[disconnekt]

Seen this question on another site, and wanted to see what everyone's thought's about it.
How would the the technology be now? Would it be much further along than what we have today?
Same goes for film, how would it (quality wise) be now if digital photography never happened?

[6BQ5]

Maybe would have really low grain high ISO film...

The base may be thinner and stronger to allow more shots per roll...

APS film may have taken off...

We'd have way more reversal film to choose from...

Kodak would still be around while Lomography, Adox, and other smaller players wouldn't be...

[blackcloudbrew]

I think there would be advances in scanner technology and software. Scanners have basically come to a standstill.

[LFLee]

Seen this question on another site, and wanted to see what everyone's thought's about it.
How would the the technology be now? Would it be much further along than what we have today?
Same goes for film, how would it (quality wise) be now if digital photography never happened?

start shooting film about a year ago and wonder this question myself....

for sure, I wouldn't be able to afford the medium format film cameras that I have now, as well as those top of the line 135 cameras...
but at the same time film options become less, develop become more difficult...

if no digital,
I believe we will have more choice in films, better, new films will be available. New Portra 800 maybe as fine as Ektar 100?
We might see Autofocus version of PENTAX 67, so heavy that it will come with free life time massage vouchers.
film developing machine and scanning machine will be cheaper, easy to use, and "everyone can develop and scan at home"..

[old4570]

For digital not to have happened , there would have to be no personal computers , not flatbed scanners etc .
In fact a lot of technology , technology that was used to advance film , would also not exist .
So unfortunately , one goes hand in hand with the other ..


No digital , hmmm , possibly stuck with 1970's tech level film and cameras ..

[tvdtvdtvd]

For digital not to have happened , there would have to be no personal computers , not flatbed scanners etc .
In fact a lot of technology , technology that was used to advance film , would also not exist .
So unfortunately , one goes hand in hand with the other ..


No digital , hmmm , possibly stuck with 1970's tech level film and cameras ..

Exactly. The question is an interesting one, but it's a bizarro world sort of question. One could
argue that as soon as the microchip was invented, digital photography was inevitable. It's possible
some unsurmountable hurdle might have been encountered limiting the present today capability to digitally
render a photograph, but to speculate 'what if digital never happened' is to wind back the clock 60+
years, then play forward assuming 'digital never happened'. Honestly, I have no idea what cameras
would be like in such a bizarro world. I was born in 1969 and my entire existence has been in
the digital age.

[lesmore49]

Other than improved films....I don't think there would be a lot of change. Digital has so much more potential and has recharged the photo industry.

[TaoMaas]

Other than improved films....I don't think there would be a lot of change.

That's what I think, too. Really, beyond the functions that are purely digital, the cameras themselves haven't advanced all the much. Yes, yes...auto-focus and program modes have improved, as well as a few other things like shake reduction, but that improvement is minuscule compared to all the other benefits that digital brought about.

[ivanvernon]

My PZ-1P and MZ-S cameras were a step forward in developing some of what we generally (often inaccurately) assume became available only with digital cameras. Another approach to the question is to ask what do film shooters miss when shooting film rather than their digital cameras. The main thing I miss is the ability to see the results of a shot prior to developing it and before making adjustments for the next shot. Some of the medium format cameras actually did have Polaroid backs to enable a sort of awkward preview.

. . . so I am wondering (as a non-engineer) what sorts of external sensor input would have to have been developed to provide an immediate feedback. My ideal film camera thus would have a back LCD window providing a view of each shot on a particular roll of film, with the possibility of paging back and forth over the shots already taken on that roll. Any such technological development would be immensely convoluted, but without digital challengers on the scene, maybe it could have happened.

[tvdtvdtvd]

That's what I think, too. Really, beyond the functions that are purely digital, the cameras themselves haven't advanced all the much. Yes, yes...auto-focus and program modes have improved, as well as a few other things like shake reduction, but that improvement is minuscule compared to all the other benefits that digital brought about.

Auto-focus, program mode and shake reduction are all products of the digital age. Digital never happened >
no auto-focus, no shake reduction & rudimentary auto-exposure modes at best.

