This is a small Arizona community of perhaps 15,000 souls. At one time, 4 or 5 studios put bread & button their owners' tables. Now, only one is left. I took a roll of Agfapan 100 in to be printed. This has to be sent to Tucson, where they still do B&W. The studio owner, in his mid-50s, had some things to say about digital. 1) His studio is 80% digital now, and will be 100% within a year. 2) He just sold 4 Mamiya RB67s and was glad he got a good price for them on eBay. 3) Digital is making more serious inroads on medium format than it is on 35mm, which he thinks will be around a while, but...4) "I wouldn't put another dollar into film-based photography," he says. 5) If a studio isn't digital in 4-5 years, it will be out of business. 6) Whereas, with film based photography it can take several days before a customer's work can be delivered, given an adequate staff, with digital the customer can walk away the same day with his photographs.

The studio owner showed me 2 20x24 inch portraits. One was of a baby. The other was of a family of four. Both were digital, but looked just as if they were film-based work. He told me that the only area where digital was still behind the curve was in group photos. There aren't enough pixels to render numerous heads sharply.

The owner compares the current sea change in photography to the introduction of battery operated digital watches. For those old enough to remember the all-mechanical watches of yesterday, they went out like the dinosaurs-- practically overnight. He says it is ironic, because the Swiss actually invented the battery operated digital watch. They showed it at some watchmakers' convention as a mere curiosity, never thinking the thing could obsolete an entire industry-- one that was a national institution. So, aparently the Swiss created the very Frankenstein that killed their mechanical watch industry!

Says the studio owner: "When the paradigm shifts, you must be ready!"

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), March 22, 2002

Answers

It is getting a little tiresome to hear about the dead of filmbased photography and the implicit "if you don't jump on the train while you can...".
He is right that there are many applications where digital makes sense. Especially in commercial photography. Fortunately I do not make a living from my photography, so I do not have to worry until (and if) film and processing becomes too troublesome or too expensive -or unless if I feel that the advantages of digital outweighs those of the conventional process for my applications.
Photography coexists both as a commercial as well as a artistic medium.
If you look a similar medium; printing. You will notice that techniques (older than photography) has survived in the artworld (eg. etching, wood block prints) even though they have been commercially dismissed years ago in favor of more efficient technologies such as off-set printing etc.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), March 22, 2002.

Frank, thank you for delivering this thorough insight into the soal of person who makes his living with photography. As far as the watches thing is concerned your studio owner might be correct as far as the mass market is concerned. But there still IS a strong demand for mechanical watches and certain swiss and german top brands are producing beautiful business-figures every year.

Hopefully the LEICA management and their customers are doing a similar good job as their watch counterparts for some time to come.

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), March 22, 2002.

I am still using a mechanical watch.

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), March 22, 2002.

Great post! I recently did a shoot for a company that wanted some "fresh" images for their website. I asked the art directer if she wanted traditional or digital images. She said she really did not care, but had always used transparencies and would have her staff scan the winners for use on the web. I asked if any of the images would be used for print, and she claimed they would not. So I spent about 30 seconds explaining web resolution to her. She had never worked directly with a photographer who shot digital. I had never shot digital for a client. The result was that out of about $15,000 worth of equipment I had to shoot with, I did the entire shoot with my "old" pro-sumer digital camera; a Nikon 990. As we worked, I showed her the mini-images and she made instant decisions and selections. I got an immediate idea of what she wanted, she got immediate feedback on what I could do. Win - win. I finished the shoot at about 12:30 and the art director went to a local restaurant for lunch. I quickly edited the shots -- more than I knew she needed -- and burned her a cd full of 2 mega-pixel images. I dropped it off at the restaurant before she had finished lunch. Needless to say she was impressed with the service. She called a few days later to reiterate how much time the digital images had saved she and her staff in the post production efforts.

The moral of the story? Digital will ultimately, if it has not already, eliminate the need for the use of traditional film in commercial applications. Output for fine art is another story, and I think the verdict is still out here, but film is the hands-down winner for tonal range and resolution. Lastly, the hobbyist/advanced- amature market will shoot with whichever medium floats their boat, be it digital, be it film, or be it both.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 22, 2002.

This sounds a bit apocryphal. How many small towns of 15,000 ever supported 5 portrait studios? Also like the bit about insufficient pixels to render "all those heads" in group shots LOL! Also curious what the fictitious studio owner uses now for "capture" after he sold his "four" Mamiyas.Digital steam-rollering MF but not 35mm?The high- end Swiss watch industry is quite healthy.Just because you won't drop 5 grand on a watch doesn't mean others can't.BTW, what's the connection to Leica?

-- Gary Watson (cg.watson@sympatico.ca), March 22, 2002.

Whether this story is apocryphal or not, there is little doubt that in commercial photography, digital will bury conventional photography sometime in the next 30 years (if not the next 15). The only question is whether the art/amateur market is large enough support the continued manufacture of all those wonderful emulsions that we take for granted nowadays. Unfortunately, producing photographic film requires some very sophisticated manufacturing processes that I don't see transitioning to a homebrew set-up very easily (unlike wood block printing which requires a block of wood, ink, paper, and a sharp stick). Of course, you can always coat your own plates and make some cool images, but they'd have to be awfully small plates to fit into your Leica.

