Wednesday Open Mike: Simple

Re that scary future we were talking about, perhaps I should reiterate my underlying position. I just want photographers to have what they need to do their work, that's all. However that works out and in whatever way, that's my concern.

Whether it's printing out paper so they can gold-tone it, or a lens they can use in the rain, or the chemistry (that was the term, even though the proper word would be "chemicals") for tintypes, or pigment inksets that don't fade, or focusing that doesn't make noise while taking 4K video, or whatever it might be.

Diane Arbus, 1967. Photo by Tod Papageorge.

We've almost always been dependent on companies to give us what we need to work, and many dedicated photographers end up using quirky sets of equipment and materials that do what we want but don't necessary have the widespread support of a mass market. So anything that allows companies to provide working photographers what they need is good, and anything that threatens the continued supply of what we need is bad. That's all there is to my position on this.

You can go way back to Frederick Evans, who quit photography when WWI interrupted the supply of palladium from Russia and commercial Pt/Pd papers stopped being produced. Or consider Michael A. Smith, who was so wedded to Kodak Azo contact-printing paper that when Kodak discontinued it, he started manufacturing a replacement himself. Or Ctein, who, when Kodak stopped making dye transfer materials, mortgaged his house and filled up his basement with stockpiles of the materials (we sold the last batch of dye prints he made here at TOP in 2013).

As a magazine editor, a regular leitmotif of my life was fielding panicked cries for help from people who were losing access to favorite materials or needed equipment. Something could no longer be fixed; something could no longer be imported; something was being discontinued. But it's not just darkroom materials. We don't feel the lack much yet when it comes to digital cameras and devices, or inkjet printers and papers, but that's only because we've been in a period of growth and technological advancement, when anything we've lost has been replaced by something better, and when most things we want but aren't getting have easy-enough workarounds. That tends to make us complacent, encouraging the belief that our peculiar needs will always be taken care of. But that doesn't have to continue forever. In fact, it can't continue forever. There will come a time when we could get better, or usefully different, digital tools in the past than we can in the then-present; and there will come a time when advancements we wish for and need will not be forthcoming because no market will support it.

I can't give you the details because I don't have a crystal ball. Having all your equipment orphaned because your favorite company went out of business, however, or not being able to get a favorite camera repaired, are things I've already been through in digital. I saw the need for mirrorless cameras years before they finally arrived. I've heard from people regularly who want or need something that's not available, from an Epson R-D1 replacement to a digital TLR, and in some cases never will be.

Yes, naturally, human beings do make do with what they have. And someone not having what they need to make artwork or photojournalism or fine photographic prints is not a tragedy, so don't accuse me of hand-wringing. I'm just describing the position I've staked out, is all. I'll say it again: I just want good photographers to continue to have what they need to do their work. Whatever that means for each individual and however it works out.

Simple.

Mike
(Thanks to Stanleyk)

"Open Mike" is the not-always-on-topic editorial page of TOP. It's supposed to appear on Wednesdays, and sometimes does.

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP/Yale Spring Photo Book Offer
(Ends June 30th or when supplies run out)

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Jim Simmons: "For instance...quality film scanners."

Michael Perini: "I do think you are correct to raise the issue because 'This time is different.' If you want to use old film cameras, you don't need big industry. Just as Michael Smith with his Lodima brand (Amidol spelled backwards), film and paper can be made with a (relatively) small investment. There are all kinds of boutique film and paper brands now. No will be building a sensor fab in their garage any time soon. And no one will be building their own inkjet printer. All the wonders of digital photography came to us at a price—its very existence depends on the economies of scale only a mass market provides. So we very well could see 'niche' products disappear.

"On the other hand, creative people often find a way to adapt to what is available. But it is not always possible. Evans is a good example. For him there really was no substitute. Those long-scale prints couldn't be made with a workaround. Sadly, short of taking up wet plate, there isn't much we can do about it."

Joseph Brunjes adds: "This is one of the reasons I took up wet plate photography. It is an insurance policy. All the chemicals are used in other professions and are unlikely to be unavailable any time soon. Plates can be made of trophy aluminum or glass. My 4x5 and 8x10 are unlikely to die during my lifetime. (Even if they did, I could just make a box camera and carry on.)"

