is taking place in telecommunications. If I told you that the telephone exchange, as was, will no longer exist in a couple of years - and I don't mean a change in technology with some new box replacing the old box, I do truly mean that the exchange will just physically disappear - try explaining that to Alexander Graham Bell and Strowger.
What is increasingly becoming clearer is that everything will communicate with everything else and, at the centre of all this connectedness, will be companies offering applications/services to enable you to do things you haven't yet dreamed of. Of relevance to photography is the fact that historically there has been a long time between taking the picture and seeing it. However, now with digital technology you can not only see the picture instantly but share it with anyone around the world at the touch of a button. Want to show your wife the shoes you are thinking of buying for a second opion - click, send, phone (or for the younger generation you probably get a text message saying your dumped if you wear those home).
In some ways your list mourns the loss of the past, perhaps we should be excited about a new beginning.
-
David, what amazed me was how fast it all happened, heck, hasn't Windows XP been around for 5 years? yes computers have gotten faster and cell phones funkier, but technology wise nothing seems to have gone so fast, killing dead healthy companies in the space of a couple of years, than the photographic revolution, it's just happened so suddenly, BAM!
-
David, what amazed me was how fast it all happened, heck, hasn't Windows XP been around for 5 years? yes computers have gotten faster and cell phones funkier, but technology wise nothing seems to have gone so fast, killing dead healthy companies in the space of a couple of years, than the photographic revolution, it's just happened so suddenly, BAM!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64408\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Tell me about it - when I started in telecommunications I was trained as a Telex operator (about 20 years ago), digital was just comming in. About 15 years ago we were carrying bricks around with a 6 hour battery life to make mobile phone calls. About 10 years ago the internet started to pick up steam. About 5 years ago the web and email started to really pick up. More recently everyone is talking about converged services in telecommunications - i.e the same company will offer you voice, broadband and mobile in the same package plus loads of other applications on top.
It's not just that things are changing so quickly, it is that there is so much of it all changing at the same time. But I wouldn't worry in Manchester people still go around with a horse and cart (or has someone stolen the wheels)?
-
Interesting ruminations, Pom. We sure live in exciting times. Some technologies seem to develop faster than we imagined possible, yet others remain tantalisingly on the horizon, like quantum computing and unlimited cheap energy from atomic fusion.
One development taking place in the labs, that should be of great interest to photographers, is the construction of 'super lenses' using photonic crystals and artificial materials (metamaterials) which have a negative refractive index.
If I've understood the concept, in a few years time we might be using small P&S cameras sporting razor sharp f1 lenses that stop down in manual mode to f32 and still produce sharp images due to a circumvention of the conventional laws of diffraction.
-
David, what's a wheel?
-
Just spoke to the guy in the know at my local Jessops (biggest non specialist photo chain in Britain). He said that at present they are printing a ration of 75% digital. Jessops in now trialing a new store in Dorset which has a Fuji Frontier - but no C-41 processor at all. He told me that Jessops has bought all their C-41 machines so it's not a matter of finishing a lease and not renewing, but how long they will continue to pay for the maintenence and chemicals is in doubt. Of course if these machines arn't worked with at least 30 rolls of film a day then the idle time is detrimental to the chemistry (that was the rule in the Agfa lab I ran, no doubt little different for Fuji). This store in a busy new shopping center is processing about 10 a day maximum with perhaps 30 on a Satuday/Sunday.
Jessops anyway send out any pro stuff (handprinting, B&W, 120 film, etc) to a pro lab in Warrington, BPD Phototec who are one of the top handprinting experts in the country and the expert on Cibachrome. As I said I think I was being conservative. I'm adjusting my time scale to two years on C-41 develpment being sent out by all highstreet and Walmart type labs, no more 1 hour processing on film.
