Death of the "Camera Counter"

[Ace-Garageguy]

Before anyone asks, I do have a small digital camera for when "now" means "NOW" if it's electronic media; it's not bad, but I always feel something is missing. 

Charlie Larkin

Thanks for the informative post, Charlie. Good to know somebody who understands.

It's impossible to beat digital for 'snapshots' and business or other 'in-progress' records, but for serious work, I'll probably always prefer film. (I prefer sailboats, too. )

[Jon Haigwood]

The big problem with the disc camera was hat the negative was so small the pictures had terrible resolution and the pictures were grainy.

[charlie8575]

Thanks for the informative post, Charlie. Good to know somebody who understands.

It's impossible to beat digital for 'snapshots' and business or other 'in-progress' records, but for serious work, I'll probably always prefer film. (I prefer sailboats, too. )

You and I are of the same mind.

In 2013, one of my best friends growing up got married, and his wedding present was photo work. When we got together a few months later, and I was able to present him and his wife with their photos, she said "wow, you did better work than the the pro we hired for the rest of it, and the pictures are really nice. And this is film?" 

Yep, and as I had a real tight budget at that time, I couldn't even pop for the good stuff like Kodak Portra (best skin tones of any media, film or digital, the wedding and portrait photogs who use film either by habit or request usually use this,) and had to use Kodak Ultramax 400; very good results in a wide variety of lighting conditions and action/still. I was actually rather surprised (and pleasantly) at how well it all came out.

Charlie Larkin

[GeeBee]

I've still got a load of 35mm film in the freezer, most of it is transparency, which I love, back when i was working as a full time Pro' working as a travel photographer and doing freelance work for many travel magazines, tourist boards, postcards etc, I used a 120 Mamiya, not the lightest camera in the world but the photo's I got from that were so much better than 35mm, Fujichrome Velvia 50 was probably the best film I had ever used.

I had my own colour darkroom using Jobo equipment, enlarger and processor, but stopped using the darkroom when work got so busy I had to outsource all my work to a Pro' lab in B'ham, what was my darkroom is now my hobby room.

 

[Foxer]

You and I are of the same mind.

In 2013, one of my best friends growing up got married, and his wedding present was photo work. When we got together a few months later, and I was able to present him and his wife with their photos, she said "wow, you did better work than the the pro we hired for the rest of it, and the pictures are really nice. And this is film?" 

Yep, and as I had a real tight budget at that time, I couldn't even pop for the good stuff like Kodak Portra (best skin tones of any media, film or digital, the wedding and portrait photogs who use film either by habit or request usually use this,) and had to use Kodak Ultramax 400; very good results in a wide variety of lighting conditions and action/still. I was actually rather surprised (and pleasantly) at how well it all came out.

Charlie Larkin

This really presents my switch to digital, Charlie. It all has not much to do with the camera or media ... it's all about the person looking through the lens.

I'm not a great photographer thou I've been trying for 50 years. I just don't have "the eye". I've had many cameras and none has made any difference, but digital has finally given me freedom to see what I have without waiting .. that means a lot to me. If the shot is bad, I can take another before the sun changes. I hated film back in the day .. wait days and then have to reshoot . or try another year for the right conditions.  The quality is a silly argument, IMO. Digital resolution has passed film and you can make any digital photo mimic any film ever made.

The difference .. ... it's all about the person looking through the lens.

[Harry P.]

....I couldn't even pop for the good stuff like Kodak Portra (best skin tones of any media, film or digital...

I can take any digital photo (or a scanned print, for that matter) and manipulate it in Photoshop to look perfect. Don't need any film at all. Just sayin'...  

 

[Aaronw]

When I worked in Yosemite National Park it was not at all uncommon to see people taking photos with the old glass plate box cameras. It is a hobby and for some that includes less convenient methods. Kind of like buying pre-built diecast cars or building a model from a kit.

