-) the number of photos taken is hard to establish
-) in 2017 just 1 major finisher printed 2 billion photos
You know I'm just joking but seriously it was estimated in 2017 1.4 Trillion digital pictues were taken and only 80 million printed.
Or about 0.00005714285% printed, vs the rest seen with colored lights only or stillborn in the world of numerical abstraction.
You know I'm just joking but seriously it was estimated in 2017 1.4 Trillion digital pictues were taken and only 80 million printed.
Or about 0.00005714285% printed, vs the rest seen with colored lights only or stillborn in the world of numerical abstraction.
I'm curious to hear the opinions of some of the experts here...
Where might film technology be now if digital had not come along. Film was a big business, with big money to invest in R&D. Digital has come pretty far in resolution and high ISO performance. How far might film have come along? What other innovations might have been possible for film?
I think film technology has been at a high standard for a long time. Many of the films work great once we figure them out, and they give us beautiful results. So I'm not sure that the technology had many places to go. Instant, POP, B&W, color, there was a lot of different ways to take a photograph at one time.
Some of these technologies stopped production before digital appeared though, so it didn't really change that much. It's not digital that has changed how photography works in this world, it's mating it to the internet that has done the trick. A digital camera isn't that much if you can't send the photos in an email or otherwise get them uploaded for others to see.
Before the internet, to see images we had to look at things in a book, go to where the work was, or hope that a magazine or TV spot might feature it.
As said earlier in this thread there was the two obvious and very desirable and realistically attainable advances of speed and speed.
Speed as in higher speed emulsions.
And speed as in highly automated and fast development and high quality scanning.
Both absolutely possible.
you forgot speed which bank account is sucked dry when film costs 20-30USD a roll because need to recoup RD costs
Maybe Kodak would have discontinued 35mm in favor of APS. Kodak was also trying to make the film smaller.z
Everything APS tried to do, apart from trying to sell sub half frame as an improvement, could have been done with fully compatible 135 compatible cassettes.
Except permit smaller cameras with film frames the same size as available digital sensors.
APS-C was intended to be a bridge between film and the coming digital world, and was assumed to have been useful for a fairly long time, because almost no one thought that the film to digital transition was going to be as swift as it turned out to be.
Before digital cameras became popular Kodak had repeatedly brought out smaller film formats for reduce the silver usage per frame. That goal would have continued to be obtained.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?