I know from my time in the business that maintenece charges per month whether you use them or not are high. The chemisty is expensive and those labs running a 'buy paper with the chemistry for X price' are going to find that the companies are not interested in that kind of deal anymore, especially when the boxes of chemistry are piled up in the stockrooms and not being used. Maybe for the likes of Asda (UK's Walmart) and Jessops with large chains they will deliver the chemistry from head office as and when needed to keep the machines alive but it won't be long before they start asking whether the percentage of 1 hour film development is worth the expense and upkeep of these machines. Smaller family owned labs, those very few that still exist, and the smaller chains are going to have to make up their minds pretty fast as a bad choice in the upcoming year could kill them when they are hanging on by their fingertips in any case.
-
David, what's a wheel?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64458\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Manchester has a lot to be proud of. I'm from Manchester. Manchester was the site of one of the first working computers (that occupied a whole room, of course).
There's nothing wrong with Manchester, except the weather and the general drabness of the place .
-
This is a true story....but the date and names have been forgotten and changed!
Once upon a time, a professional golfer before the beginning of the final round....got his clubs & bag stolen.
Would you believe it, one of the spectators attending had an el-cheapo set in their vehicle at the parking lot and offered them to "Joe Pro". Would you believe it, Joe Pro kept his "game" going and ultimately won that tourney. Then afterwards, he donated his winnings to a charity.
A little perpespective is in order here....wouldn't you say?
The moral: no camera will ever make me a world acclaimed photographer. It's what clicks inside the person that makes a photographer and not what clicks inside the gear.
jj
-
This is a true story....but the date and names have been forgotten and changed!
Continuing with the fictitious names and dates, here's the true story. The professional golfer in question outclassed everyone. He was miles ahead in the game and his winning was a certainty. Someone, playing dirty, stole his golf clubs hoping it would cause the golfer to lose the game. It didn't. With the help of some el cheapo clubs kindly donated by a spectator, the golfer still won the game, but not by as big a margin as he would otherwise have done. If his clubs had been stolen earlier in the game, he would have lost.
The moral: no camera will ever make me a world acclaimed photographer. It's what clicks inside the person that makes a photographer and not what clicks inside the gear.
That's very catchy, but have you ever come across anyone who really believes that mere possession of a 'tool' will transform that person into an expert craftsman, golfer, artist, musician, whomever?
-
That's very catchy, but have you ever come across anyone who really believes that mere possession of a 'tool' will transform that person into an expert craftsman, golfer, artist, musician, whomever?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=65038\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Perhaps you would be suprised.
-
A fine musician needs fine instruments to give the best performance. Fortunately most don't need to be upgraded more than once every hundred years or so.
David
-
A fine musician needs fine instruments to give the best performance. Fortunately most don't need to be upgraded more than once every hundred years or so.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=65074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As I understand it, that's not quite true. A piano will tend to improve over the first few years of use, and then go into gradual decline. It is after all a mechanical contraption. The tone and timbre of a piano, as with a violin, will depend on the type and quality of timber used, as well as the design and quality of craftsmanship.
The Australian made Stuart & Sons piano is a case in point. It's made from slow growing Huon Pine, found only in Tasmania, employs an innovative method of coupling the strings to the piano and produces greater clarity and tonal richness as a result.
It's not only a fine musician who needs a fine sounding instrument, but any serious student. An instrument that does not produce a beautiful tone can discourage the student.
When I look back on the cameras I've owned since my first brownie box camera as a kid, I find that the number of photos I've taken, or perhaps more relevantly, the amount of time I've spent taking photos, has increased in rough proportion to the sophistication of the camera. I don't recall shooting more than a few rolls of B&W with the fixed lens, fixed aperture, box camera. It was so limiting. I shot a few more rolls with my next camera, a Canon 35mm rangefinder with fixed lens that wasn't particularly sharp. However, it wasn't until I bought a Pentax Spotmatic with through-the-lens metering and interchangeable lenses that I really took a serious quantity of shots. Years later, with my first digital camera, the Canon D60, I took more shots in the first 3 to 6 months than previously in my entire life, and during the first 6 months of owning a 5D, I've taken more shots (and spent more time taking those shots) than I took during the first year of using a D60.