Don't worry about the "death" of film, just enjoy what you've got while you've got it. And if Moore's Law holds for digital image capture for as long as and as well as it has for digital computation, you probably won't even miss film when it does go away (for reasons other that sentimentality, that is).

-- Ron Buchanan (re_buchanan@yahoo.com), March 22, 2002.

Most of the portrait studios I know of have invested or plan to invest in digital backs for their MF or LF. Anyone who sells their RB's for a digital camera should probably consider mounting it inside an 8x10 view. Customers paying for a pro studio portrait sitting aren't particularly impressed facing the same type of camera they have at home.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 22, 2002.

Actually the mechanical watch industry is very healthy, and one doesn't have to drop 5 grand. The average price for an automatic is probably closer to $1800, with many models falling in the $500 to 800 range.

The watch industry took a dive during the 70's and 80's, but is much more vibrant now due almost totally to mechanical watches, and the Swiss aren't the only ones making them either.

With one guy in town getting all the business, I'm sure he can afford the digital gear necessary to provide quality output, many can't and honestly the only avantage digital has is efficiency IMHO, sure it can make an important difference in the reportage field, but portraits hmmmm.

-- Dave Doyle (dave@soilsouth.com), March 22, 2002.

Unfortunately, producing photographic film requires some very sophisticated manufacturing processes

This is where the rubber meets the road. People can say anything they want about what they think should happen, but in a few years we will probably have digital and Max 800. I know what I will use when that is the choice.

What always amazes me is the fear of anything new I see here. You'd expect some creative initiative, a desire to use new processes that can expand the scope of one's work. I'm not that far away from replacing my 35mm equipment with digital (just waiting for a few more price drops) and I expect it will result in a different direction for some of my work. I look forward to that...

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), March 22, 2002.

"... but in a few years we will probably have digital and Max 800. I know what I will use when that is the choice."

Amen, brother. I would only say that a few years will probably be more like quite a few years, but it's coming.

-- Ron Buchanan (re_buchanan@yahoo.com), March 22, 2002.

I'd like to know how a town of 15,000 could support 4-5 studio photographers?

And, how a 20x24" print looks like a 6x7 film print until you put more heads in it?!?

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), March 22, 2002.

What always amazes me is the fear of anything new I see here.

You can leave me out of this group, but frankly I despise working on the bluescreen for too long a period. It's a strain on my eyes, wrists and ass (yeah maybe I need glasses and a better chair). Yeah I'll make the transition when necessary, but right now I don't have to defrag the enlarger or re-install the OS on my camera gear.

-- John Ludd.... (dave@soilsouth.com), March 22, 2002.

You can leave me out of this group

Yeah, but I like being amazed. Keeps me going...

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), March 22, 2002.

Keep your digital watches, my submariner is a work of beauty and my M6 is a joy to use. That said, I would be interested in a digital body which will use our Leica lenses.

-- Don M (dmaldonadomd@excite.com), March 22, 2002.

Watches are jewelry.

Cameras are ...

Hmmm, maybe that analogy isn't all that bad for a lot of people...

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), March 22, 2002.

You can leave me out of this group

The group of the "fearful" that is...But I enjoy poking fun at those who too often espouse the "Technology as Saviour" mantra (and often blindly).

-- Dave Doyle (dave@soilsouth.com), March 22, 2002.

Anyone who thinks digital watches have or will replace mechanical watches very soon might be expected to accept digital photography as the answer to all photographic needs. As far as digital watches go, they were a popular novelty at first, but today I know no one who wears a digital watch. I worked for a company that made a high-end digital watch in the '70s. When they tried to give them to employees as anniversay or retirement mementos, the employees complained mightily; so the company went back to presenting them with Swiss clocks and Rolexes.

-- Keith Nichols (knichols1@mindspring.com), March 23, 2002.

Photography, like all other activities in life, is about more than the end product. It is also about the process. I have a Leica M6 and a Nikon FM for the same reasons I own a Rolex instead of a Casio. Or a Land Rover instead of a Honda Civic. Or even a Mac instead of a PC. There will always (ALWAYS!) be an appriciation for hand work and love that go in to a product. They may not be the mass-market leader, but these things continue to hang around in their niche. Look at the market for audio turntables. CDs quickly destroyed the vinyl industry over the course of just a few years, but the high-end market for turntables thrives - kept alive by fanatics just like those that contribute to this list.

Digital will quickly win (or has won) in the commercial photography and the 1 hour photo snapshot groups. So what? Large format is still around despite the "quality" of 35mm. Tri-X is still popular despite the introduction of C-41 B&W film and color film. Crazy people like me (and you!) use an M6 despite the Nikon F5 auto-everything camera. See my point?

-- Wesley Bowman (wbowman@mac.com), March 23, 2002.

Digital will not solve or help anything, but it does change things. Like many I find the idea that things will improve in any real sense because of digital photography absurd - do you remember the wild dreams of the paperless office - what happened to that?

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), March 25, 2002.