My first camera was a Brownie Hawkeye which was probably 20 years old at the time. Also had a plastic bodied 120 camera at some point. As a teenager I had one of those disk cameras, then got fairly high end 35mm point and shoot from my Grandmother who ended up with two similar cameras. I used that for many years until buying a Canon 35mm SLR in 1999, I debated on springing for that camera and remember the words of the camera store salesman, who said digital will never be used for serious photography... Less than 2 years later that SLR was back in the box as I was using digital exclusively. At least the lens got back into use when I bought a Canon digital SLR in 2010. I remember having to change rolls of film every 24-36 shots, now if I'm taking photos of something like a car or other potential modeling subject I'll take 24-36 shots of a single object just to make sure I catch all the small details.  

I don't miss film at all, but I can appreciate those that consider film to be a part of the experience. No different that vinyl vs CD / MP3 or vintage car vs new.

[GeeBee]

I debated on springing for that camera and remember the words of the camera store salesman, who said digital will never be used for serious photography...

I never thought digital would take off, not for the non professional anyway, when i was working freelance for Canal & Riverboat, Waterways World, Yachting monthly and other travel magazines and brochures, there was nothing to beat than Fuji Velvia 50 6x6 exposed at 80 asa, with developing times adjusted in the darkroom to compensate, the colours were so saturated, all the editors I dealt with loved the colours that film gave me.

My first digital camera came free with a new computer and printer outfit back in 2001,I never really took to it, 2MP, which gave a photo of 6x4" and it eat AA batteries like they were going out of fashion, so it sat in the draw, still can't remember what happened to it, as I know I don't have it now, I carried on using good old film until 2004 when I bought the Nikon D70 when that was released, it was cheaper and superior to the earlier and more expensive D100, after I had got used to using digital and the software which wasn't cheap at the time, but I bought a few books and learnt the in's and out's of Photoshop and Lightroom, I still have a few film cameras but haven't used on since around 2006,but these days all my photo's are taken on my Nikon D7000, I'm not even sure that the magazines I still do the odd commision for still accept film now.

 

Edited October 2, 2015 by GeeBee

[Ace-Garageguy]

The people who said digital would never be for serious photographers simply didn't understand the technology's function enough to be able to envision how it would mature.

I haven't kept up with the technical data, but at one time, I seem to remember that the highest resolution digital CCD can produce finer "grain" than the sharpest film.

I'm fully aware of the amount of image manipulation that can be done in both analog work and digital, and I feel they both have their places. The difference comes with personalities...whether a man would prefer to do his "darkroom" work with chemicals, filters, enlargers, etc., and develop a very intimate relationship with the process (which admittedly doesn't offer anywhere near the breadth of options as digital manipulation does), or prefer to sit, mouse and click.

"Process" is rapidly falling out of favor in every sphere. The desire for instant gratification and effortless ease of use applies equally to photography as to anything else.

Of course, to work at Harry's level of proficiency in digital media, you have to really have your stuff together too. There's definitely a lot of "process" in what he does.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[Foxer]

As usual, well said, Bill.

[charlie8575]

 

"Process" is rapidly falling out of favor in every sphere. The desire for instant gratification and effortless ease of use applies equally to photography as to anything else.

Of course, to work at Harry's level of proficiency in digital media, you have to really have your stuff together too. There's definitely a lot of "process" in what he does.

One of the reasons I teach a bunch of pre-teens and teens how to use film and a darkroom is exactly this reason. 

The process...the hands-on, the full, total understanding of what you're doing and why. The understanding of limits and abilities and why certain things have certain capacities.

Kids don't get that in school now, in virtually any form, and this is my way of combating that. 

While what Harry does is remarkable (and I mean that with all sincerity,) the manual versus electronic process is so very different, and learning how to do things with your hands and mind instead of a computer is what a lot of kids need to do in order to help reach their maximum potential.

That, and it teaches things like patience, technical accuracy, thought and planning. 

Charlie Larkin

[Jon Haigwood]

One of the reasons I teach a bunch of pre-teens and teens how to use film and a darkroom is exactly this reason. 

The process...the hands-on, the full, total understanding of what you're doing and why. The understanding of limits and abilities and why certain things have certain capacities.

Kids don't get that in school now, in virtually any form, and this is my way of combating that. 