Now, you might well make the point, it's not the number of shots that counts but the quality of the shots. However, that's a separate issue. The point I would make is that a fine instrument, whether musical or photographical, tends to encourage greater use by the owner, and as we all know, practice makes perfect .
-
Agreed - music students studying at a conservatoire quickly outgrow student instruments which will limit their progress. Some instruments do wear out and deteriorate with time but the technology generally is not changing at the same rate as it is for photography at the moment.
Although I covet a 5D I have taken more images with my 10D in the last 2 years (my skill is the limiter to the quality of the pictures I take) than I had taken in the last 10 with my EOS 5.
David
-
As a matter of interest, what relevance has any of this to the thread, I wasn't arguing equipment or even photography, just pointing out facts about how quickly and dramatically everything has changed.
-
Fair comment. The thread had moved away from your original post!! The speed of change in photo technology is exciting and disconcerting. Other art forms have not had to make such adaptations at such speed.
David
-
I’m involved with designing the next generation of nuclear power plant. The mechanical hardware is the easy part, pipes, valves, reactor core, etc.. The problem is the transition from a conventional hardwired control room to digital. In the old days control boards were big steel consoles (30 feet long) full of hardwired switches, meters, and paper trend charts. The old boards were designed to be a “standup board,” meaning the operator stood at the rail while operating the board. And on a busy day the operator would put on a few miles walking up and down the board.
With the push to use a digital interface many problems arise. With a conventional hardwired board if you want to know what a certain parameter is doing, you turned your head and fixed your gaze at the appropriate meter or switch. Or in the worse case, you took a few quick steps to get close enough to read a meter. In other words, the operator could scan the board and very quickly get a overview of integrated plant status. Now take those same thousands of parameters and control logic and pipe them through a digital interface:
How many “screens” do we need to limit paging so that the operator can access desired data fast.
How big each screen? How reliable for 24/7 operation?
What display technology to allow upgrade over the next 40-60 years?
Who will make spare parts and support software drivers and hardware?
Should it be “touch screen” or pointing device (mouse, trackball)?
If touch screen, what if a fly (bug) lands on the screen in the wrong spot?
If touch screen, what if a rubber band breaks and flies into a screen?
If mouse, what if the damn thing dies? Or sticks? Or batteries go dead (wireless?)?
Digital technology is wonderful thing. Mostly.
-
As a matter of interest, what relevance has any of this to the thread, I wasn't arguing equipment or even photography, just pointing out facts about how quickly and dramatically everything has changed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=65115\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry, Pom. We sort of hi-jacked your thread . Some of these comments belong in the 'hardware fetishist' thread. I would make the general comment that the rapid digital transformation of photography is in part due to our fascination with gadgets. The P&S digicam is an attractive item. It's small, compact and a true marvel of miniaturisation, but I bet quite a lot of them are relatively unused. I know my shirt-pocket sized Sony T1 is. After the first few months of demonstrating to everyone what this little camera could do and how amazing it is, I sort of lost interest. I would rather lug around a heavy 5D that can take better quality images (technically) at ISO 1600 than the Sony T1 can at ISO 100.
I look forward to a 22mp successor to the 5D which, hopefully, will have as low noise at ISO 3200 as the current camera has at ISO 1600.
-
The old boards were designed to be a “standup board,” meaning the operator stood at the rail while operating the board. And on a busy day the operator would put on a few miles walking up and down the board.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=65144\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Paul,
I would have thought that advances in computer technology would have a lot to contribute to the viability and safety of nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, people often take an emotional stance on an issue that might have been a responsible concern in the distant past, but ceases to be relevant, or at least as relevant, as technology advances. I'm thinking about the consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. The plant was an obsolete installation even by the standards of that period.
