Mysterious Digital Dependence

[John Cook]

My point is not about the good old days nor about digital photography in particular.

It’s about control of our lives and the things around us on which we depend to sustain us. We are being baited with complication because it is fascinating. And we are eagerly taking the bait.

When I was a kid my main toy was my bicycle. By the age of ten, I could take it completely apart by myself with my own set of tools. Grease the bearings, repair links in the chain, fix a tire puncture. Not that hard.

Our family never got stuck by the side of the road because there was nothing on our car which my Dad couldn’t patch with pliers and a screwdriver.

He worked at the local Westinghouse Electric factory during the days when everything in stores was actually made here. (no kidding!) Dad helped make our table fan, refridgerator, washing machine and vacuum cleaner. He repaired all of them at home with simple tools. Even changed the burnt tubes in our radios and Westinghouse television set.

I could fix a toilet with simple stuff from the corner hardware store before I finished highschool. Today’s electronic super power flushers require exotic parts to be flown in from Heaven knows where. Plus a federally-licensed factory trained technician with ten grand worth of custom tools to install them.

My Mother always preferred a gas stove so she could continue to make hot meals during a power outage after a storm. Did you know that some of the new electronic pilotless gas ranges won’t light without electric current? And you can't simply use a match because an electric solenoid closes off the gas.

I built my first radio, by myself as a scout project, with a heavily-shellacked Quaker oatmeal carton wrapped with wire, a crystal and a “cat’s whisker” made from a safety pin.

My first VW had an air-cooled engine. Open the valve to let warm air into the car in winter. Close the engine air valve and open the windows in summer. My last Chevy did the same thing with a big green vacuum-fluorescent dash display with iconic little people and rotating propellers. And, of course, three electric motors with electrically-operated air baffles. A thousand dollars worth of junk that no GM mechanic was ever able to get working correctly. So much for Mr. Goodwrench.

Nobody has any idea how most of the stuff he depends upon operates, nor what to do when it goes dead. And it could go dead at any minute. Often does. How did we let this happen?

Perhaps the neatest thing about LF is its simplicity. Like Dad's 1940 Dodge.

[QT Luong]

There is certainly some kind of dependence, but on the other hand technology gives you more control over your life and work, by allowing you to do things you just couldn't do before. For instance making a living out of photography without ever needing to give a phone call, send out a query letter, or meet any client in person.

[QT Luong]

This is precisely why I have yet to 'go digital'. I have no problem paying a couple of thousand dollars for something that will save me from the film costs etc. but not when it will be uselss in 3 -4 years' time.

From a purely economical point of view, the only question is whether the savings from film costs during
"3-4 years" are worth "a couple of thousand dollars" (insert your own definition of obsolescence and your own film costs to personalize the equation).

[Ellen Stoune Duralia]

*WARNING* I'm about to piss off some folks...

But I'm constantly amazed at how threatened some people are by the merest hint of another point of view.

My mama had a phrase that she used whenever I found myself in bunched up knickers over some trivial something or other...

QUIT YUUR BITCHING

Yes, I spelled 'yuur' that way on purpose as she had quite an accent...

She had another one for when I became seduced by the idea that my excrement did not smell of anything but roses...

GET OVER YOURSELF

Bless her soul, she was direct but by golly she was also right 90% of the time. So ya'll quit getting all worked up and have yourselves a most pleasant weekend

[David Luttmann]

Rich,

I've been using computers since the 70's as well. I was doing image processing with CCD cameras at an observatory probably before you knew what a digital camera was.

"Yes, CD are a bit over 20 years old now (you do love to exagerate, on your side, don't you?). "

The tech for CD came in to play in 1978. Red book standard developed in 1980. I bought my first player in 1981. 2005-1978 = 27. In my book, 27 is closer to 30 than 20. The exageration is yours.

Next,

"But as I said, let us all know what camera and format has vanished in the last 2 years."??? You prove my whole point. Such a limited thought process. "

Very good. You had to go back and pick the very first digital camera prior to any standards being developed. Of course, not a couple of years, but 10 years. And that said, the native .KDC files (yes, I've seen the camera) are still able to be opened with the photoenhancer software it shipped with. Thus, it's not unusable at all.