While what Harry does is remarkable (and I mean that with all sincerity,) the manual versus electronic process is so very different, and learning how to do things with your hands and mind instead of a computer is what a lot of kids need to do in order to help reach their maximum potential.

That, and it teaches things like patience, technical accuracy, thought and planning. 

Charlie Larkin

I couldn't agree any more with that

[Ace-Garageguy]

One of the reasons I teach a bunch of pre-teens and teens how to use film and a darkroom is exactly this reason. 

The process...the hands-on, the full, total understanding of what you're doing and why. The understanding of limits and abilities and why certain things have certain capacities.

Kids don't get that in school now, in virtually any form, and this is my way of combating that. 

While what Harry does is remarkable (and I mean that with all sincerity,) the manual versus electronic process is so very different, and learning how to do things with your hands and mind instead of a computer is what a lot of kids need to do in order to help reach their maximum potential.

That, and it teaches things like patience, technical accuracy, thought and planning. 

Charlie Larkin

...and exactly the reason, very well stated, that I'm such a strong proponent of trying to get young people involved in model-building...or really anything that requires manual as well as intellectual skills and dexterity.

[Roadrunner]

Years ago, I worked for a professional photography outfit as the development machines technician. If ever I were to smell developers, baths and fixes again, I'm absolutely sure I'd be teleported back to that lab (in my mind), as it was a remarkable experience for me. They photographed tons of stuff, from food to stereo equipment to cars, and had a huge cyc wall for the purpose. With different lighting setups, they could create a myriad of cool effects. I loved it.

[Harry P.]

I'm old enough so that when I was in college, our photo classes were still with film and photo paper. I don't know when digital cameras were invented, but if they existed when I was in college, they didn't exist in the mass market. We learned how to do everything the "old" way... load our own 35mm spools with bulk film, load our view camera film holders, delevop our own film (B/W and color), print in the darkroom, "burning" and "dodging" and the whole nine yards. I remember the process of developing 35mm color film was particularly tedious... the whole "chemical A to chemical B to rinse to chemical C to rinse to chemical D" etc. process took, I seem to remember, around two hours! 

And when I started doing graphic design, we still did it on art boards with Rapidograph pens and acetate overlays with "Parapaque" cutouts where the images would appear, and photostats of the images "for position only" on another overlay, and having the type set on paper and cutting up the type and pasting it down. What an involved, complex process. About as labor intensive as you can imagine.

Today I do it all in Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign. Today I can do in an hour what would have taken me all day to do back then, and today I can do things with graphics and photos and type that weren't even possible back then, let alone easy. Doing what I do electronically vs. "the old way" has given me literally an instantly available unlimited color palette, the ability to do anything to a photo that I can imagine, and I never have to clean a clogged airbrush, I never run out of acetate or art board halfway through a project, and I can correct mistakes infinitely with no trace.

I can't imagine ever going back to doing what I do the way I used to have to do it.

[Roadrunner]

Wow, the name Rapidograph (Koh-I-Noor), certainly brings back some memories, Harry. I had my own set for years (in addition to the standard adjustable nib devices), to use in my earlier drafting/design days. In fact I just recently got rid of them, and now of course wish I hadn't. I spotted a complete set of old Leroy lettering machine/guides on an auction site the other day. So many fond memories.

[Harry P.]

I remember the Leroy lettering system with those white templates that sort of looked like rulers, and that weird little gizmo that held the technical pen while you traced the letters on the template. Wow! Can you believe things were that primitive in our lifetimes? 

I still have a bunch of Rapidograph pens, with the 35-40 year old ink still in there and fused solid. I'd have to soak those pens for weeks if I ever wanted to get them to work again!

[Ace-Garageguy]

I would really be interested in researching the differing abilities of illustrators who first had the talent, and then developed it into what must be Harry's level of exceptional eye-hand coordination (what every good artist has to have in bucketloads) to work with traditional media and THEN made the switch to digital...as opposed to someone who's never developed the skills to use pencil, pens, paper, brush and the like, and has trained ONLY using digital media.

I work with a man, Gary Overacre, who spent his career as a commercial illustrator using traditional media, and who never made the transition to digital...got out of the business actually, as it was coming in.

