Digital vs Analog...

 

I replied to a comment from Earl a couple days ago, regarding Hasselblad cameras.  From my perspective in the photo industry, Hasselblad cameras were the pinnacle.  I had to look it up: yep, Hasselblad is still making cameras, rethought for the digital age...

Apparently, they are still the pinnacle, capable of producing 100mg raw images.  That said, who needs 100 megabyte photo images?  I don't know who is actually using these.

I did try out a Hasselblad digital back right before we made the switch from film to going 100% digital.  It produced a 20mg file.  We had the latest Mac equipment at the time, and the files bogged down the computers.  Plus, the digital back had to be tethered to the computer, making it a hassle to use anywhere but in the studio.

Enter the Kodak Professional digital camera, based on a Nikon F5 (the 35mm pinnacle camera at the time)...

It was a beast of a camera that produced 6mg digital images raw.  Worked up in Photoshop, they became 18mb files.  We could use them in the studio, on location, and outdoors.  We bought two of them and started the transition to a full digital operation, including 3 printing stations, a Kodak "proofing" software suite (which meant we had to have a Microsoft OS computer to run it), and a wide format digital printer capable of producing up to 30x40 prints.

We were well ahead of the competition and the learning curve, since we had been doing all our own color printing from film in house.  What the digital lab brought: no mixing of chemicals, no need to work in the dark.  We used dye sublimation technology, giving us prints that were less prone to fading, like traditional photo paper.  With Photoshop, our retouching abilities were limited only by imagination, as opposed to retouching on a color negative.

Consumer digital cameras were crap.  Potential clients were suspicious of what a "digital portrait session" would produce.  Some people actually said to us, "We don't want digital - it looks bad."

To which we would reply, "Would you like something like the prints you see on display here?" pointing at the large prints on our walls.

"Yes."

"Those were all made with electronic imaging... digital."

"Ohhhh."

We used that phrase, "electronic imaging," instead of "digital."  There was no going back for us - we shut down our film and photo paper processing.  If someone needed an image from a file that we had shot on film, we had installed a color negative scanner to produce a quality digital file.  Our transition was complete.  It was not an inexpensive transition.  The digital cameras were more expensive than any film based Hasselblad.  The dye-sub paper was more expensive than silver-based photo paper.  All of our mounting, texturing, and print finishing was the same, so there was no learning curve there.  We went from printing paper proofs to putting "proof" images in a bound book.  Other early digital adopters were going "proofless," requiring people to come into the studio to make their selections from a computer.  It was another cost to make that proof book, but it allowed people to show their images to grandparents and other family and friends.  We felt it was worth the cost with larger orders.

Commercial clients quickly embraced the new technology - they no longer had to have a four color separation made from each image to have it printed - they could go right from the files we delivered to the printing process for catalogs or magazine ads.  (Yeah, there were scads of catalogs and magazines back then.)

And then the quality of consumer digital cameras improved while the cost dropped dramatically.  People quickly developed the attitude of "if that shot isn't good, take another - it doesn't cost anything!"  Quite different from the attitude when shooting film.  People figured out that they could copy almost any image in their home, with a scanner or their new digital camera.  We could see that it was going to be impossible to protect the ownership (copyright) of an image.

Crap digital imaging was becoming acceptable.  We decided it was time to retire.  We sold the studio and stayed on for 90 days to train the new owner's staff.  Unfortunately, he did not participate much in that process.  I suggested to him that he consider changing the business model: less emphasis on selling finished prints, and raising the price for the sessions to make up for it.  The retouching, printing, and finishing was labor intensive... I would average 2 hours shooting a session - proof printing, sales, image selection, retouching, printing, and delivery would take much longer than that.  It was my belief that the new business model for photography would be: image creation based rather than finished print based.

By that point (2006), we were out.  At one of the last seminars I did, I told the professional photographers there: "The next big change you will see in our industry will be high school seniors having a small device that will hold their senior portrait digital files, and they will be able to beam those files to their friends with similar devices.  Trading wallet-size photos will be a thing of the past."  Most of them scoffed.

And then came the first iPhone in 2007.  I was right on about "the device," but didn't see the demise of having professional portrait sessions done.  People were taking their own "senior portraits" with cheap digital cameras or these new smart phones.  Grandma didn't need to have actual photos of the grandkids to show her friends, when she could let them look at her phone.

Smart phones decimated the professional photography business.  And the film/camera industry.  There are a zillion "professional photographers" (self-proclaimed, they're all over social media), but very few actually making a living by creating images.

While I went through a period where I didn't care if I picked up a camera or not, I appreciate making images for my own enjoyment these days.  Whether it is the full moon, Murphy being cute, or shooting some video while out on one of the bikes. 

I remember when that first "Aha!" moment hit me regarding photography: first year in college, my (late) best bud Bill was showing me around the darkroom.  I watched an image come up on black and white photo paper while in the developer... I was amazed.  It was the beginning.  That first Hasselblad didn't come until years later.