Digital Overhead

Ask this dude in this classic 50s sedan if he'd like to "upgrade" to a shiny new Toyota, Honda, or VW. My guess is his answer would be no.

Is it just me, or is there something ironic about a business that so prominently advertised its ability to finance its customers purchases being so prominently out of business?

Photographers who got into the hobby at the blossoming of the digital age find it hard to understand the attraction that other photographers have for film cameras and darkroom equipment. Many digital photographers find this attraction quaint at best. Others think it’s downright reactionary. How can anyone in their right mind not take advantage of so much obvious speed, economy, convenience, versatility and quality? Is film really all that wonderful? Is it really worth all the hassle involved with processing and printing it?

There is no one right answer to that question. I would like to point out, however, that it’s not all peaches and cream in the land of digitalia. Although you can a lot of wonderful things with a digital camera, these wonders require a certain amount of overhead. The greater your ambitions, the higher this overhead will be.

Let’s start with the camera itself. For it to be of any use to you you’re also going to need a computer. And not just any computer: a computer with plenty of hard drive space for all those digital photos you’re going to be storing on it--and for the photo imaging software you’re going to buy. You might need more RAM too. There’s no such thing as too much RAM when you’re doing digital image processing. Oh, and that LCD monitor the retailer threw in a part of the package? You’re probably going to have to upgrade that to something that provides consistent color over a wider range of angles; something you can actually calibrate. You do have a monitor calibrator, don’t you?

Don’t feel too smug if you’ve already got a smokin’ computer loaded with all the latest and greatest software. The time will come when you’ll feel the need to upgrade. It may be because you bought a new camera that only works with the latest Raw converter that’s only available if you have the latest software running on the latest operating system. Or it could be because Adobe informs you that you now have to have the latest version of Photoshop before you can qualify for the upgrade price on the next version. And since the new version may be released sometime this year, you may have to upgrade twice in less than 12 months. (This is not hypothetical. It is actually Adobe’s new policy.)

Whatever the reason, you’ll upgrade to the latest and greatest operating system or digital imaging software, only to discover that some of your older drivers, profiles, plug-ins, and other miscellaneous bits and pieces no longer work in the new environment. Now you’ve got to upgrade them too; that is, if you can. Not all developers have the time and money to update applications they released years ago. They might not even be in business anymore. I’ve described these miseries in a previous post. So real is this phenomenon that hard-core digital photographers have been known to maintain separate computer systems for the sole purpose of keeping older yet fully-functional software and drivers running.

Contrast this to what life is like if you’re the average film shooter. Forced upgrades are the furthest thing from your mind. Whatever camera you have is already “obsolete” and therefore not a candidate for an upgrade. In fact, if it’s something like a Leica MP, a Nikon F6, or a Hasselblad 503CX it’s pretty much as good as it gets.

The introduction of new film cameras and lenses is unlikely at best. If a manufacturer introduces a new film (admittedly rare these days), you can use it in any camera that accepts whatever size it’s available in. Access to ready sources of film processing is downgrading, if anything, yet if you already have a darkroom up and running then processing and printing is no more difficult than before. Depending on your preference you can practically eliminate computers from your workflow or use them only when you want to display photos on the web. And believe it or not, some people still prefer the results they get with film to digital.

Please understand that I’m not trying to resuscitate the now tired film vs. digital argument. Digital has clearly “won” and I myself have no plans to give up any of my digital cameras and switch entirely back to film. I’m just saying we should all keep in mind that the digital overhead can be heavy at times. Those who opt out of paying it may be more sane—and having more fun—than you think.

Comments

[Tim]

"Forced upgrades" exist in the film world, every time a manufacturer ceases production of a particular film or, eventually, when a format becomes obsolete. See how many of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format are still in production.

Film also comes with issues of wear and tear, not just on the shutter, which leads to repair and potential forced upgrades as well.

There are still plenty of aspects of Adobe that can't be replicated elsewhere (including, particularly, its fairly slick UI to those that have the way of it); however, what I will say is that it *is* now possible to have a high-image-quality all-open-source photo-processing workflow.

[cfw]

I think Adobe just shot themselves in the foot, only it hasn't started to hurt yet.

cfw

[Aubrey Silvertooth, Jr.]

Very nice post. I have recently brought my Pentax K1000 and ME Super out of retirement. I carried both of them with four lens on a short hike this weekend. I also carried my Nikon D90 and its two lenses. I found I enjoyed the manual focus, center needle metering, and slow moving workings of the K1000. I love the viewfinder in the ME Super.

The Nikon is nice, but is lacking something. The negatives were lovely. The digital files were nice, but missing something. Maybe I am simply waxing romantic; I am, afterall, a history teacher. I am beginning to second guess Nikon. Maybe I should look at the K-5. At least, with careful selection, I would only have to carry one set of lenses!

[Ranjit Grover]

Gordon,
New softwares and hardware need not cause too much concern for an average photo enthusiast.
Any digital camera available now can give better results than the best film camera. So one need not upgrade a digital camera all that frequently. As for computers and softwares, if one can learn Linux there is whole new world out there where lunch is free all the time. It is not too difficult, just different. There are real good raw converters and fairly good photo editors out there, all free. Of course there is no snob value. I have tried them and compared them to some commercially available softwares and I am satisfied with the results. They are not a polished and slick as the commercial ones, but they work just as well. After all what really counts is the end result, that is the print. Linux and the world of free and open softwares is a tremendous resources that is being side tracked in the name of fashion and convention. Try them, you might like them. Cheers and freedom from commercial softwares. Ranjit Grover, India.

[cfw]

I see where Adobe has now backed off their "new" policy of no longer allowing PS update prices for 3 versions back. I guess that shot in the foot started to sting a bit.

cfw

[george plummer]

This post hit a nerve as I've just read that Lightroom 4 will no longer work with Windows XP. I've already given up trying to bring my version of PS up to date. Photography as a hobby used to involve rationalizing the cost of another lens, or maybe a better tripod. Now, the photo hardware has to fight for disposable income with computer software - and hardware. I don't see going back to the Pentax MX or ME, but I am getting very resentful at Adobe.

[Brian Entz]

My studio workflow is all digital. But my personal work is all film. For me film is about having fun. It's as if I had a favorite toy and a bigger, better, faster toy comes along. But I'm not done playing with this toy!! Giving up film would mean putting away all my favorite beautiful toys. I simply enjoy film. I enjoy all aspects of it. I enjoy fussing over which film to use. I even enjoy scanning my film.
I could mention some of the practical benefits for film for me but I wouldn't try to argue digital over film. I have the affore mentioned whiz-bang gear and computers and monitors - they have their place. I'll just say I enjoy film and all the surrounding aspects of it and I prefer it in the same way that some people prefer vintage cars.

As far as image quality goes I'll just say the two are different and vive la différence!

One last thing- film for me is more real. It's the reason I prefer the old Yoda to the new Yoda. The old Yoda at least existed in physical space - if only as foam and latex. The new Yoda exists only as a binary code and that to me is viscerally less real. My Canon 5D Mark II is fantastic but incomprehensible to me. My Nikon FE2 and my other analog cameras are such that I could take them apart and repair them if I needed to. That makes them seem to me more real because they are comprehensible.

I'm fine with this being nothing but my own subjective impressions.