And as far a JPG's in 20 years...I'm pretty sure they'll be there. In fact, I believe that JPGs will be easier to find than film!

"There won't be a computer on the planet that can read them."

Really.....

[RichSBV]

QT,

That's not really true. Very little we do today wasn't done just as well before the 'technology'. 100 years ago, you could do the same thing by papaer mail. Yes, obviously things took much longer, but the world was not in such a rush either. The technology has worked hand-in-hand with the push-rush of getting it done yesterday. more money for bosses, more aggrevation for workers.

In the 'real' world of what matters in our lives, does this speed mean anything? Someone recently mention the cell phone pics from the London bombings. Almost instantly viewed by the world. 50 years ago, it would have been on film, printed, transferred to newspapers and we see it days later. So what? It makes little difference to our lives. we still bring home the paycheck, go to Friday fish fry's, play with the kids, walk the dogs.... We have just speeded things up with technology. And for the grand exception of the medical field, I defy anyone to show how this speed-up has improved the world at large!

Now before anyoen jumps in, of course there are always exceptions. I am one! I do my programming from home, 400 miles away from my business. That couldn't be done 50 years ago and I do appreciate it. On the other hand, 50 years ago there was little call for programmers and most people worked happily close to home... I think those few exceptions are really the technology supporting itself, such as the tech support people in India....

We really do forget how the world worked in generations past and we completely ignore waht we have lost. Before television, there was radio and imaginations. The single largest impact I have seen from television is the lack of imagination, and maybe the 30 second attention span.

We constantly hear about how digital camera are a boon to news photographers, and it's true. But before that was film and wire services combined with radio. Before that was film and paper mail to newspapers. Before that was hand drawings or engravings carried to newspapers. All the way back to town cryers. The news always reached it's destination, it simply took a bit longer. Are we really better off in life to see images that happened just hours ago? Sometimes I think it's good. Most of the time I simply forget about them and go on with my real life...

Technology is neither good or evil, but it's use can deffinitely be either one....

[Oren Grad]

I think there are many here who totally missed the point of John's post. He was not saying things were better in the good ol'days or that digital is bad. What he seems to be saying is that things are not built with quality in mind.

There are good reasons why a 20D, a Digital Rebel or the like is not built to last 20 years in use, let alone 50 or 100. First, the product wouldn't exist because not enough people could afford it. Second, there's no point building an ultra-robust product when nobody will want to use it in 20 years.

I understand the rants about planned obsolescence, but really, would you rather that digital camera technology had been frozen as it was in, say, 2000, so that everybody would have been happy paying five times as much for a robustly built camera because they knew it wouldn't be obsolete quickly?

New technology has its advantages and its disadvantages. If the tradeoffs inherent in digital cameras, scanners, inkjet printers and other parts of the "digital" imaging chain mean that these products don't meet your needs, then don't buy them. They don't meet mine right now, so I don't own any digital equipment myself and have no immediate plans to buy any.

I'm still very much an M-Leica and view camera person myself. I like the way they feel and the way they work, and I appreciate and enjoy the craftsmanship and quality they embody. But I also watch with interest the adventures and explorations of others who have made the investment in digital photography. I'm happy to see them having a good time, and I'll learn from their experiences. If, some day, I see inkjet or other "digital" prints that really move me, I'll probably put up with the associated hassles and give it a try myself. If not, I won't. Either way, I don't begrudge others the benefits they gain from the new technology.

It’s about control of our lives and the things around us on which we depend to sustain us. We are being baited with complication because it is fascinating. And we are eagerly taking the bait.

No, we take the "bait" because it gives us, as individuals, more choice and more control over the things that matter to us. I'm not interested in being Mr. Goodwrench, not because I'm decadent or don't want to be self-reliant, but because there are only 24 hours in a day, 70 or 80 years in a typical life, and so much money in the bank, and there are so many other more satisfying things that I'd rather be doing and could rather be doing precisely because new technology has made them possible.

Here's a paradox for you: I really enjoy tinkering with old view cameras in odd formats. But there's no way I'd be doing it, there's no way I'd be able to be doing it, if it weren't for technology in general and computers and the web in particular. I would never have found forums like this (they wouldn't have existed!), would never have known about the range of possibilities, would never have gained the esoteric knowledge needed to understand and appreciate them, would never have been able to find and buy the equipment to make it real for myself.