Ken: "I think the biggest concern for photographers, as of today, is not discontinuation of camera gear but of losing software that is an essential part of a workflow. Apple's killing Aperture and Google's discontinued support for Nik Software being just two examples. And surely I wasn't the only one who cursed Nikon when it first failed to seriously update Capture NX2 for years, then discontinued it. (As an aside, referring back to your recent post on migrating to smaller and lighter gear, Nikon's discontinuing of Capture NX2 also opened the door for me to explore my options for switching brands. Thus, unless Nikon someday becomes the only camera company left, I probably already own the last piece of Nikon equipment I'll ever buy.)"

Omer replies to Ken: " I could be wrong but it seems Nikon had no choice with NX2. The control point tool tech in NX2 belonged to Nik who of course was bought by Google. Google doesn't seem to have licensed any part of the Nik collection to others."

Rob de Loe: "Companies going out of business and taking their crucial product with them is one thing. But sometimes it's companies making business decisions that are good for shareholders and bad for photographers. And before you say it, yes, that's what they are supposed to do (the shareholder would say).

"Case in point: Epson seems to have figured out how to totally block the refill market in its new P-series printers. They're not out to get the monochrome black-and-white photographer who uses Piezeography or Eboni monochrome inks, but that's what's happening. When my Stylus Pro 3880 gives up the ghost, I won't be able to use a P800 (the replacement 17" printer) because the code seems unbreakable—no refill cartridges allowed. European and Asian customers don't have to worry about this, but here in Canada we get our printers from the U.S., and Epson is being allowed to do this in this market. The only solution I can see for people like me who rely on a refillable cartridge so we can mix and use our own inks is to buy and mothball printers that work! I may need a bigger closet...."

Peter Komar adds: "Having worked for a major worldwide corporation I can tell you there were many top-level meetings on how to keep out competitors. So when Epson released its new inkjet printers you can be assured they were definitely trying to keep out third-party or aftermarket ink suppliers. I have no doubt they did their market research and discovered a small decline in ink cartridge sales over time, especially for the printers being used by photographers making and selling large prints.

"Hold on to your older large format printers as long as possible if you are in fact using aftermarket inks or refillable cartridges. That's where the inkjet printer companies make their $$$$ on their printer investments.

Dave Levingston: "One of my sayings over the years has been, 'whatever tools and materials you use, you should expect that within at most 20 years they will no longer be available.' I remember being amused that the song 'Kodachrome,' begging that Kodachrome not be taken away, was on the charts when Kodak did just that, causing mass consternation among pros who had their systems worked out for the discontinued Kodachrome II."

Comments

[Dennis]

I missed out on an opportunity a few years ago to sell my handful of 128MB Memory Sticks on eBay for $50+ each to people using old F717s and other similar cameras that were incompatible with higher capacity cards. Not long after I saw those prices, the market responded and you can buy lower capacity memory sticks again. We'll always be able to take pictures, most of us in ways we want to take them, more or less.

[Omer]

If the historical transitions of the ways photography has been and is done are an indication, it should be fair to say that we humans are an adaptable species. But then there is Eugene Atget who insisted on using old "tech" and proceeded to create some of the best photography ever.

Whatever!

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Don't forget the software side. Kodak Photo CD format is not well-supported any more, though there is by now some free software that can extract versions of the images (last I looked, only in JPEG). How long will Camera Raw support Fuji F11 RAW format? Etc.

Oh, scanners have gone through this; Nikon no longer supports or repairs any of their scanners, they just told me. But I'm not done scanning.

