techno..

[cobalt]

hi
not trying to start a debate here, but just wondering...
am i the only one who thinks the technology of art (and photography) is actually moving backward?

i have been fighting with this damned camera all afternoon...little monorail with little knobs and STIFF rotating back...and i realized something:

my old, old korona 4x5 locks down tight, i mean TIGHT. it is rigid as hell. not as flexible as a monorail. have to take the back off to change from landscape to portrait. that's ok with me. but it's solid. put the film holder in, it don't move. not a centimeter. nope.
solid.

and then there's that tachihara (that someone mercifully bought fro me). how the hell do you fold that thing without ruining the finish and/or wrinkling the bellows? what kind of field camera uses two knobs simultaneously t shift??

just like my old buick...tough...solid...SIMPLE.

they dont make 'em like that any longer.

[Sylvester Graham]

It's not just the technology of art, its f-ing everything. You said it yourself, "like my old buick"

Everybody's cutting costs, outsourcing, building things out of plastic, making more crap instead of less quality... How have you not noticed this?

[scrichton]

anyone else hear about the cost cutting at mercedes. last year their cost cutting team got it so badly wrong it was only after about 3000 cars were shipped they realised the new cheaper galvanisation process hadn't had any chemicals added. It was just a waterbath. Recalls have started!

Everything is just too discardible now, I think internet purchasing does not help as the profit is getting driven away. Therefore manufacturers look at inferior materials all too often to maximise gain.

[Mark Sampson]

Convienience trumps quality every time?

[paulr]

I disagree with all of this. You can find examples of almost anything that are better designed and better made than ever before in history.

But there are a couple of serious caveats. One is that we pay a lot more for labor now than ever before, especially in developed economies (bad news for you, good news for the guys who make the stuff). So quality workmanship just costs more than ever. And few people can or will pay for it. The result is that average quality is often very low, even if quality at the high end is very high.

Also, in some areas, higher technology processes have replaced traditional hand processes. The newer technologies often do a better job, but since they don't LOOK like hand processes, we assume they're inferior. My road bike is from 1984 and was made with hand-filed lugs, assembled completely by hand with silver solder. It's gorgeous, and has more of that old-school look and feel of quality than a modern frame that's welded and heat treated, and made of combinations of alloys and composites. But what the new frame loses in aura of oldworld craftsmanship, it more than makes up for in every other way. It's just a better performing, more thoroughly engineered and finely realized thing. It only comes in second place if you're judging it as sculpture (you could say the same thing about the old Buik!)

[Nick_3536]

If anybody tried to sell a camera like an old 1940's woodie most here would say

1) It's too heavy

2) It doesn't go wide enough

3) It can't be twisted into a preztal

4) It's too expensive.

There are reasons you can buy many of the old cameras for so little. If you want what they provide grab one. Or two :D

[Marko]

But there are a couple of serious caveats. One is that we pay a lot more for labor now than ever before, especially in developed economies (bad news for you, good news for the guys who make the stuff). So quality workmanship just costs more than ever. And few people can or will pay for it. The result is that average quality is often very low, even if quality at the high end is very high.


It is a classic example of "pick two out of three" - high durability, high quality, low price.

Back in the "good old days" when labour was cheap and technology relatively primitive, quality and durability were a premium because people were looking for things that could be bought once and last a lifetime. My grandparents spent their entire life with a furniture they bought early on in their marriage and it is still alive and functional. Try that with an Ikea or most any other furniture made today. But it was hand-crafted and the cost of it was proportionally high.

Today, with automated factories, strictly controlled and repeatable processes and synthetic materials, most everything can be made faster and in greater quantities and at much lower individual prices. Most everything actually has to be made in greater quantities in order to fully utilize those factories and amortize their price.

So that leaves us with mass-produced, cheap and yet functional things we easily buy and discard with little thought.

That's bad news for those of us who like to personalize their possessions and keep them around for a long time. That's good news for most everybody else for two main reasons: a) if you loose it or break it, it is easy to replace and b) when the cycle closes and the time comes to buy a new one, there will likely be new and improved model available for roughly the same amount.

There's always an option for those with distinguished tastes and money to match, of course. Those products will really last a lifetime, but their price will also reflect the qualified labour cost.

In the end, it's all just about economy, not art, or even craft.

[Ken Lee]

People live longer, but now overpopulation is a problem. Cable TV gives us 900 channels to choose from, but most of them are junk... and so it goes.

As we move from one era to another, some things get better, while others get worse. Such is Life. What are ya gonna do ?

[Lee Hamiel]

Buy a Linhof Master Technika.

It's not anywhere close to a new camera by the way ...

Nowadays it's all about volume sales & small profit margins - try going to a bank & getting a commercial loan for a small run of high quality made cameras - not going to happen. Only can be done by solvent makers that could probably make more profit but stay with the quality aspect as it's what they do & it's more important to them.

[Brian Ellis]

"how the hell do you fold that thing [a Tachiahra]without ruining the finish and/or wrinkling the bellows? "

I've probably folded and unfolded a Tachihara close to 1000 times. Never even scratched, much less ruined, the finish or wrinkled the bellows. It couldn't be more simple. I just pulled my Tachihara out to take a look because I couldn't think offhand how one could possibly ruin the finsih while folding or unfolding it. Now having opened and closed it a couple times while watching the moving parts I still can't figure that one out. I'd have to make a real effort to damage the finish while folding and unfolding the camera. Maybe using a large wrench instead of my hands would do it.