I think we should move forward with nuclear energy. Australia's in an ideal position to take full advantage of the potential of nuclear energy, but doesn't, presumably for political reasons rather than sensible environmental, economic and scientific reasons. We have the uranium; we have the remote, geologically stable regions for waste disposal; we even invented processes for containing radioactive waste, such as synrock, but we do nothing but burn huge quantities of coal, which we also have lots of.
Sorry again, Pom. Was that relevant?
-
Sorry again, Pom. Was that relevant?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=65169\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the relevance is that moving from film to digital means that we have a much more complicated user interface than previously. Also, there are aspects of an analogue interface (aperture ring, focus ring, knobs and butons - mirror lock up?) that are more convenient and easier to use than having an all digital touch screen/menu arrangement.
Even with all those options, there are still some manufacturers who for political, practical or manufacturing reasons don't want to or haven't managed to implement a good quality user interface - perhaps comparing apple V microsoft, canon V nikon, etc...
Yes we have advanced technology, but we ourselves have not evolved at the same pace - where for instance would I stick a USB cable from the camera? (that's a rehtorical question, you don't need to post a response!). Also, if someone came up with a very radical concept for a digital camera would we accept the nuclear design over the coal design. Just as well then that the Australians don't build cameras.
-
How many “screens” do we need to limit paging so that the operator can access desired data fast.
How big each screen? How reliable for 24/7 operation?
Why not use several screens, representing one thing at a time, so that several operators can see the same thing simultaneously?
How about limiting the amount of "passive" information (non-changing states etc.) and clutter, and focus on what changes?
Etc.
The problem isn't necessarily in the technology or the availability of such, it's in the application of it.
But I think the most important concern you raise, is that of hardware and software lifespans. Windows XP has just set a record in the Windows world for how long it's been available in retail without a replacement version, yet four-and-a-bit years is a pitiful amount of time. IBM provides a longer life-span -- decades -- for their hardware and software (s/360 through zSeries, AS/400), but you pay the price.
And this brings me to my prediction for future dSLRs: the product release cycle will slow down again, bringing lifetime up for the semi-professional and professional models. I'm unwilling to commit to a timeline for this, since I don't think we're even half-way in technical improvements in todays cameras (as evidenced in an earlier vision I posted here). Maybe twenty years from now?
I would have thought that advances in computer technology would have a lot to contribute to the viability and safety of nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, people often take an emotional stance on an issue that might have been a responsible concern in the distant past, but ceases to be relevant, or at least as relevant, as technology advances. I'm thinking about the consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. The plant was an obsolete installation even by the standards of that period.
That is an oft-repeated statement, but it wasn't really the problem. The Chernobyl plant was by no means unique (except for being the source of a horrible, ongoing disaster), and at least for the following decade or two, many other plants from the same design template (if you could call it that) were in production use. Unless I'm mistaken, many of them still are; few of the ex-USSR states have been able to afford upgrades or replacement energy generators.
I think we should move forward with nuclear energy. Australia's in an ideal position to take full advantage of the potential of nuclear energy, but doesn't, presumably for political reasons rather than sensible environmental, economic and scientific reasons. We have the uranium; we have the remote, geologically stable regions for waste disposal; we even invented processes for containing radioactive waste, such as synrock, but we do nothing but burn huge quantities of coal, which we also have lots of.
Uranium is a scarce resource. If Australia wants to bet on nuclear energy, thorium reactors seem the safest course right now.
As for waste disposal, no satisfactory solution has been implemented yet, as far as I know. I have a few suggestions as to how you can warn future generations over a time span of 100,000 years, but I bet they aren't popular. I also know about a safe place for waste disposal, but nobody seems inclined to spend the resources to send the waste into the Sun.
-
I didn't mind the topic going off track, just didn't want heaven forfend to be in any way advocating the opposite of the golf story!
