man & nature ku # 1/2 ~ one day to the next
Monday, March 31, 2008 at 09:30AM 
24 hours • click to embiggenFYI, I have decided to drop the 'urban' from my Adirondack landscapes with signs of man. After scanning many of my earlier 8×10 negatives, many of which are truly urban landscapes, it made me realize how totally un-appropriate the word is for pictures of things here in the mountains. Not that I'm thrilled with the phrase "man & nature" but, in any event, there it is anyways.
As you know, I rarely talk about anything technical, photography-wise, especially about gear. Nevertheless, I have been thinking about a relatively generic gear issue related to digital cameras vs. film cameras. And, in fact, the issue is really only part of the bigger picture about techno babble. By "babble', I don't mean "yakking", rather, I am referring to the tower of babble of competing proprietary technologies.
You know the kind of babble I mean. As an example, consider web browsers. Each of the various browsers sees content differently and, not uncommonly, to the point where some content is either mangled or completely missing or unavailable. There is no commonly shared standard. It's as if, when you are reading the morning paper, you need a different set of eyewear to see the type properly, depending on what kind of press it was printed on. Plain and simple, this situation is just flat out stupid.
That said, let's get on to cameras. Back in the good ole days of film cameras, the standard for photographs print result-wise, was film. For instance, no matter which camera you loaded your Kodachrome into, you got a 'Kodachrome' picture. The difference in lens quality aside, it did not matter whether you loaded your Kodachrome into a disposable camera or a flagship Nikon SLR, you always ended up with a Kodachrome picture.
In the digital camera world, that is simply not the case. The is no standard. Every camera manufacturer has a different standard regarding how their products 'see' color, tone, contrast, sharpness, etc. And, just to make matters even more babble-ish, there are none too subtle differences in how different camera models within the same manufacturer's line up 'see'. Plain and simple, this situation is just flat out stupid.
I can understand (up to a point) differences, from manufacturer to manufacturer, in the way cameras 'see' relative to color, tone, and contrast, but not relative to sharpness. Isn't that suppose to be the domain of optics? Apparently not. Not when, in the case of the 4/3rds domain as an example, I can put a Leica lens on a variety of different manufacturer's cameras - Olympus, Panasonic, Leica - and get different results sharpness-wise. Plain and simple, this situation is just flat out stupid.
I also understand the relentless 'advances' in sensor technology. Although, the cynic in me suspects a certain amount of incremental release of such advances in order to keep us buying. That not withstanding, I don't understand why manufacturers, let's consider Olympus DSLRs, can not, once they have introduced a new and improved sensor together with its companion color engine, put that sensor in all of their current production models. Why? So that all Olympus DSLRs have identical Olympus color, contrast, tone, and sharpness.
If I were to buy the Olympus flagship E-3, the only Olympus I could have a a legitimate backup is another E-3. If I were to use any other Olympus DSLR as a backup, I would have to sacrifice all the sensor / color engine advances of the E-3. This is true of every other camera manufacturer. Plain and simple, this situation is just flat out stupid.
In the good ole days, I had my flagship Nikon and I could choose any Nikon SLR as a backup because, no matter what backup I chose, the image quality would be exactly the same from camera to camera. And, it didn't matter if my Nikon flagship was not the latest and greatest flagship because image quality-wise, they produced exactly the same results. For that matter, I could use any manufacturer's camera as a backup and, guess what, the results would still be exactly the same - a Kodachrome picture would still be a Kodachrome picture.
If film and, more importantly, the means to get it processed weren't disappearing into the sunset, I'd chuck the whole digital camera thing, the whole kit and kaboodle, into the trash. That said, you'd have to pry my mouse out of my cold dead hands when it comes to getting me out of the digital darkroom.
PS - it should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway - all of my Plain and simple, this situation is just flat out stupid statements are plain and simple, just flat out stupid for the consumer. Because, on the other hand, camera manufacturers are, plain and simple, just flat out laughing all the way to the bank.
Reader Comments (2)
So you spent a great deal of money getting your gear and darkroom together and then along comes digital and you have to start all over again? No thanks. That's a Class-A ripoff. I'll stick with film — still plenty left and as I'm into B&W I've been doing it myself for the last 25 years and will keep on until I drop or become bored with the medium.
nice thumbs