Migrating Technology

[ysabetwordsmith]

omnivorously had this to say about shifting technology and cameras:

Also, it's apparently becoming difficult to acquire a film camera; one of my friends is worried about being able to buy film for her camera, which she'd like to last her for another decade. And they aren't making the polaroid film anymore. Yes, there are many advantages to digital cameras. But they're missing ... I'm gonna have to say mystique. I mean, I don't get sentimental, and I don't bemoan the good old days, and I'm of the opinion that even if things aren't getting better (speaking as a queer female person, at least, I would say things are improving) they are getting different rather than worse. But for some reason ... I didn't like waiting around in the dark room, but I liked the moment when you saw what you had. I liked the physicality of the process. I'm going to miss it. Digital seems like cheating, somehow.

This bothers me too. Film and paper photos are vastly more durable than digital. It makes my inner archivist nervous to see so much precious and irreplacable data stored only in electronic format.

On the artistic side, there are things that can be done with film that don't work the same in digital format. Just because there's a gizmo for it doesn't mean it will work as well as a glass filter or a sophisticated darkroom technique. Film is an artistic medium, as much as oil paint, and oil didn't go out when acrylic was invented, because they don't work the same.

With technology, alas, there's a tendency to move into and then out the other side of a zone of usefulness. I can work a simple to moderate film camera. I can't work a digital camera, because electric things have a tendency to die when I touch them. Many devices are getting so complicated that they aren't worth the bother of using. That's intensely frustrating. *ponder* Though it does give me another point on my techno-evaluation list, to go after the Amish rule of making sure the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. New Rule: "If it's so much bother to use that you won't actually use it, then don't buy it." It drives me NUTS when there's a perfectly useful version of something that can be made, but is no longer available because it's been superceded by useless whizgigs.

Comments

[moosl.livejournal.com]

Yes, there are many advantages to digital cameras. But they're missing ... I'm gonna have to say mystique.

I am 100% digital these days, but I started with film. There is magic is the darkroom that digital can't even dream of. I recall a friend who was experimenting with emulsion that you apply with a paint brush. She successfully put an image on her tennis shoes.

[omnivorously.livejournal.com]

Well, the advantage of electronic storage is that lots of copies can be made.

I'm assuming that part of the reason film cameras are on the way out is because pros find high-end digital cameras to be satisfactory replacements for film cameras. Also, computer programs can do things that no filters could ever do. So perhaps some effects will never be seen again, but due to the possibilities of technology, they won't be much missed.

[dianavilliers.livejournal.com]

By way of declaring my biases, I couldn't do what I do in my journal without digital, and I flatter myself that some of it approaches art. It certainly gets closer than any writing I've done, and I enjoy it more.

The lack of a non-electronic version of my work I see as a plus. I can distribute my work worldwide using less of the world's resources than it takes to heat my bathwater[1]. I have evidence that it brings more people pleasure than it ever would if I printed, framed and hung it on my walls.
I have considered the possibility that I might lose my work to date - it would take a house fire or similar as I backup to DVD once a month, which I don't keep off-site. Yes I am aware of the possibility of bit-rot. It's a risk I'm informed about and that I'm prepared to live with.

On the other hand, there are people out there who do their art using a-box-with-an-hole-in-it and sensitised glass plates. It will almost always be possible to resurrect obsolete technologies given sufficient motivation. If some one or some group really really wants Polaroid film, I imagine that there's some equipment out there going cheap...[2]

[1] Actually, I haven't done the figures on that one, but I think I might have to now. Heating water takes a fair amount of energy...

[2]FSVO cheap.[3]

[3]Yeah. I'm a geek. I footnote my comments.

a thought

[morningdove3202.livejournal.com]

....would a fire proof safe keep a DVD from getting damaged?

Re: a thought

[dianavilliers.livejournal.com]

It would be easier for me to just stash them at work. I figure that the chances of (hard-drive meltdown) AND (disaster at work) are getting low enough for comfort.

[greenkira.livejournal.com]

I adore digital. Shoot high resolution in RAW and you can do anything - shadows, darkness, tone, saturation, grit and dreams, building an image up or simplifying and clarifying it down to its essence. I've never had a darkroom, and have been playing with digital paint since I was 15, and the main thing I think when I see film is how much you *can't* do with it.

That said, I actually got a pinhole attachment for my Canon DSLR last year. Haven't done a lot with it, just played with it while I was bored at a cabin, but I love the slow and dreamy quality of the images it produces. Digital doesn't have to mean high-tech and soulless.

A couple examples: (http://kirahagen.zenfolio.com/p1042731457/?photo=120706424) (http://kirahagen.zenfolio.com/p1042731457/?photo=260950750)

The problem with using a pinhole attachment (it's really just a body cap with a tiny hole in it) is that the images end up pretty gritty looking if you've got any dust at all on your sensor. I haven't cleaned these ones up - I just pulled them out of a "family visit" gallery to illustrate what I mean. One's clear black and white, the other toned.

I do think digital images tend to be processed a little less than they should be in terms of color and contrast. My favorite set of filters is one for mimicking different film looks. The thing is, I can pick the film by what will bring out the best from any given picture - without having to shoot at least 24 images in the same run in those tones and at that ISO, and then pay all the processing costs for a roll which perhaps had NO worthwhile images on it. My very favorite thing about digital is the freedom from those expenses - the upfront costs are higher, but once they're paid you're set free. You can just shoot and keep shooting, adjusting ISO as the light changes and adjusting the colors and contrast in software later.