Bipod

The worst thing is when people (and it's always young people) sit in bars or
nightclubs where there is live acoustic music and talk on their cell phones.

Apparently, people under the age of 30 think that live music is just like the
TV set.

No, come to think of it, the worst thing is when the drag out the selfie
stick in the middle of a performance.

Bipod

Which is exactly my point. It's not the catalytic converter that is the big problem on new cars,
it's, way too much electronics: complex, proprietary, difficult to test or diagnose, and impossible
to repair.

Some of these new cars contain over 100 microprocessors -- any one of which can decide to lock up,
or develop some weird intermittant problem. Usually the entire module must be replaced--if the part
is still avaialble.

We are used to a world in which when a Ford part goes out of production, after-market companies
jump in and start making it. My Bronco is 50 years old, and I can buy any part for it (even a new fender).
Most parts I can buy locally.

But that's not possible with ICs that aren't made any more, particularly processor chips. The investment
to design and set up fab for a processors now runs into the hundreds of millions (or for big ones, billions).

Imagine if they had started putting microprocessors in cars in the 1980s and 1990s. Old cars would be full
of processors that aren't made any more and that are totally incompatible with any now made. Even the
companies that made most of these old processors are gone.

Some of these new cars have over 100 microprocessors in them, all running secret firmware. Even if
the processor is still made, somebody's got to reverse engineer the firmware.

If someone offered me Canon's very first camera, "The Kwanon", I would trade them
ten 5D4's for it. Only four were made, and it is thought that none now exists.

I don't want any expensive digital camera, for the same reason I don't want 100 microprocessors
in my car: when it breaks, nobody can fix it except by replacing a board. If the board is out of
production, no power on earth can fix it.

Board level reprairs of surface-mount boards are a real nightmare. I've done a couple (the last
was Vizio TV set -- I replaced a voltage regulator. That went OK because the regulator chip
wasn't surface mount and the board was large and not crowded.

A few years ago I needed a part for my diesel generator that was no longer made. So I walked
into a machineshop with th eold part and the machinest made one. It's been working ever since.

I just replaced the defective mechanical fuel pump with an electric one (a nice sliding-vane).
Again, no problems: well defined inerface, plenty of room to work.

Some things are repairable, some things aren't. The day a digital camera goes out of production, it
becomes a disposable camera.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Well - that doesn't say much for the digital camera industry, does it, Bipod?

You sound like you have a lot of experience, changing out boards, on cars, AND cameras!!!!

The point I made was that the 5D4 is Canon's most advanced FF DSLR, to date (other than the 6D2.)

And, since digital camera technology advances in leaps and bounds, just about every three years, in order to stay on top of it, you need to make those leaps, yourself - in order to be able to produce the best you can. Not so, with film cameras (or much older cars) - since those kinds of leaps, weren't necessary.

As far as car technology - mine's a 2013 - what's that - six years old, now? ... I don't plan on buying another in THIS lifetime. Of course, if things change, from what they are now ... who knows?

Tell you a funny story. The car has a neat LED flashlight contour-molded into the panel at the rear. The other day, I dropped my house keys, getting out of the car, and I immediately thought of that little light, so I hit the button to raise the tail gate, and went to depress it, to get it out of the panel. a) at first, it wouldn't budge. b) when I finally DID get it out, using a pen to lever it - the damned thing didn't work!!!

Bill_de Loc: US

Interesting to hear about being able to keep the old cars going. Do you live in Cuba by any chance? Cubans are famous for not only keeping old cars running, but even looking like new.

---

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Yeah, but a '70 Bronco, is built like a tank, Bill … predecessor to the HumVees used in Iraq!!!!!

Bipod

I understand.

Who's the word's most advanced photographer? Artist? Fiction writer?

"Advanced" is meaningful only if it moving towards something.

What is Canon moving towards?

The evidnece would seem to suggest: cost cutting: mirrorless.

Well , that's not too surprising given that global digital camera shipments have
plunged by over 70% since 2011. If a company can't make cameras better, or sell
as many, it can at least make them cheaper and not lower the price.

What photograph can you take today that you couldn't take last year?
Or five years ago? Or ten years ago?

Hey, I'm just trying to get down to some objective, verifyable facts.

Which is more advanced, the Apollo program or the Space Shuttle program?
That latter had more advanced computers, and more ambitious design, but
it killed two crews, never met its program objectives (it was supposed to make
money!) and was years behind its mission schedule when it was cancelled.

Maybe accomplishing the mission is more important than being "advanced"?


Who says? If I put radio-controlled faucets in my house, am I "advancing by leaps and bounds"?