Of course it isn't the equipment that matters, just that many people are being forced into a certain photographical concept, that of the DSLR, when all they want is a rangefinder, many people need or want the highlight latitude of film but will be forced to work with digital because film will go away or at least become scarce and expensive. The technology is moving maybe too fast bulldozing everything in its way and what it could do with is a 1-2 year hiatus for everything to slow down, for people to think over what has happened and only then continue. This mad crazy rush isn't healthy, certain companies being able to rise above their competition which then has to close up shop isn't healthy, lack of competition isn't healthy and the removal of an entire age of photography within 5-7 years is far too fast to be healthy.
-
As for waste disposal, no satisfactory solution has been implemented yet, as far as I know. I have a few suggestions as to how you can warn future generations over a time span of 100,000 years, but I bet they aren't popular. I also know about a safe place for waste disposal, but nobody seems inclined to spend the resources to send the waste into the Sun.
Wouldn't the moon be as good and far cheaper? At least I don't think anyone is living there at present and it would be better than it being here...
-
Wouldn't the moon be as good and far cheaper? At least I don't think anyone is living there at present and it would be better than it being here...
It wouldn't be as good (the waste remains dangerous for many kiloyears), but it would be far cheaper.
As for safe disposal on Earth, that's also possible and probably cheaper than doing it on the Moon, but I'm afraid I won't get people to agree with the safety measures and warnings a friend and I came up with:
- multi-layered (5, 10, whatever, in 3D) sarcophagus, each layer strong enough to withstand conventional explosives and extreme high magnitude earthquakes
- the central core contains most of the waste
- small amounts of dangerously radioactive materials/waste between each layer
- large amounts of deformed human corpses (real or artifical) between each layer
- deeply embossed pictograms (think Ramses II style) describing horrible death and mutations on the outside of each layer
- place the sarcophagus somewhere only a direct hit from a civilization-killer asteroid will crush it
The small amounts of nuclear waste between the layers should be dangerous enough that anybody who breaches a layer will get sick and probably die, unless well protected against radiation. Increase the amount, radioactivity and half-time of the radioactive materials for each layer closer to the central core.
This means that if anyone is as bluntly stupid as e.g. the archaeologists and treasure hunters of the 1800s and 1900s, ignoring warnings of horrible death, and decide to breach the sarcophagus, they'll get the message.
Perhaps one could skip the human corpses (real or artificial), although I suspect that none-too-subtle hint might be important.
-
I had written a whole diatribe based on how one could trust humans to screw up anything and everything entrusted to them ending in a rant on the stupidity of letting crazies like the Iranian PM be entrusted with nuclear technology due to political correctness while we slit our own throats to save them the bother....
But then I couldn't be bothered!
In a quote from a Terry Pratchet: If you put a sign above a big lever with the legend 'End of World, Do Not Touch' then the paint wouldn't even have time to dry.
Says it all for homo supposedly sapiens.
-
The technology is moving maybe too fast bulldozing everything in its way and what it could do with is a 1-2 year hiatus for everything to slow down, for people to think over what has happened and only then continue. This mad crazy rush isn't healthy, certain companies being able to rise above their competition which then has to close up shop isn't healthy, lack of competition isn't healthy and the removal of an entire age of photography within 5-7 years is far too fast to be healthy.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=65203\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I cannot agree more, but sadly I believe that some of the larger players are probably fueling this headlong rush because they know it is puting many of their competitors out of business. If the trend continues as it has done in the last 3-5 years we might be left with only 3 or 4 serious camera manufacturers (some of whom might also be sharing technologies) and that cannot be good for us.
There almost seems to be a hard edge to equipment purchase these days, even for the most novice photographer. Thirty years ago you bought a camera happy in the knowledge that it had been on the market for a couple of years, and would be for more years to come. Now there is a scramble to buy only the latest model, or should one wait for the next one?! . . . Even social p&s buyers are asking about their cameras lifespan!