[Richard Newman]

One driver of change I didn't see addressed in this or the 'scary future' post was the issue of how images are viewed and displayed. Where once the only way most people could see a photo was as a print on paper, either a small print fit for an album, or as a large print on a wall or as a transparency projected on a screen. Now viewing options range from phone screens through computer screens to large wall mounted LCDs which read images off disks and can be programmed to change images hourly or daily. All in addition to paper/aluminum/other substrate prints. The family album is an endangered species.Today, the quality of phone images is reaching the level of 'sufficiency' for many users. You can take and send images quickly, for display on small screens whose image quality is far from the high end camera, but which meets the needs of the short term interest of the user.
How does this affect camera design and sales? I would compare it to the introduction of the box brownie a century ago. The large tripod mounted camera became a limited "specialist" tool, and the small, easily carried and used box camera met the needs of the 4x6 type print found in the albums of the last century. Most picture takers aren't doing it for image art, they are interesting in showing friends and family events or activities or places. Like with the box brownie. And they are being viewed on screens, mostly small ones. The photographer (as opposed to picture taker) will represent a smaller market, aimed at the advertising, art and editorial markets.Even here, the print market is shrinking, as media move on line. So, yes, the market for high performance cameras will shrink as phone cameras improve, but eventually we may see a small rebound, as screen displays of higher resolution and color capability are more economically available.
And all that doesn't include the effect of have video/motion picture capability on the phone.

[Taran Morgan]

"I just want good photographers to continue to have what they need to do their work. Whatever that means and however it works out."

It can never work out because Sony makes all the sensors. Digital photography is too "margin" centric for any manufacturer to make a decent camera. All features of all digital cameras, now and for the forseeable future, are dictated by Sony. An entire generation of young talent has been lost or relegated to film if they want to stay fresh, because digital will never have: Square format medium, FF mirrorless without a viewfinder, a FF mirrorless camera under $500,multishot cameras, robust multiple exposure options, interchangeable backs for things like Bronica's or old Hassy's that actually work, Xpan format, 35mm square format, cameras like the Fuji 645Zi (could you even imagine a digital camera that was dedicated vertical like that?). Let me also say, that because Sony has control, all "shell manufacturers" are not allowed to develop their own camera "OS", say, like a Leica T system, because Sony would simply not allow anything better than their own horrid menu system to make it to consumers, potentially out of fear it could threaten them. Menu's from all the system cameras, save Leica, are an unmitigated disaster. I feel like I'm stuck in the 90's when I use any of my "newer" cameras.

Digital is deader than dead, the equipment is mostly unusable and a haptic disaster, none interface well wirelessly... there are no cheap cameras with big sensors, there will never be a "large format", and the real fun of photography has been crushed. If god forbid you want to shoot with 1's and 0's you have to buy either a Leica or a Sony, or a reboxed Sony.

To think this is all going to work out, in my mind, is a little bit optomistic.

Luckily, one can still shoot film.

[Art in LA]

"The only constant is change." This is something I heard at a graduation ceremony long ago. I've been to many of these events and this is one of the few platitudes that has stuck with me ... LOL.

[Bruce McL]

I recently bought a Nikon P330. It’s small, light, takes RAW photos, has a 1/1.7” sensor and a 24-120mm range. Nikon doesn’t make a camera like this anymore. Canon used to make one. Fuji used to make one. Going up a little bit in weight there were cameras by Panasonic and Olympus. Nobody makes them anymore. I think you predicted this a few years back when you wrote that the Panasonic LX7 (or was it the Olympus XZ-2?) might be the last of it’s kind.

I’m not too upset by this. The Nikon is just a grab and go camera for me now. I have a small, light Panasonic GM5 Micro 4/3 camera that I use most of the time. But nobody has introduced an interchangeable lens camera as small and light as the GM5 in over two years.

I think the concept of “road-hugging weight” has come to cameras (from the auto industry in the 1950’s), and that concerns me.

[John]

Contax is on my list of things that sadly disappeared. The G series and the 645 were unique. I couldn't believe it when I was told Phase One wanted to buy the 645 production templates, but instead Kyocera decided to destroy it all. Such a loss...

[Patrick]

Sadly examples abound all over the world, not just in photography. I've been on the hunt for a new car but have been highly frustrated by the lack of available manual transmissions available in the type of vehicle that it previously would have been commonplace. My options are squeezed into buying the kind of car I don't want to get the transmission I prefer or buying the kind of transmission I greatly dislike in order to get the rest of the package I actually do want.