---------- Post added 12-11-2014 at 07:02 PM ----------

. . . so I am wondering (as a non-engineer) what sorts of external sensor input would have to have been developed to provide an immediate feedback. My ideal film camera thus would have a back LCD window providing a view of each shot on a particular roll of film, with the possibility of paging back and forth over the shots already taken on that roll. Any such technological development would be immensely convoluted, but without digital challengers on the scene, maybe it could have happened.

But that advance, an LCD to review your film negatives, is a digital advance. The very technology that would
allow for such a device is the same technology that allows for direct digital image capture. Digital never
happened > no LCD screen.

[hks_kansei]

Auto-focus, program mode and shake reduction are all products of the digital age. Digital never happened >
no auto-focus, no shake reduction & rudimentary auto-exposure modes at best.[COLOR="Silver"]

one could argue that they would have come about anyway, albeit in a different manner.

For example, auto exposure modes may have eventually come about via mechanical means. light meters had been around for many years, either powered, or selenium ones.
I'm quite sure that eventually somebody would have found a way to use that small electrical signal from them to automatically adjust an aperture, or shutter speed setting.

[tvdtvdtvd]

one could argue that they would have come about anyway, albeit in a different manner.

For example, auto exposure modes may have eventually come about via mechanical means. light meters had been around for many years, either powered, or selenium ones.
I'm quite sure that eventually somebody would have found a way to use that small electrical signal from them to automatically adjust an aperture, or shutter speed setting.

Indeed, which is why I said 'rudimentary auto-exposure', rather than simply saying no. Auto-focus could
probably also be achieved without the microchip, albeit in a cruder fashion that probably wouldn't be anywhere
near as fast or accurate as we presently enjoy. Not sure if shake-reduction could be extrapolated from
such a system. Hard to imagine it having the responsiveness and accuracy to be useful without the
microprocessor.

[ivanvernon]

Auto-focus, program mode and shake reduction are all products of the digital age. Digital never happened >
no auto-focus, no shake reduction & rudimentary auto-exposure modes at best.

The auto-focus and program mode on my MZ-S and PZ-1p seem to work quite well, and my FA limited lenses seem to be entirely interchangeable between these cameras and the K-5ii and K-3, while performing auto-focus and program mode quite acceptably, given of course the fixed ISO of the film. Shake reduction, of course, was not developed at the time of production of these cameras, and arguably could not have been developed absent the digital era. Thus, in my view, it is inaccurate to state that auto-focus and program mode could not have existed without the digital era because demonstrably they did exist. Both these features were in an early stage of development, but were already in widespread use by both professionals and amateurs who could afford the cost.

What is less clear is how far auto-focus and program modes could have continued advancing without the digital age. I suspect they would have continued advancing, but not in the quantum leap manner enabled by digital sensors and controls.

I cannot quote a reference, but I seem vaguely to remember that Pentax had an even more advanced successor to the MZ-S well along in development before it was cancelled in favor of switching to DSLRs.




---------- Post added 12-11-2014 at 07:02 PM ----------



But that advance, an LCD to review your film negatives, is a digital advance. The very technology that would
allow for such a device is the same technology that allows for direct digital image capture. Digital never
happened > no LCD screen.

As earlier stated, any such visual capture is difficult to imagine, and the technology to accomplish this task would, in my view, be quite convoluted if even possible.

[Venturi]

Other than improved films....I don't think there would be a lot of change. Digital has so much more potential and has recharged the photo industry.

I'd like to hear your thoughts expanded on the potential of digital over film. Other than a perceived cost reduction per frame I am not convinced that had digital been absent that R&D into film tech would not be eons past our current capabilities.

I would wager the following however: had digital compounded with the accessibility of computer aided "lab work" not happened the value of professional photography services would still be on the rise. I would even lay this down for scrutiny: If digital image processing software not become mainstream, if today in that alternate reality Photoshop costs $1800 by its lonesome (relative dollars to its debut) and a scanner good-enough for high quality image processing costs $800 then suddenly photography isn't quite as attractive as a pro-hobby to the masses.

It's all moot, because digital did happen, of course, but still I do believe that the landscape of the business of photography would be vastly different than it has become with digital on the scene.

[JimC1101]

Well, I woud probably be going to Costco every few weeks and get 6 or 8 rolls for development and then scratch my head trying to remember where did I take that shot from ? Or better yet, of a foot or a lens cap :P