-
Of course it isn't the equipment that matters, just that many people are being forced into a certain photographical concept, that of the DSLR, when all they want is a rangefinder, many people need or want the highlight latitude of film but will be forced to work with digital because film will go away or at least become scarce and expensive. The technology is moving maybe too fast bulldozing everything in its way and what it could do with is a 1-2 year hiatus for everything to slow down, for people to think over what has happened and only then continue. This mad crazy rush isn't healthy, certain companies being able to rise above their competition which then has to close up shop isn't healthy, lack of competition isn't healthy and the removal of an entire age of photography within 5-7 years is far too fast to be healthy.
Amen.
I am an amateur who shoots slides, negs (and some 4 mpix non-DSLR digital). Now and then I will shoot something that I then print in 5x7, 8x12 or 11x14 and hang on my wall because I like it. At my rate of usage, film and developments costs were not onerous. I liked the fact that someone else worried about calibration and keeping their processing equipment current, and I thought that what they charged me for it was reasonable. Quality was a matter of finding the right lab and I did. If the reasonably priced film-processing industry goes away, as it seems to be doing, I will have to spend a lot of time and money on equipment and self-training, to end up at the point where I can print the occasional 5x7, 8x12 and 11x14 to hang on my wall. In some ways, it grates that I will have to expend energy to end up back where I already was. Some of the journey may be fun for its own sake, however; at least I hope so.
I am a high-tech kind of guy, not a Luddite, and I don't want to sound cynical because it's a lousy way to live. I understand that the digital changeover has been a boon to pros, and it's given amateurs new toys to play with. But I didn't need or want new toys.
Prices of D-SLR's will need to come down a lot, and ease of calibration and standardization across devices (colour rendition etc.) need to become a lot easier to manage before I can say that the change improved my life. As it stands, I may have to spend a lot of valuable time doing things that I didn't need to before, just to put some prints on my walls. It's the nature of transitions, though, and I accept that. But some things are getting thrown out that were maybe good to have, as you say.
-
I’m sure this has been said before in one way or the other.... but here’s my two cents.
The biggest beef I have with the current state of digital photography is that you have to buy a whole new camera body just to upgrade the sensor. What a waste! I have an 8 mp, Canon 1D mark II. The body, buttons, dual processors, and fit & finish are high quality marvels of modern manufacturing. With a little luck and care it should last me 10 years. What a shame that I have to sell the camera just to get a few more mega pixels and take advantage of gains in sensor technology.
I want to love my camera and recall the stories that go with the scars of use. But with digital, it’s like falling in love with a fast track floozy. Here today gone tomorrow. You tend not to invest much soul in the relationship. Or maybe I should say, you can’t fall in love with anything that needs batteries.
I’m hoping the next big step in design is upgradeable sensor and firmware. I don’t know if I’m being too practical or too romantic?
-
So,
If I understand this correctly what we need is a new camera that has a thorium reactor; triple encased body shell; interchangable digital sensors (with the ability to slip it a bit of film every now and then); multi-screen user interface that only shows the changes since the last shot; two levers - one marked 'pull to end the world', the other marked 'pull me sucker', the first one not actually doing anything, the second causing the thorium reactor to drop out and end the world.
And provided it doens't run on batteries then we should all be able to fall in love with it.
I think Sony are planning to release it in September with a new model release every three months for the next five years (and yes it will have an easy to access mirror lock up button ;-)
-
David,
What a clever summary! I like it .
-
I don't have a problem with the replacement of cameras every few years, and I didn't when I replaced the Nikon Fs every few years. Besides, you're not replacing the whole camera, only the body -- with a DSLR, the lenses remain usable. The rest of the camera is a complex mass of electronics, and I suspect that trying to fit a different sensor into old electronics would probably cost as much as new electronics; can you imagine the hand work involved? When I got a sensor upgrade on a Kodak DSLR, it cost $1500, and that supposeedly was at Kodak's cost. A better camera, the D200, now costs about $1500, and that includes *lots* of profit.
