Digital Photography Replacing Standard Photography?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Debbie, Nov 24, 2003.

  1. Debbie

    Debbie Guest

    Does anyone think this will ever happen? If so, please reply with
    your interesting viewpoints.
    Debbie, Nov 24, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Debbie

    Mxsmanic Guest

    For most applications of photography, electronic capture will eventually
    replace film capture. A few niche applications will continue to use
    film in some form. For a number of applications, the switch to digital
    has already occurred--the most obvious (and overused) example is

    In general, applications that emphasize speed, efficiency, convenience,
    or low cost will move to digital. Applications for which image quality
    is the only priority will remain with film for the foreseeable future.
    For example, large-format photography is not threated by electronic
    capture (except for static subjects), and the same is true to a slightly
    lesser extent for medium-format photography.
    Mxsmanic, Nov 24, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Debbie

    Matt Clara Guest

    It's the google troll
    Matt Clara, Nov 24, 2003
  4. Debbie

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    It' is happening now.
    Tony Spadaro, Nov 24, 2003
  5. Debbie

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Yes . . . . . well maybe . . . only in some Western markets, and not
    completely in our lifetimes. The technologies are complementary.
    Basic photography is outside of the realm of most of those on this news
    group. Think drug store film and disposable cameras, and you will see
    the largest group of "photographers". When there is greater profits, and
    lower cost to the end user, for one hour prints at the drug store, then
    disposable digital cameras will replace disposable film cameras.

    There are a few barriers still for this to happen. The greatest is that
    film is really high profit, so there is little incentive for the big
    three, AGFA, Fuji, and Kodak, to abandon the disposable camera market.
    Even then, there are emerging world markets where disposable camera
    sales could be better exploited, perhaps even for many more decades.
    Check out a large discussion on this in this news group within the last

    Sounds like you might be doing a research paper, so I suggest you look
    through numerous posts about this within the last year.

    Bottom line is that film will continue as long as it generates profits.
    Profits will drive decisions much more than technology.


    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    Gordon Moat, Nov 24, 2003
  6. Debbie

    Nick C Guest

    Digital photography serves a purpose to those who need it and to those
    who think they need it. Advertising hoopla coupled with opinions from
    those who follow trends, will do their best to convince others who don't
    need a digicam, they need to have a digicam.

    Nick C, Nov 24, 2003
  7. Debbie

    Leicaddict Guest

    Noted Leica Photographer, Ralph Gibson, when asked why he never accepts
    commercial assignments, answered, "I don't do catshit for dogs!" I think
    digital is the best thing that's happened. It's the perfect catshit for dogs
    medium. Whether you're shooting porno, a McDonalds ad, PJ trash journalism
    for a major "publication", some slut in Dolce and Gabbana with her tits and
    ass hanging out, or last, but not least, Paris Hilton fucking, digital is
    the medium for you. Now serious shooters can be left alone with film. What
    do I mean by "serious shooter?" There are young photographers out there
    shooting, for instance, the Protests in London this past week, the WTC
    protests in Italy, daily life in both Palestine and Israel, third world
    sweat shops, prisons, social class structure, etc. The list goes on and on.
    And all this is being shot by real, and young, photographers with little
    money, older cameras, film, dedication, and talent. And yes, I not only
    aplaud them, I envy them.
    Leicaddict, Nov 24, 2003
  8. This sort of question has raised more heated debates, arguments, feuds, and
    general human misery than it has ever raised any common sense, I think.
    The problem is that the question is ambiguous and rests on a buncha
    assumptions that may or may not be valid, or even relevant. But I'll

    Your question starts in the header. "Digital photography" is actually
    photography that utilizes an electronic sensor array to record the image.
    "Standard photography", I assume, refers to the use of halide emulsion
    film, where the metal of choice is silver, but not always, and the film can
    have as complex an array of components as are useful.

    Both of these are media used in photography. The current buzz is that for a
    segment of the public the we might call the pro-sumer, digital media will
    "replace" film media as the common choice. You must know that media other
    than film has been used for more than a half century: television cameras
    have never used film. You must also know that the use of film came decades
    after the invention of photography. In fact, one might ask if there is any
    common component to all photography, and the probable answer is the camera
    itself. Camera is the French term for chamber, in this case a dark chamber
    where an image may be seen and/or recorded.

    So when you ask if digital photography will ever replace standard
    photography, you are buying into what is, in large part, marketing hype.
    If your question was honestly intended (you are not a troll), then you
    should know that you need a bit more of a knowledge base from which to ask
    this question meaningfully.

    The short answer is: Digital electronic sensor arrays for consumer grade
    (less that $10kUS, perhaps) cameras is a technological advance of a
    fundamental nature. It is a reasonable technology option for prosumers,
    and for consumers in urban areas; prosumers pursue the disposition of
    digital media images in a variety of ways, though consumers are largely
    dependent on what services are retailed. For the prosumer, the digital
    darkroom, with a computer and a printer, is becoming a preferred choice.
    For the consumer, images now on an electronic memory device require the
    availability of means to turn them into prints and/or digital files that
    can be used for email, websites, and the like.

    To expand on that answer, prosumers are everywhere in the world, thanks to
    the global monoculture, but they constitute a minority segment of all
    amateur (non-professional) photographers. Until the electronic media
    becomes mature for retail consumption, most camera users will continue to
    choose the film media.

    Part of your question implies curiosity about what the current boundary
    between these two media comprises. Seems to me that for those people who
    already have a computer as a primary appliance, or tool system, in their
    lives, the addition of a photo printer than can accept a memory stick from
    their digital camera is becoming common. So it may be that digital
    photography for the consumer will be seen to be closely linked to consumer
    level computer use.

    Most people who read and contribute here are competent computer users, most
    of whom own their hardware, and the rest must have computer access in order
    to participate at all. So the answers you get from people in this forum
    are probably, albeit unintentionally, biased toward some established point
    of view on the subject. But you should understand that we are in the

    What will the future bring? Interesting question; I can see that
    photographic equipment embedded in other technology is already available:
    cell phones with cameras; video camera atop your monitor for whatever
    purpose; cameras in binoculars; and there will surely be others. The point
    here is that part of the assumed definition of photography implies single
    frame or still photography. Cinematography is a legitimate form of
    "standard" photography, and I suspect that much of future development will
    also provide more consumer participation in that regard. The "video" is
    probably as much the next big thing as is digital photography.

    In this regard, electronic ergonomics is becoming a buzz phrase, and it
    refers to wearable computer gear. Inevitably, this will come to include
    video recording capability, and thus the ability to photographically record
    our lives automagically.

    So you see, your question, although not meaningless, comprises much more
    than I imagine you recognized. Hope this answer is useful.

    Bill Tallman
    William D. Tallman, Nov 25, 2003
  9. Debbie

    Deathwalker Guest

    If you upload your digital photos to a mail order printing house or take
    your chip or cd into a shop the odds of losing the original photo are far
    lower. Digital is also higher quality and cheaper. Then there is the
    colour corrections, redeye removal selective cropping and selective choice
    of prints in the first place.

    Duff shots don't get printed. Good for the environment.

    Shots don't get lost.

    Reprints on digital machines are cheaper than film. To the point where it
    even justifies the expense of a £1.99 photo cd on the original development
    so that you can have digital reprints in the future. The digital printers
    seem to have a better grasp of their craft than the film lab operators.

    I don't see the point of a disposable digital camera. Its barely worth
    buying a disposable camera. Though prices are more bearable now.
    Deathwalker, Nov 26, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.