In the early days outdoor photography required a mobile darkroom (something resembling a wooden shed on
wheels) so that plates for the camera could be coated on the spot. The quality of the finished picture, usually a
contact print, was very good with central sharpness excellent and edge sharpness acceptable. The advent of
roll film meant smaller negatives and bigger enlargements. The majority accepted a drop in the quality of
pictures as these changes took place over time. With improvements in film technology and the cinema came
the Leica, a camera designed to use the ends of film from this source. The success of Kodak in the marketing
of the Box Camera had brought photography to the masses. The introduction of film by the same company saw
in film of faster and faster speed, colour film and all sorts of specialised films as well as smaller and smaller
cameras. All these advances were greeted by the amateur photographers of the day, enthusiasts with strong
voices making their views known on the latest film, camera, format etc. Gradually 35mm became the leader.

Only the dedicated photographer used anything bigger than that. It was accepted that anyone wanting the
ultimate in picture quality still had to use a larger format and this remains true to this day. With all the
technological advances larger meant better quality, though not necessarily better pictures. The stage had been
reached where pictures could be made from the neg., camera, and darkroom easily by anyone. We are
saturated with pictures. It is not necessary to know how they are produced for them to be appreciated on
whatever level you want.

Along came the computer and overnight, such is the speed of change now, comes the means of producing
pictures digitally, a much inferior product to what was already in place. Opposition from the purist to accepting
the new method of production is something of a Luddite reaction. The quality of the picture produced digitally
is improving all the time and the price is coming down.

If enough money is spent the quality is equal to any other method of picture making, which always was the case.
So why the opposition? Fear of redundancy perhaps! Will there still be manufacturers making photographic
papers, supplying chemicals, enlargers etc.?

I am an active participant in what I would class as fringe groups who practice the art of photography through
monochrome prints or medium format slides.

A lot of these members are going digital and the talk at meetings now is likely to be of dpi rather than grain as
it used to be. The change is already in place. Young people show no interest in the old wet processes, do not
join camera clubs or postal folios but the future of photography is in their hands, whatever they make of it!