And per QT's point, although I make my own living outside of photography, what I do to put bread on the table and old view cameras in the closet also depends heavily on the information resources and communication power made available by technology. I consider myself vastly better off, more free, more in control than I could ever have been in the world I knew even 20 years ago.

[Michael Kadillak]

All of this endless diatribe gives me a headache. We are an evolving culture and surely that will not change. All I really care about is how I chose to participate in an art form that gives me satisfaction beyond my wildest expectations. It never gets old and the challenges of participating in it never dull or get stale.

Because the computer is a tool I use during the business day with clients to collect data and communicate, the last thing I want to do is get back in front of a monitor on my time. I personally would rather have a weekly appointment with the proctologist. I desperately need a complete intellectual disconnect from the evolving break neck technical speed world to the sounds and smells of a wet darkroom. The added benefits are saying me money by not having to replace technical equipment that would be obscolescent by the time I figured out how to really get it to sing for me.

I may not be at the cutting edge of computer and digital technology but this much I do know. Over time prices will continue to fall and performance will continue to rise to the point where it will be a casual personal decision and not a financial heart attack as it is now when I hear about what folks are spending to go down this road. If that is how you want to expend your financial resources, have at it!

How we chose to manifest our interest in photography is a personal decision that is ours. It is not right or wrong, but what is right for each of us individually. I have seen promise in digital negatives and some nice work that is being done, but it still does not change my outlook at this juncture. I can still see a difference visually. But you never say never.

Onward!

[paulr]

"You are totally miundersstanding what I said and misrepresenting what was meant. Anyone who read your last post will see absolutely no relation between what you quoted and your reply. It would seem you do indeed fit into one of those categories!!!"

If I misundurstood you, then I apologize. But I reread the passage that I quoted, and everything that followed it, and I still read it as a condemnation or dismisal of a lot of new things and ideas--one that seems without any rational grounding.

I'm certainly not calling you or anyone a luddite for enjoying old technology. Everyone in this group enjoys old technology and craftsmanship; I think it's why we're here! A luddite is someone who feels threatened by new technology. "Digital processes cannot be true photography" is a defensive luddite position. The same has been said about every process that anyone here is using, at some point in time.

In a later you post you point how very little has really changed ... including the example that news photographers get the job done faster now, but no better, and that it's still the same job. I agree, and this is a prime reason I don't see digital photography as a fundamentally different medium. It does the same old thing, only with different tools that make certain aspects of the work easier. It's not a quantum leap, like photography was from painting. It's not even as big a leap as the one from bw to color.

And by the way, I'm a pocket watch fan too. If I owned a watch, I think I'd have one of those.

[Melchi M. Michel]

I think that, to a large extent, what fuels debates like this one is that some people do feel somewhat threatened, and rightly so. You can call them Luddites, but their discomfort is completely rational. I, for example, am completely comfortable using film. It has the resolution and sharpness that I need, it gives me results quickly enough, I own film-based equipment, and I'm used to working with it. Even if digital were demonstrably better (which it may be, depending on the metric used) or more efficient (which it almost certainly is), I would still be happy using film; it's good enough. However, films and color labs are starting to disappear. In a few years, they may be gone (improbable, I admit), or prohibitively expensive (quite probable). In this way, "progress" threatens those who like to use film in a very real way (i.e., "you will be assimilated").

This is quite different from some of the changes in the medium that have come before. The dry plate for example didn't really threaten the wet plate process per se, it only threatened its commercial viability. I n commercial enterprises, efficiency will always be an important concern, and a smart businessman will choose the technology that will help him produce his product most efficiently. Note also that it is for this commercial context that the term "Luddite" should be reserved, since the Luddites took issue with the effects of technology on industry.

I however, like many on this list, photograph only for my own pleasure; because I enjoy the process, just as many enjoy woodworking, or painting, or fishing, or playing sports (in this respect there's nothing unusual about valuing the process over the result). And while I might eventually get into digital capture photography, I resent the feeling of having my hand forced.