[Lee Rust]

Outside of professional pursuits, the cultural shift towards smartphone digital imaging has become so precipitous that the very practice of carrying a discrete camera in public is starting to be regarded with curiosity at best and suspicion at worst.

I just got together with a group of old friends whom I had not seen for years and they constantly had their smart phones out comparing family snapshots, video clips and social media postings. I was asked to share my own imagery but could not because I only had my camera with me.

I considered going out to the car and bringing back my laptop to share some pictures but decided against it because the conversation was jumping so quickly from subject to subject. It seems like nobody can talk about anything for more than 30 seconds before attention shifts elsewhere, never to return.

Nevertheless, I still prefer the slow-mo, low-res approach. I took an emulsion-making course at the Eastman Museum so I can use a Graflex even in the absence of 4x5 film. More recently I purchased a second R-D1 so I can continue to take digital photos with an old-fashioned rangefinder for as long as those Epson cameras hold out.

No illusions, though... the writing is on the wall for us traditional amateur snappers. More likely, the writing is on Typepad, Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and more...

[Daniel]

It is not only companies stopping production. Government regulations hit us hard at times.
Beautiful tanned leather look warm tone papers no longer available because they contain Cadmium! Warm tone papers now are nowhere near what we had a few decades ago.
Azo and Michael A. Smith are a good example but saddest part is how Kodak treated him when they stopped production. Assured there was at least a five year supply Michael and Paula headed to Europe to be on press for printing a new book of their images. Came back and Kodak informed them ALL the Azo was gone! Michael was a licensed seller of it for Kodak - the biggest in the world. They did not even contact him before selling to another - after they assured him there was plenty available and they knew of his plans.

Only one small example of how makers treat jobbers and clients and customers. Sad state of affairs all the way around.

[Ken Tanaka]

Good photographers are creative. Creative people are most focused on results and adapt to changing means. That's long been my observation. Cameras don't make photos.

[Douglas Chadwick]

I have experienced this problem myself. I had to give up using my Cirkut camera (built over 30 years before I was born) a couple years ago because you can no longer buy portrait paper (color) for optical printing and what is available has too much contrast and saturation for what I do and AFAIK there is no solution for that.

It was possible to stockpile enough film for the rest of my career, but paper takes up too much space.

So after making my living with that wonderful huge antique for over 30 years I have had to "go over to the dark side" and shoot digital.

Nobody is going to be making color photo paper in their garage either.

[Benjamin Marks]

I read the comments above (particularly Ken's) with a shiver running down my spine. By definition, a digital workflow depends on millions of lines of computer code with a very short half-life. It does no good to resent it, but I do anyway. I'd love to see old versions of everything needed to produce my current version of photographic output archived in a digital seed vault somewhere. [Windows 7, PS 5, Lightroom 5.7, software for the Nikon 8000 and Epson film scanners, all the Nik Plug-Ins I currently use (Silver EFX pro comes to mind) . . heck, what about drivers for a disk-drive(?)]. All of the software I listed above is _already obsolete_. And I have no particular Plan B. I have had several catastrophic hardware failures in the past 10 years. I can easily imagine that the next one will leave me in the same position as someone looking for vacuum tubes to fix an old amp.

[Michael Perini]

PS I still have 3 of those Mamiya interchangeable lens TLR's , They were frankencameras but the lenses were incredible.
I had that strobe too (Name was something like Mighty light) ran off HV dry cells, One of my daughters shot her whole thesis show at U Penn with one of them. They weighed a ton.

[Robert Roaldi]

It's happening with bicycles too. It seems like all new models above a certain quality grade have disc brakes now. I don't care if they're better, the old brakes were already too good and I didn't have to worry about warping the discs. If you're manufacturing 40 models anyway, why not make some that don't use disc brakes? Grrrr.

[Bob Johnston]

When dye transfer died Ctein adapted and reinvented himself as an ink jet man. There are at least two companies in the UK making refillable cartridge systems for the Epson P800. Ilford (the Harman Ilford) are making a profit from silver halide materials. There will always be change but there is no need to be pessimistic about it.

[Bear.]

