LOST TOUCH
By Kevin Craske (Area 9 C0-ordinator)
In the January 2003 edition of CRCNews there was considerable exposure given to digital photography AGAIN, in particular about computer projectors. It was mentioned about the stalwarts of what I term 'conventional silver halide photography'
to answer, almost a challenge – there we are beat that, come out and fight.
OK so I will rise it the bait, but really there should be no need.
Lets look at the technology of analogue – no I am not going to use that word as it immediately links it to digital and being inferior to the later. Let's use the word conventional. The technology of conventional photography is fairly well, if not very
well, understood by most of members of the CRC, especially those that have been members for a few years. I do challenge the knowledge of some of the 'experts' on digital photography we see in the pages of our esteemed magazine. For instance,
has anyone ever mentioned about the different ways the pixels are arranged in the CCD sensor in various digital cameras and how they make a difference? Has anyone pointed out that a photographer who uses a digital camera professionally will
use a different camera exposure method for sport as against portrait? And I do not mean time of exposure. That is if the camera can expose sequentially or as a composite. Oh sorry, did people realise that the quoted number of pixels i.e. say 2million does not really mean much unless you know how they are being used. For instance, a 2M pixel camera can have 1M pixels recording green, 1/2M recording blue and 1/2M recording red OR it can make 3 sequential exposures of 2M of green, 2M of red and 2M of blue. Each camera has 2M pixels see? But which gives the best result. Oh don't answer unless you really know, guessing is not a wise idea as the best result varies according to subject. Why am I an expert? I do not profess to be but I have been in the television industry, that is I work for Anglia Television, for nearly 27 years and my profession is electronics.
Thus, do we really understand, and do we really know, what we are talking about?
Next, quality.
No contest. Well perhaps there is but you will not get it with the £199 camera from Dixons, nor with the £699 PC world computer, £69 printer, a computer projector for under a grand and shareware software. Even when you do enter into the higher
bracket still if you look at the specifications you will find that conventional photography wins hands down. It is only when you get to what I would term the mega bracket that you get somewhere. True, we must not forget that you need some
equipment to process your film but we are talking 10s of £s not 10s of 1000s of £s. If we want to produce an AV and have 4 conventional projectors like myself with zoom lenses with computer technology – yes there are digits to actually control my
presentations, £ damage is in the region of £2500. To get anywhere near the quality with a computer would need a £3G+ projector and a hefty computer – add another £1.7G at least (including software). But that brings me to the next bit.
DIY satisfaction.
The CRC was built on people doing it themselves. The problem with digital photography is you buy a block. Perhaps I go to the extreme but look at my system. Yes I purchased the camera. Yes I purchased some equipment to process the film.
But I purchased bulk film and loaded my own cassettes, labelled them myself, exposed and then mixed the chemicals and processed the film. Mounted the slides in mounts which I purchased in bulk. I did purchase the projectors but not able to be
able to afford £300+ for a stand to take 4 projectors built it myself, cost £30 in materials from B&Q. The electronics I built myself at a cost of about £600. OK so a computer has now come into the equation, although not a necessity it does help on
writing the program to run the show. But there again I built that myself and I have to say, compared to some, it is not a high flyer and considerably less cost than an off the shelf. Another important factor is IT WORKS. The tape deck I did purchase but
the cases the equipment is in are converted, yes by myself, camera cases. I am thinking of building large cases to transport this lot a bit safer in the car. So I think this is a bit more DIY. Much more satisfying than purchasing the latest shiny new gadget 'off the shelf' the only skill involved being to read and 'understand (?) the glossy sales literature.
Novelty
This is something which I have to admit digital photography has helped in, in a rather reverse action.
People are now getting used to digital camera and prints from them, oh by the way do not forget that you need a good printer and paper/ink combination that will stand the test of time in keeping quality. So people find a slide show something of a
novelty. Then when you add into the equation 4 projectors, tape and synchronised music they are amazed. Yes I know the whole idea of the article in CRCNews was about an AV using a computer projector, but the novelty and interest is the slide
projectors. Something about the mechanics, something about familiarity, something about not another old boring computer doing things. You can actually see a projector changing slides. People understand a bulb fading or brightening. People understand a mix between 2 or 3 slides or a composite projection. Explain that in monosyllable words in the digital domain.
Now lets see, yes there is an article about slide processing and Ron still sells film and Rayco are still there, perhaps all is not lost yet. Well at least not in the January 2003 issue. I wonder if this article will get lost in the bulk of wisdom about digits in
the issue of CRCNews which it is printed.
Sorry CRC, you have lost the plot. Years ago members were innovators; they knew their trade so to speak. In fact members were well respected in the field of colour reversal processing and presentation. I do not think the same can be said for the
expertise of those members in the digital domain. There are many more out there with far greater knowledge and understanding and those people serve that market very well. Just step back a minute and see if you feel that you could start a magazine up about digital AV or digital photography like Fred Harvey did all those years ago about colour slides. You know you would not stand a chance. Hard words maybe but that is how I feel. I feel that a few people have hijacked the very core of the CRC. Progress yes, but not abandon. I think it is all a pity really. The Internet is so much part of life today. Go to www.google.co.uk and type in colour reversal club and there you get a hit TOP OF LIST for the CRC. Pity it is out of date but I will take
care of it, quite strange really as I do not have anything to do with the CRC so why should I. Also strange that I have 2 domain names relating to the CRC. Such a lost opportunity as the site, when I get the link and email corrected, does not reflect the
club. Such is the influence of the few promoting their own ends and abandoning the years of knowledge.
If anyone can tell me just where REVERSAL comes into digital photography I may start to listen and then argue against again. Ha, time for a new name for the CRC!!!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO not that again.