Ten years ago, the largest digital camera you could buy was medium format. Today, it is medium format.

Ten years go, a B&W film negative had more dynamic range than a color digital sensor.
Today, it still does.

Ten years ago, you couldn't buy a monochrome sensor camera for photography. Today, there is
exaclty one--for $8000.

What would be really "advanced" would be to get back to the excellence that we used to enjoy
when American photography was the envy of the world.

Bill_de Loc: US

"Dynamic Range"

'Once the almighty reason to shoot with analog film over digital, dynamic range is no longer the huge debate it once was in the past. While the dynamic range of an Image is a complex process that takes into account the sensor used, the type of file compression, and other factors, digital is ultimately winning against analog film.'

https://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/film-vs-digital-a-comparison-of-the-advantages-and-disadvantages/

And while digital cameras "may" be more profitable to make, the consumer is saving by not having to buy consumable film.

---

---

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Funny you should say that, Bipod - as I just now (Wed.) put in a "radio-controlled" Touchless Faucet in my Kitchen Sink. … You're referring to that B/W only Leica, I believe. Sure it's only eight grand? …

I do believe - you can now buy digital backs for both 4x5 and 8x10 View Cameras, Bipod - check on it.

Most of the other points you make - are valid, but you're missing the whole picture. Each iteration of digital camera technology - brings with it a) more MP b) more speed (fps) c) higher ISO capability d) more advanced AF e) better capability in regard to coverage (more Focal Points) g) better thru-put

These advances happen every 3-4 years … it's better - if you wish to stay on top of the game - to make your upgrades, along about the same time frame - every 3-4 years. No, this will not necessarily allow you to make better pictures than you did 40-50 years ago, but it will allow you to do digital photography in a faster way than you did ten years ago. I'm not advocating we all make these changes every 3-5 years, but it's one way to stay ahead of the next guy. If that's not important to you, then get an 11x14 Deardorff like Ansel Adams used, and have at it ...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Bipod - checked out a couple things. First, that Leica Monochrome Rangefinder is $7550 body only …

Second - here's a pic of a Digital Back for an 8x10 View Camera …

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I am not a corporate business analyst so I would not endeavor to do a postmortem as the the demise of Kodak or there present state of being. I prefer to remember them well like a dearly departed family member. Nothing is forever- Up here in Canada Sears closed down its operations- I suppose the did not keep up with today's retailing trends. Toy R Us just went down- gave way to the big box stores. Many companies that were considered institutions are no longer with us. What ever happened to the Fuller Brush guy? Avon calling?

So...back to Kodak. As a young hobbyist, every time I had a technical question, I would write a letter to Kodak's Sales-Service Divisions at the State Street Address in Rochester and within a week I would get a big envelope filled with FREE data books and tons of information. At school, I remember them being very supportive of photographic education. I studied at R.I.T. and the were all over that place like white on rice.

When I entered the industry, well Kodak were industry standard. I use film and papers of various manufacturers but their quality control and consistency was unmatched and the TRs,Technical Reps, were the best. Whenever there was an issue at the studio or lab with any of their materials, the TR was on the case and the issues were usually solved in record time.

In the service, I used all there specialized Aerographic materials- they performed well under very difficult conditions.

Upon opening my first studio and lab, the first thing I did was make certain to get a lab franchise. I set up an in-house lab with automatic printers, a couple of custom enlarging stations and a 33" roller transport processor. The roller transport machine were problematic in many ways but again, the TRs came to the rescue and got us back on track.

No doubt, as far as professional markets were concerned, Kodad was in the SUPPLIES business. I was buying film, paper and chemistry if fair quantities right into the 1990. They made some darkroom gear and marketed some machinery, over the years, but that seemed to dwindle. The went out of the view camer business years ago. I can only recall one cold-light enlarger. The Commercial Ektar lens was popular but the never even made a press camera that I can remember. The only pro-gade medium format unit was the Medalist and that was kind of a klunker. It's not surprising that the did not transition back into the high end camera business.

Digital technology has even changed the medical imaging and graphic arts fields. Kodak was big on lithographic materials, color separation supplies etc., medical (surgical adhesives) and X-Ray materials as well as broadloom carpet fibers. Nowadays, most folks are into hardwood floors and area rugs. Times change.

We used to make jokes about "The Great Yellow Father in Rochester" There is the story about the guy who came to Kodak's "Photostat" and blueprint department with this new idea about a "copy machine" and they kinda threw him out. So now the other big tall building in Rochester says "Xerox" on their sign. Then they came late to the party with their Varifax thing and it didn't do well- Oh well! Polaroid's gone too! Alas. Dr. Land invented Polaroid movies but he forgot that video was already invented. Nothing is forever!

