the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Last Word / Obsolesence

Obsolesence

June 30, 2002 JimK Leave a Comment

Measured against the standards of the times, photography has always been a high-tech activity. Practice even preceded science in the early days: photography predates the periodic table by thirty years. As in other technology-based endeavors, over the years practitioners of the art have become more and more dependent on others for their technology. In the early days of the medium, photographers needed only ordinary paper (for both negatives and prints, although later glass was used as a substrate for negatives), and refined chemicals for creating and processing photosensitive material. Most photographers couldn’t grind their own lenses, but enterprising ones constructed their own cameras and printing frames.

It didn’t take long for a technological food chain to arise. In 1883, George Eastman introduced roll film and made the rewards of photography accessible to a vastly greater population. Soon, glass plates were a curiosity. The manufacture of photosensitive coatings on plastic required specialized machinery and sophisticated chemical processes beyond the reach of normal photographers, who soon purchased pre-sensitized film and paper and preblended chemicals. The desire for color images drove the technology of photography even further away from its practitioners: after many false starts, the market settled on Kodachrome, a product that not only needed a factory for its manufacture, but also for its processing. Home processing of color materials returned years later, but the trend was clear: photographers would trade lack of control of their materials for speed, convenience, and quality. Cameras followed a similar path, from wood-and-leather boxes assembled on a kitchen table, through mechanical marvels from the likes of Leitz and Hasselblad, to 21st century instruments with more computing power than the Moon Lander.

There’s a price for this sort of progress. In the case of equipment, when things break sometimes they can’t be fixed because parts aren’t available. With mechanical equipment, you can still get things repaired if you are willing to have the broken part made, or salvaged from other equipment. Now that much modern equipment relies on electronics, the situation gets worse: if an integrated circuit fails and is no longer made, it would cost millions of dollars to fabricate a replacement; the only hope is salvage.

The issue of obsolete equipment is unpleasant—no one likes to discard a camera that through long service has become an extension of one’s brain—but it pales beside the problems of obsolete processes and materials. One of the joys of photography has been that old printing techniques never die, they just become alternative processes: carbro, collotype, gum bichromate, platinum, palladium, albumin… That was true when photographers could carry out the processes with basic materials, but sadly, is no longer the case. The marvelous rich reds of the Ektaflex process are gone forever. Velox blacks are history. Azo and Portriga are unavailable. Perhaps the most beautiful color printing process of all, dye transfer, is dead, now that the matrix materials are unavailable. Super-XX, Agfa 25, Agfa Ultra 50 and Ektar 25 films survive only in a few far-sighted photographers’ freezers. The coming dominance of digital capture and printing will accelerate the obsolescence of materials for chemical photography as their markets dwindle and their production becomes uneconomic: even Kodachrome has a place on the endangered list because of the environmental problems associated with its processing. In digital photography there are totally new ways for older equipment to become useless: consider an older scanner or printer with no drivers for current operating systems.

What’s a photographer to do? Enjoy the 19th-century processes that are still available: since they’re so low on the technology food chain, they’re probably safe. Watch out for the demise of current processes, and don’t start a project that depends on particular materials without being ready buy a freezer load if they threaten to become unavailable. Look for new incarnations of old processes, like digital gravure. Look for work-arounds, like simulating Super-XX’s long toe with Photoshop. Be willing to try new processes, because the old ones may not be around, or go the other way, and pick a favorite mainstream, and therefore presumably long-lived, process and commit yourself to it.

The Last Word

Permanence →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

February 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728  
« Jan    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • Brian Olson on Fuji GFX 100S exposure strategy, M and A modes
  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • Glenn Whorrall on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • Hatzipavlis Peter on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • JeyB on Internal focusing 100ish macro lenses
  • JimK on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Garry George on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Rhonald on Format size and image quality

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.