As long as digital has been part of publishing, it's been a wonderful addition to film. scanners, pagemaker, laser printers, early 90's tech like iris printers being used for artistic purposes, film recorders, dye sub printers, it's been a long line of commercial products.
Originally Posted by cliveh
2002 brought us the affordable DSLR as one more change. They were affordable because they were meant to be built in large quantities and had to be marketed as such. I was among the first in line for a Nikon d100 when it came out. I bought it not as a replacement for film, but a useful and creative tool. I've used DSLRs for many things film is impractical for, and for some things instead of film when either film or digital would the job just fine.
While the market is what promotes the new technology, it's also what saves the old.
Who would create art if there were no demand? I mean, you can't steal from folks until the end of eternity to
produce that which nobody wants, so in the end, there must be a demand, if only from hobbyists and the like.
A surprising amount of old tech survives in the hobbyist realm, though, and if times got so tough that humanity
lost some of its technological foothold, I'm pretty sure there are folks who could step up and ease some of that old
tech up into the foreground again.
These marketeers are only giving us what we want...
I disagree, the function of marketing is to create demand for products which the public didn't previously know existed in many cases, and also make them so dissatisfied with perfectly good products they already own to want to "update" them to keeps the wheels of industry turning.
Originally Posted by Hikari
I'm with CGW.
BUT I love cameras and film - I make my own prints in a make-shift darkroom (aka the hall bathroom) and I do it for the same reason I make my own beer, grind my own telescope mirrors, build my own radios, roast my own coffee and (even) make my own little sailboat. I do it because it gets me back to the roots of these various endeavors. When Photoshop lists the "Burn" or "dodge" tool, I know what that means! It's very satisfying to spend an evening in the darkroom, making a handful of prints. Sometimes I do question myself ("I could hit the print button and make superb prints on the computer!"), but the results and the process are very gratifying.
I shoot tons of digital - my wife and I shot almost 3,000 photos on our last vacation. We printed the best and made a superb album. I'm quite happy with feet planted in both worlds and I readily acknowledge that film is tougher to master - that's pretty much why digital has swept the mass market. The average Joe could care less about all the nuances of this film hobby that fascinate us.
I really enjoy reading the posts on APUG!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
That is the only thing that really changed... as well as greater resolution. People want fast and good and easy and fool-proof, that is what was the market. Oh... and immediate feedbackl wtihout the cost and hassle of Polaroid products. Despite our mutual love of film, that market (and the quest for small cameras) seems to prevail and be quite healthy.
Originally Posted by jp498
BTW, commercialism isn't a bad thing. It is the underlaying reason for inventing new technologies, and improving older technologoies too.
I don't think it's quite that simple. I think there are people who are, by nature, inventors. They like creating "better mousetraps". There are also people who like to find ways to make money.
Originally Posted by BrianShaw
Probably the best business partnerships are when the two get together. Apple in the early days is a perfect example. Woz was the inventor and Jobs the marketer.
When we have people who ONLY are in it for the money we get an form of rampant capitalism, much like we have now, where marketeers CREATE a demand and the products may often be junk. These are the products that leave a bad taste in people's mouths because they know they have been burned.
So what we have then is too many marketeers and not enough inventors.
How this can relate to photography is that we end up with too much whiz bang and not enough real art. Buying the newest toy doesn't necessarily make you better, just faster. If you're good, that's a good thing maybe, if you're lousy, you just churn out more crap, faster.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
How true. I agree completely.
Originally Posted by blansky
Well stated, sir! (+1)
Originally Posted by zsas