LooK to the future- the past?- well, is in the PAST! Takes a real philosopher to figure that out?

Bipod

Quoting from that article:
"According to research carried out by a team of four industry experts, it was found that medium
format film has a potential to capture a jaw-dropping 400 MP photograph, however, after digital scanning,
resulted in a resolution of 50 to 80 MP."

Which is a reason not to digital scan, not a reason to reject medium format.

And if medium format is "jaw-dropping", large format will take your whole head off. Quote:
"Another test, also conducted by Roger N. Clark, noted that larger formats such as 4×5 inches can
capture 200 MP equivalent photographs after being scanned"

What he says about dyanmic range is "Ultimately digital is winning against analog film"
--i.e., it is outselling film. Obviously, that's true. And Cold Duck outsell Dom Perignon--
so it must be better? Wrong.

Quote: "A release by Kodak showcased that most film has around 13 stops of dynamic range.
Today’s modern digital cameras all average around 14 stops of dynamic range, with high-end
units such as the Nikon D810 reaching almost 15 stops. Film continuous to deliver incredible
dynamic range, but today’s digital technology can easy match it."

Wait a minute: "most films" -- what the heck is that? He's talking about color film--
including color slide film! Edward Weston did not work in Kodachrome. Ansel Adams did
work in color, but burned all his color negatives.

He cites no sources for his assertion that "digial cameras all average around 14 stops
of dynamic range." So I guess her personally bought every digital camera made, took it apart
and tested the sensor. Or maybe not....

Actually, Nikon only claims 14.7 stops for the D850 (per Nikon specification ont he
Nikon web site). But Nikon offers no independent testing or evidence of any kind that
I have seen. So please somebody e-mail this article to Nikon, so they can update their specs.

From the very beginning of commercial digital cameras, manufacturers have exaggerated both
the resolution and the dynamic range--just as the auto marker used to exaggerate gas mileage
(until Congress regulated it) and drug manufacturers used to advertise exaggerated claims
until it too, was regulated. "Geritol cures tired blood." No it doesn't.

There are articles on the Internet "proving" that the Alkaline Diet cures cancer, that the earth
is flat, and that Elvis is alive. Part of being a smart consumer is not believing everything you read.

This "article" wasn't published in any periodical, let alone in refereed science journal.
Who knows what the "editorial standards" of PetaPixel.com are, if it fact checks articles,
or if even has an editor. The name "PetaPixel" suggests that it is not impartial on the
subject of digital vs. film.

The author does not offer any reasons or science to support his conclusions, and the "authorities"
he cites are either suspect or untraceable. The "release by Kodak" is never identified--no citation.
So there is No way to verify the information.

The author himself offers no qualification, nor does he say who paid him to write the article.
He doesn't even mention ever having used a camera. It's a typical hack job.

Bipod

Great appreciation.

Kodak's technical data was always excellent. They spent more on photography-related
R&D than any other company. In 1973, Eastman Kodak had 120,000 employees /
"The rise and fall of Kodak: By the numbers"
https://theweek.com/articles/481308/rise-fall-kodak-by-numbers

Kodak films had a reputation for excellent. Then, in 2002, Kodak reformulated it's most
popular B&W films -- including TMax, PlusX and Tri-X -- to reduce the silver content,
making them cheaper to manufacture.

"As a result, Tri-X is now a semi-flat-grained film with color-dye sensitizers" --Steve Anschell,
Darkroom Cookbook, p. 36. Development times changed, and Tri-X now looks
more like T-Max than it used to. (But PlusX may actually have improved.)

Presumably Kodak only did this because it was losing money. But in the electronics
industry -- where digital cameras are made -- cost-cutting is a way of life. Electronics
manufactuers will do anything to reduce parts count. (I know: I ran an engineering
department.)

The future will be determined by what consumers are willing to buy. If we will buy
bread made from sawdust, that's what we'll get. If we'll buy cameras with batteries that
last 15 minutes, that's what we'll get. Its up to you, the buyers.

Consider this a plea for quality and the importance of values other than money.

petercbrandt Loc: New York City, Manhattan

Sorry, don't even know of Craig.
I've been surprised how many Peter Brandts the are. I had one working for me in NYC protesting real estate taxes.

petercbrandt Loc: New York City, Manhattan

Andy, that was a truely great article. It answered my original question.
Thank you !
Peter

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Thanks! I read it a while ago and it stuck in my mind.

Andy