[Dirk Rösler]

In the end, it's all just about economy, not art, or even craft.

Well said. Which is why China is at the right place at the right time.

The only thing able to put a stop to this is environmental concerns. There is no way this way is sustainable in the long term.

Regards

Dirk

[paulr]

IBack in the "good old days" when labour was cheap and technology relatively primitive, quality and durability were a premium because people were looking for things that could be bought once and last a lifetime.

Some people are looking for that today, and they can have it. There's no shortage of people making incredibly high quality handmade furniture (or cameras, or bicycles or cars, or whatever). Part of the difference is increased labor costs, but I suspect that the larger part is the contrast with all the cheaper choices that are available now that never had been in the past.

People LIKE Ikea. Even people who know that it's mostly crappy and disposable stuff. Given the choice between buying a single, handmade, last forever chest of drawers, or for the same price furninshing the entire apartment with stuff they can replace when it goes out of fashion, a whole lot of people choose the latter. For those that feel otherwise, there's plenty of artisan furniture to be had, if they're rich or are prepared to live a more spartan existence.

I personally dislike the element of wastefullness inherent in disposable consumerism. But there are aspects of this world-industrial economy that I like. I get to choose what areas of my life to invest money in. I like to cook, so I have nice pans, some of which cost more than whole sets of my friends' pans. I've spent some big money on lenses, too. But things like furniture and tv sets have a lower priority in my life, so I have a ragtag jumble of hand-me-downs, found objects, and other industrial loft detritus. If I couldn't find what I needed by easy means, I wouldn't be above going to Ikea. And I understand others have priorities that are much the opposite. The nice thing is having some choice.

[Marko]

Paul, that was just an observation, not criticism. I am that way with clothing - I dress mostly at Costco and Target. Not because I can't afford better but because most of the time I don't need anything more expensive that either wears out or goes out of fashion as quickly. I prefer to spend my money on things that will last me longer and that do have that personal touch, such as cars, nice (and expensive) watches and sunglasses.

Yes, having a choice IS a nice thing, as long as one can afford it. If only we could have less consumerism, though... :)

[Marko]

Well said. Which is why China is at the right place at the right time.

The only thing able to put a stop to this is environmental concerns. There is no way this way is sustainable in the long term.

Regards

Dirk

Or, more likely, environmental catastrophe. But this way is actually more efficient than the old way, because it uses much less resources and even uses some that would be discarded in the old days. Given the increase in population, the old way would already be unsustainable by now.

[Dirk Rösler]

Or, more likely, environmental catastrophe. But this way is actually more efficient than the old way, because it uses much less resources and even uses some that would be discarded in the old days. Given the increase in population, the old way would already be unsustainable by now.

Agree, that's what I thought after I posted it. So the question is, are we becoming a disposable culture just because we can or is it fortunate coincidence? Of course, producing something with modern means and less resources and not disposing of it quickly would be even better.

I suppose our own Chris Jordan has approached this topic photographically, see also Ed Burtynski. I think there is still a lot of mileage left in this topic and probably will be for a considerable time to come.

[Marko]

Agree, that's what I thought after I posted it. So the question is, are we becoming a disposable culture just because we can or is it fortunate coincidence? Of course, producing something with modern means and less resources and not disposing of it quickly would be even better.

I suppose our own Chris Jordan has approached this topic photographically, see also Ed Burtynski. I think there is still a lot of mileage left in this topic and probably will be for a considerable time to come.

I tend to think of human behaviour as a pendulum of a sort. It keeps swinging between the extremes, taking about a generation for any significant change. On one end of the spectrum, there are visionaries and early adopters and there are stark conservatives on the other. They both have their roles, since the mankind would go nowhere without the former and would probably sail straight into a deadly storm or jump off the cliff, figuratively speaking, without moderating and cautionary influence of the latter.

P.S. Personally, I prefer Chris' approach, but that's just me.

[Gordon Moat]

Agree, that's what I thought after I posted it. So the question is, are we becoming a disposable culture just because we can or is it fortunate coincidence? Of course, producing something with modern means and less resources and not disposing of it quickly would be even better.

I suppose our own Chris Jordan has approached this topic photographically, see also Ed Burtynski. I think there is still a lot of mileage left in this topic and probably will be for a considerable time to come.

There is that concept of conspicuous consumption. Basically wasting is a form, or display, of wealth. However, that is far from the only aspect involved, so that all important feeling of convenience is very prevalent.

There is also the concept of instant gratification, which can sometimes lead to a one-upmanship; witness various automotive purchases, which are then considered passé as soon as the next replacement model appears. With motorcycles, that was sometimes called the bike-of-the-month club; newer riders buying the latest, then quickly wanting to switch as soon as some magazine tested something with better numbers (often by fractions of a second). It did not matter whether the average mortal could attain nor match what the magazines accomplished, some of them still want what is perceived to be best.

So the best label gets attached to cameras too, though often today it is D-SLRs, and usually means best for $$$, rather than actual or technically best. Viewed more simply, 10MP must be better than 7MP, though when it comes to ultra compact cameras this has not always proven true.

Luckily large format gear rarely treads upon these concepts. While there are prestige names, brands, and products, there is less of a feeling of being on the bleeding edge of technology. Low numbers of these cameras in public can mean that simply owning and using a 4x5 (or larger) might mean you are the only person in the area with one. This is more a concept of novelty, despite that these are very useful and functional cameras.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)