The collective We - presently reading TOP - are all part of the marketplace upon whom the corporations we are presently whinging about rely to make money. So hit the email, send those flat things called - um, I forget - letters, and demand from them what you want, and if what you want appears, buy it. If you don't, you'll take what you're given. Or not.

[Steve Caddy]

"The source of all suffering is attachment to impermanent things." ;)

A couple of quick thoughts though...

The vast majority of picture taking on smart phones isn't the picture-making that the audience of TOP is interested in. It's more akin to talking than the role that printed photography played.

The dramatic shrinking of 'serious' or 'dedicated' photography as a profession doesn't mandate the obsolescence of dedicated or 'serious' cameras. The vast majority of high end consumer goods — think sports equipment (including cars), artistic supplies and luxury goods (luxurious either by way of status or the simple pleasure of owning and using) are to ammeters. ['are sold to amateurs'? —Ed.]

I think it's more interesting (and distressing) that 'talking with pictures' in the smartphone era is too often conflated with 'photography as an art'. Fewer and fewer people encounter or seek out real mentorship or knowledge in picture-making. Even if they are (or would be) very interested in it and there are two sides:

1. Beginners are exposed to peer groups and influences that are not experienced or expert in guiding artists (in the methods of seeing, composing, understanding colour, tone, shape, contrast, line, scale, repetition, reflecting on authorship, purpose, empathy, expression etc etc etc)

2. Those who would probably be the best mentors are grumbling into their beards about disappearing equipment and materials and talking-with-pictures.

On the other hand —

I can learn from Ashley Gilbertson, Ron Haviv, Ed Kashi (CreativeLive), Dave Allan Harvey (who's Instagram stories are highly educational) and a bunch of others online for free or crazy little money. And it's increasingly easy to access supporting expertise from other fields — what might photographers learn about portrayal, character and narrative from a class in dramatic writing? https://www.masterclass.com/classes/david-mamet-teaches-dramatic-writing/

Swings and roundabouts in so many ways.
Work with what you've got. Keep moving.

[Denise Ross]

A bit of additional info to follow up on Lee Rust's comment about emulsion making -- wet plate isn't the only chemical-era image capture system or printing material for those photographers who want to master a process or know that they can use a particular process for as many years as they choose. Silver gelatin dry plates, film, and silver gelatin paper are all easy to make and the results can be indistinguishable from commercial products, or as artisany funky as you want.

[Dave I.]

"It seems like nobody can talk about anything for more than 30 seconds before attention shifts elsewhere, never to return." - Lee Rust

Amen!

I'm still debating about the Pentax K-1. I'd probably only use it for color photos and use my old Pentax SL (Spotmatic without a meter) for my black and white photography.

So, maybe I'll never switch to digital. Who needs more time in front of a computer screen?

My black and white negatives and prints have survived just fine in the cool basement. I hope the JPEG format survives forever. Otherwise, who needs the headaches of switching formats to each new "format of the year". Plus, there are enough usable parts cameras around in the old Pentax screw mount that the guy in Kentucky (Mike probably knows) can use to repair any problems my SL might have in the future.

[s.wolters]

Scary might not be the right word, but surely many lost their confidence. First in clergymen, bankers and politicians and now also in manufacturers.

Personally I am almost done with Apple. The discontinuation of Aperture and the change from iPhoto to Foto’s turned my archive upside down. An upgrade to Sierra made my excellent Canon printer useless. Not to mention the extra costs because you’re forced to use iCloud for many things. In the past Canon suddenly changed their FD mount and later my sweet Contax G line was discontinued. I could understand that. These things had to happen. But Apple? It feels as if I am on earth for them, instead of the other way around.

---

About fifteen years ago I had a chat with some friends, professional photographers who mainly used sheet film. They were scared at the time that the days of large format were numbered. As a happy snapper I care-free bought one silly digital camera after another. I think I already upgraded nine times since then. My friends are still using the same old field cameras.

[Nigel Amies]

and for my ten cents worth I now find however runs Kodak and manufactures Portra and Tri-X film no longer provide frame numbers on their film making my beloved Holga cameras rather useless. No frame number in the little red window and you've no idea where your next frame is. I think it's called cost cutting.