[Roadrunner]

Dump those old pens in a good ultrasonic cleaner, Harry, that'll fix them right up. Though I don't have one at the moment, they're also wonderful for cleaning airbrushes. I used those old Leroy lettering guides for years, and they were time consuming, no doubt about it.

(I suggested to my old boss that after I'd comfortably made the transition to AutoCAD, my output had increased six fold, so we should split the difference, with him paying me three times as much. He was,... "amused".)

[Foxer]

Many fields have gone through the changes that Harry documents and all for the better, IMO. I do know how tedious film developing was and never had the desire to go through it. All this new way is due to the availability of powerful computers to us all.

I'm a Structural Engineer and went through school with an agonizing slide rule. I used my first computer in 1964 and was SOLD! This was an IBM the size of a refrigerator with no screen and key punch card interface. But even almost 10 years later in my last year of college the school had only their main frame computer and wouldn't allow us to actually RUN our programs that solved simple rigid frames as they claimed it would take the computer 10 years to solve! One of the worst problems in my everyday work was solving a truss for stresses. This would typically take me a full week of simple calculations .. but MANY of them. At the end of my career I could input, solve and check the same truss in about 3 or 4 hours on a desktop computer. Believe it ... the computer you are reading this on is VERY powerful.

The same power has made photography ... both cameras and post-processing a dream compared to those smelly old labs of the past. Photoshop strains my computers more than any structural problem.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Foxer

[Crazy Ed]

     The final blow for me came when I got an Epson R3000 Printer. I can now print Pictures, Images if you must that I feel Good about Framing and hanging on the Walls of my Home. The other facet to Digital Imaging is the abulity to relay an image pretty much instantly around the World. I've had hunderds of Pictures on the "Local" News less than 20 minutes fron taking them. But to me the downside to Digital is Most Pictures never exist outside of the Digital World and because of that are more likely to no exist in the Future. I have a Picture of my Great Grandfather that was taken in the1890's, just how many of todays Images do you think will be around 120 years from now? 

[aurfalien]

The new  J.J. Abrams Star Wars are shot entirly on film.  The speed and warmth are simply very appealing.  As 48fps and above seem odd, too realistic.

 

[Roadrunner]

I recall a special room (with dark windows) being built in an office I used to work in, Mike. It was used to house the computer workstations for the AutoCAD guys. They kept it like a meat locker in there. How's that for a trip down memory lane?

[charlie8575]

     The final blow for me came when I got an Epson R3000 Printer. I can now print Pictures, Images if you must that I feel Good about Framing and hanging on the Walls of my Home. The other facet to Digital Imaging is the abulity to relay an image pretty much instantly around the World. I've had hunderds of Pictures on the "Local" News less than 20 minutes fron taking them. But to me the downside to Digital is Most Pictures never exist outside of the Digital World and because of that are more likely to no exist in the Future. I have a Picture of my Great Grandfather that was taken in the1890's, just how many of todays Images do you think will be around 120 years from now? 

My dad belongs to the Photographic Historical Society of New England, and about a year ago, we went to a lecture dealing with this very topic.

We've increased the number of pictures we're taking exponentially, but the lack of prints and hard photos is actually already starting to make historians' and other jobs harder in documenting our times. 

An interesting contrast. I'll see if I can locate the lecture notes.

Charlie Larkin

[charlie8575]

I remember the Leroy lettering system with those white templates that sort of looked like rulers, and that weird little gizmo that held the technical pen while you traced the letters on the template. Wow! Can you believe things were that primitive in our lifetimes? 

I still have a bunch of Rapidograph pens, with the 35-40 year old ink still in there and fused solid. I'd have to soak those pens for weeks if I ever wanted to get them to work again!

I just got a new set of Rapidographs at Artist & Craftsman in Cambridge. Love them. Great for detail drawings, and where I still frequently ink my drafting to prevent smudging, I really needed a set. I had some Staedlers, but I didn't care for them. 

I'm looking for one of the lettering guides now; been keeping an eye open on eBay.

Charlie Larkin