A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

RANT- Reality Check-"The Early Days of Digital Photography"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 1st 04, 01:40 PM
Drifter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RANT- Reality Check-"The Early Days of Digital Photography"

Okay, this one is driving me nutz so I'm going to blow off a little
steam and be done with it.

Repeatedly I have been seeing/hearing the phrase "back when digital
photography was new", sometimes with a wry intent, but more often with
complete seriousness that carries a sort of blasť "been there/done
that" attitude (possibly a symptom of a sort of time-compressed,
multitasking, revved-up, "Moore's Law" mentality that many of us live
with today).

I have to admit that I find it triggers equal measures of irritation
and humor.

Photography in general stems from the ancient concept of the "Camera
Obscuras", but for the sake of my comparison I consider modern
photography to be a direct descendant of the first film negatives
created by Henry Talbot in 1834. That gives photography a pedigree of
at least 170 years. Even starting from the first Leica (1924) we have
a photographic history of 80 years!

By contrast, digital photography (using a sensor as opposed to a film
negative) can, at best, claim a history of roughly 17 years with
Kodak's first commercial sensor around 1987 or, more practically,
about 13 years because the 1991 release of the DCS cameras by Kodak
could be considered the spiritual equal of the stunning release of the
1900's "Brownie" camera. Today (2004) we have moved well into the
equal of the "Leica/Kodachrome" phase (roughly equal to 1936 in film
terms).

Obviously development of digital photography has been accelerated
since digital took only 13 years to cover roughly the same span that
took film photography 36 years. This is no real surprise as many
aspects of digital photography (especially lens technology) rest
firmly on the well developed shoulders of film photography. However
even at this faster pace it seems apparent that digital photography is
still a very young sibling to it's parent (film photography).

Just as Talbot had no idea what his creation would (pardon the pun)
develop into, we have no idea what digital photography will accomplish
in 80 (or 170) years.

We're standing in the shallow end and I'm telling you now that digital
photography is still very, very, new.


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
  #2  
Old October 1st 04, 02:04 PM
Charlie Self
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Drifter states:

Okay, this one is driving me nutz so I'm going to blow off a little
steam and be done with it.

Repeatedly I have been seeing/hearing the phrase "back when digital
photography was new", sometimes with a wry intent, but more often with
complete seriousness that carries a sort of blasť "been there/done
that" attitude (possibly a symptom of a sort of time-compressed,
multitasking, revved-up, "Moore's Law" mentality that many of us live
with today).

I have to admit that I find it triggers equal measures of irritation
and humor.


No more so than the 20 somethings on TV ads who claim some grease mixture has
kept their skin "young." Or the people I listen to sometimes, just turned
27-28-29 or so, talk about "when I was young." Or some TV ad woman talking
about how she stays slender--at 25!

It's either societal or a part of the human condition. We all want to be more
experienced, thus older, than we are, until the joints actually start creaking,
eyesight begins to fail, and we have to get up 3-4 times a night. Then we'd
rather be 30, but without a loss of knowledge.
Charlie Self
"Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
  #3  
Old October 1st 04, 03:57 PM
Gene Palmiter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Way back when I got my Oly E-10 I would hear people whisper "That's a
digital camera!," others would freak when I showed them a photo on the
viewer...they had no idea that digital existed. I think that is what people
are refering to when they talk of when digital was new...the days before it
was ubiquitous. I do agree though that we are where the PC was before the
IBM-PC. There are no standards.


  #4  
Old October 1st 04, 03:57 PM
Gene Palmiter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Way back when I got my Oly E-10 I would hear people whisper "That's a
digital camera!," others would freak when I showed them a photo on the
viewer...they had no idea that digital existed. I think that is what people
are refering to when they talk of when digital was new...the days before it
was ubiquitous. I do agree though that we are where the PC was before the
IBM-PC. There are no standards.


  #5  
Old October 1st 04, 04:09 PM
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Drifter wrote:

Okay, this one is driving me nutz so I'm going to blow off a little
steam and be done with it.


Man, if this be a rant, you've set the curve in the opposite direction!
I thought a rant was supposed to be rude, condescending, filled with
righteous indignation, no real point, and generally poorly written. You
have "failed" to reach any of these benchmarks.

Please do "rant" again sometime soon; I enjoyed it, and agree "the early
days of digital" can be equally amusing/irritating.

--
John McWilliams
  #6  
Old October 1st 04, 04:09 PM
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Drifter wrote:

Okay, this one is driving me nutz so I'm going to blow off a little
steam and be done with it.


Man, if this be a rant, you've set the curve in the opposite direction!
I thought a rant was supposed to be rude, condescending, filled with
righteous indignation, no real point, and generally poorly written. You
have "failed" to reach any of these benchmarks.

Please do "rant" again sometime soon; I enjoyed it, and agree "the early
days of digital" can be equally amusing/irritating.

--
John McWilliams
  #7  
Old October 1st 04, 04:10 PM
Robert Lynch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gene Palmiter" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
I do agree though that we are where the PC was before the
IBM-PC. There are no standards.


What kind of standards do you think are lacking in the world
digital photography?


  #8  
Old October 1st 04, 06:45 PM
Big Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:57:56 GMT, "Gene Palmiter"
wrote:

Way back when I got my Oly E-10 I would hear people whisper "That's a
digital camera!," others would freak when I showed them a photo on the
viewer...they had no idea that digital existed. I think that is what people
are refering to when they talk of when digital was new...the days before it
was ubiquitous. I do agree though that we are where the PC was before the
IBM-PC. There are no standards.

Standards?
As opposed to film?
I can go into a camera store that stocks 35mm film, and see the lack
of standards there.
Or lenses.
Or cameras themselves.
Standards? We've got hundreds of standards, none of them standard. :-)

How about Pentax calling themselves "The official camera of the
Internet"? What standard elected them that?

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
  #9  
Old October 1st 04, 07:17 PM
Gene Palmiter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Robert Lynch" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
"Gene Palmiter" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
I do agree though that we are where the PC was before the
IBM-PC. There are no standards.


What kind of standards do you think are lacking in the world
digital photography?


Well....RAW files....why can't they be standarized so that the programs that
handle them can improve? Lion Battery packs...do they all have to be
different and proprietary? But....the market will decide what the standards
will be....but not for awhile.


  #10  
Old October 1st 04, 07:52 PM
Jer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Big Bill wrote:


How about Pentax calling themselves "The official camera of the
Internet"? What standard elected them that?



Theirs, of course.


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sad news for film-based photography Ronald Shu 35mm Photo Equipment 200 October 6th 04 12:07 AM
Outdoor photography resources - articles, newsletter, forum, digital editing PT Digital Photography 0 September 13th 04 07:54 PM
New Digital Photography Community Forum Announcement George Digital Photography 1 June 24th 04 06:14 PM
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash elchief In The Darkroom 3 April 7th 04 10:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.