thewayne | Minolta calling it quits in the camera business, Nikon focussing on digital

I thought you semi-serious photographers out there might find this interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4627002.stm

On the Nikon side, they're keeping their pro line of bodies and lenses, but are otherwise going mainly digital. Unfortunately this also is the end of their medium/large format and enlarger lenses. More money for Schneider I guess.

http://www.nikon.co.uk/press_room/releases/show.aspx?rid=201

And on Slashdot, this guy takes consumer-oriented flat bed scanners and turns them into digital cameras with 100 megapixel resolution.

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/19/0137225

Basically, photography has been changing radically over the last few years. A year or two ago there were more digital cameras sold than film cameras. There are benefits to both, but it boils down to two things: cost and ease of use. Digital cameras are amazingly cheap for non-professional use and they have a huge advantage over film: no recurring cost. You don't buy film, you don't pay for processing. Just download the images to your computer and upload them to Walgreens or Walmart when you want prints. You don't even have to own a printer.

Film? Lots of solid arguments can be made back and forth on image quality, tonality, grain, etc. They're endless, and frequently devolve into quasi-religious arguments like the Windows/Mac arguments.

For me, in my ever so humble opinion, it really boils down to one thing: money does not equal quality. Spending $5000 on an amazing digital (or film) setup does not guarantee you'll take good photographs, it just means you own a bunch of expensive equipment. Two things produce good photographs: an eye for composition and knowledge of how to use your equipment effectively, i.e. photographic theory. I've taken excellent photos with a (now) inexpensive Kodak 4 megapixel point-and-shoot digital camera. I've taken excellent photos with a moderately expensive Canon Eos 35mm system. Camera equipment are tools that you use for a specific job, different tools for different jobs. In my portraiture class that just started, I'm hoping to use my 50+ year old 4x5 Speed Graphic press camera. You can get them on eBay for $50 +/-.

To sum up: if you don't have a decent eye for composition, and you don't know much about the theories behind photography, spending $5000 on expensive equipment means you'll be producing expensive pictures, not photographs.

Now, on to my rant about the demise of film cameras.

I think it's sad. I love shooting film, I love doing my own developing and printing, just ask my wife how much time I spent in the darkroom last semester! There are things that digital can do that film cannot, and vice-versa. They each have their place. But with advances in digital technology, the things that film can do that digital cannot is rapidly eroding. A lot of professionals are shooting a lot more digital these days, but we're talking VERY serious cameras that START at $10,000 and go up from there! We're also seeing a lot of hybrid photographers: shoot 35mm then do high-resolution scans on your computer. Some don't use the darkroom at all, some will use Photoshop to determine exactly what needs to be done in the darkroom: exposure, contrast, what areas to burn and dodge and for how long. It saves them darkroom time and costs because they use use less chemistry and waste less paper. (I used 12-15 sheets of paper last semester on ONE shot: it had a really nasty burn, that's a good $7 just to get one print right.)

I've been shooting digital for the better part of a decade. It started when Radio Shack aborted their misguided attempt to open a big box store, I don't even remember the name of it. I bought a ONE megapixel Epson digital camera. It had a digital zoom, but otherwise was unremarkable. I got a lot of use out of it, though the resolution of it now seems laughable, it was respectable in its day. Around 2002 I bought a 4MP Kodak that had an optical zoom. Very nice camera, I still have it and use it. Gave the Epson to my nieces. Got LOTS of use out of it, lots of excellent photos. Of course, it didn't have any real control over exposures, but in broad daylight it did a pretty good job.

Then along comes my wife. I think it was in the spring of '04 she bought me a Canon Eos Digital Rebel, a friend of mine who shoots Nikon wanted to get rid of it, at the time he bought it Nikon didn't have a reasonably-priced digital that used Nikkor lenses. I won't be quite so dramatic as to say that it saved my life, but close. I was unemployed at the time and I couldn't afford to shoot 35mm because I didn't have access to a darkroom, much less the cost of film and paper. It got me shooting again, and that creative outlet really improved my mental health/outlook. Best of all, the Digital Rebel allowed me to use my other Canon lenses as I'd been shooting Canon Eos 35mm for years.

So which do I use more, digital or film? Well, probably digital. I frequently travel with it Just In Case when I'm just driving around. If I'm shooting something for the web, I always use digital. School? Usually 35mm, but I would frequently also shoot it with the digital as I'd have my 35mm body loaded with black & white. It all depends on what I'm going to be shooting. I'm going to be using my 4x5 soon and intend to use it for anything that I'd like to make 16x20 prints or larger, 35mm is beginning to show its limitations at 11x14.

Digital photography has had a couple of direct impacts on photography. First, it's opened a creative venue for the general public. These people, if they wanted to take pictures, would probably have to resort to these cheap little 35mm disposables or the (VERY!) expensive per print Polaroid instant cameras. So they pay more for the camera, but they can delete bad pictures immediately. And we can hope that they will learn from their mistakes and progressively produce better pictures.

But it's also cut the legs out from under the film market. Kodak has announced that it will stop production of its black & white paper, but will continue making B&W film and chemistry. They'll be closing a plant in Brazil and laying off 15,000 people. Minolta has gotten entirely out of photography. Nikon has cut back on its 35mm gear. I thought that I had more to cover here, but my brain is beginning to lean towards a nap. So I think I'll accede to its demands and post this and maybe more later.