On nuclear waste, one of you technies answer me this: why not build a railgun on one of our old nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, and fire ceramic-dipped steel/nuclear-waste phone-poles into the sun every few minutes?
I know, I know, Green Peace would complain that we're polluting the sun. But other than that?
JC
-
... I suspect that trying to fit a different sensor into old electronics would probably cost as much as new electronics...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=65278\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course it would, and totally impractical too. We must all have experienced the problem of upgrading our computers. A motherboard is designed to accept a specific range and type of processors and peripherals. After a couple of years it becomes a waste of time and money to upgrade just part of the computer, such as the processor. Better to buy a new computer.
The old film camera body could be considered just a box to hold the film in place. The modern DSLR body is more like an integrated, but specialised, computer. The parts of the camera system that you can fall in love with are the lenses. There's no rapid change taking place there.
-
BTW, I hope you are all looking forward to the day you can buy a Blu-Ray recorder with a 50GB storage capacity (and potential 200GB capacity) on a disk the size of a current DVD disk. You might need it to record future Canon 22mp images, not to mention re-recording all your previously archived material on CD and DVD, which I'm sure you are terribly worried about .
-
sorry folks,
It was not my intention to hyjack this thread, just to make a point the best of the best of the best of piano's (for example) is nothing but firewood when in the wrong hands.
Secondly, all this talk about gear reinforces the fact imo that digital photography can only co-exist with lust for more bigger better gear. If the primary objective of digital photography was creativity, composition, and all those qualities that make prints totally tantalizingly unike, then there wouldn't be such a thing as gear talk. Of course, I'm more guilty of "equipment lust" than anyone else.
jj
-
i have to say that one of the advantages to growing older (though i'm only 35 but when anyone can say - i remember 20 years ago - to me that's old) is how all the stuff you wanted as a kid is now available!
4 years ago i thought "whatever happened to those long sit-down bicycles i liked when i was 10?" then i thought "gee, i wonder if the internet has anything" bammo, recumbant bikes galore!
4 years ago i never thought i would EVER own an inkjet because they sucked. i'd save up for a kodak dye-sub. bammo! i own an R2400.
though i have some experience as a lad in b&w photography and i've played around from time to time with an old nikon F camera, i was so excited when digital cameras started coming out like the kodak dc260. it's absolutely amazing what the "new" industrial age (is there a term for it yet?) has done and brought. while there are many shortcomings and "we wish"'s i feel like there's never been a better time to be alive.
-
good rant con't...
one thing i think that has contributed to my positive attitude is that i've "been out of the loop" for a while. the printer thing for example. i just gave up on printers and never kept up with technology. now, i'm totally surprised and happy! kind of a self-induced time warp thing
-
It was not my intention to hyjack this thread, just to make a point the best of the best of the best of piano's (for example) is nothing but firewood when in the wrong hands.
That's not quite true, JJ. A piano can be a fine piece of furniture, as much prized for its external beauty as its beauty of tone. It can also be a symbol of the musical aspirations of the owner as well as a status symbol.
However, the analogy breaks down at some point, as most analogies do. There's little chance (in fact, really no chance whatsoever) that the inexperienced beginner on a piano could knock out a beautifully executed rendition of a Beethoven sonata. But there is a chance that an inexperienced person behind a camera could take an award-winning photo as a result of being in the right place at the right time, because the lighting just happened to be perfect and because the camera was able to capture the dynamic range of the scene, either in one of it's automatic modes or because a manual setting the camera was on just happened to be appropriate for the scene.
The camera lays the groundwork for the picture. It is in fact the most extraordinary picture-making tool ever invented and it keeps on getting better and better. It's no wonder we are fascinated with the hardware. All the operator has to do is point the thing in the right direction and press a button at the right moment. What could be easier?
Even when things go wrong and the flash doesn't fire, as in the shot below, the picture might still be worth looking at. If this shot had been from a film camera, I would have automatically junked it. However, the automatic settings in ACR gave it a full +4 stops of EC and I decided I liked the result. I like the ethereal glow and tapestry effect. The noise floor of the Canon DSLR has at last served a purpose . (The shot's of an ancient temple in Ayuddhya, taken from a riverboat at night - during a spare moment between the Green Curry Chicken and the serving of the coffee).
[attachment=563:attachment]
-
#Entire darkrooms would be sold on ebay for a pittance as chemical printing becomes 'passe'
To date, I have accumulated a total of nine functioning darkrooms by paying only for shipping. The previous owners were grateful to have their gear rescued from a landfill. You don't even need to pay for darkroom gear at this point.
-
On nuclear waste, one of you technies answer me this: why not build a railgun on one of our old nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, and fire ceramic-dipped steel/nuclear-waste phone-poles into the sun every few minutes?
I know, I know, Green Peace would complain that we're polluting the sun. But other than that?
Other than that, it requires something more precise than a railgun on an aircraft carrier to hit the Sun and avoid the waste following a slingshot trajectory, just creating that much more dangerous, high-speed waste in space.
From what I recall, it is actually far easier to hit Jupiter or Saturn than to hit the Sun;
properly safe waste disposal (into the Sun or another large body) requires active adjustment of the trajectory.
I think the exact answer can be found by application of the principles of orbital mechanics (http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm), but I haven't done math on anywhere near this level in ten years.
-
BTW, I hope you are all looking forward to the day you can buy a Blu-Ray recorder with a 50GB storage capacity (and potential 200GB capacity) on a disk the size of a current DVD disk. You might need it to record future Canon 22mp images, not to mention re-recording all your previously archived material on CD and DVD, which I'm sure you are terribly worried about .
Yep, I'm worried, especially about the lifetime of BR or HD-DVD. Not that it's going to bother me anytime soon.
-
Secondly, all this talk about gear reinforces the fact imo that digital photography can only co-exist with lust for more bigger better gear. If the primary objective of digital photography was creativity, composition, and all those qualities that make prints totally tantalizingly unike, then there wouldn't be such a thing as gear talk. Of course, I'm more guilty of "equipment lust" than anyone else.
I disagree.
It is also a matter of practicality. For someone who's grown up with computers, digital photography and the technicalities of it are of course interesting in themselves. But improvements along these lines are also interesting as tools of the trade for photographers. Photographers had "gear talk" before the advent of digital photography, too.
Find me an artist or craftsman who isn't interested in the tools of their trade at all ...
I don't see how photography should be different in this regard from woodcrafts, weaving or surgery.
Technology matters.
-
Find me an artist or craftsman who isn't interested in the tools of their trade at all ...
I don't see how photography should be different in this regard from woodcrafts, weaving or surgery.
Technology matters.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=65391\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I tend to agree, Jani. How could I not, since I spend so much time on this forum discussing the technical properties of equipment. However, there needs to be a balance. I get the impression that sometimes people take such pride in their ownership of a piece of equipment, it becomes almost like their 'baby' that can do no wrong. They take an emotional stance, like supporting a particular football team.
From my point of view, the whole purpose of discussing photographic equipment is to learn what the equipment is capable of doing, what its limitations are and how such limitations are being addressed (and, indeed, whether or not they even can be addressed) in a future product as technology progresses. I need to know at what aperture a particular lens is sharpest because I'm interested in resolution; what the usable ISO range is because I prefer not to have noisy images (generally) and a whole host of factors too numerous to mention.
It would be a very unusual artist who would choose photography as his/her medium of expression and not be interested in such matters. I'm trying to imagine a situation where such an attitude could resilt in success. I suppose if money were no object and I could afford to buy the best of everything, I might get away with a total lack of interest in such matters, apart from basic instructions on how to operate the camera.