Wild Idea for Next-Gen LF

[Marko]

To me, "electronic" means less moving parts which in turn means "more reliable". Digital essentially means binary which means less noise. My point was that the error was in altimeter (which happened to be non-digital) rather than in the flight computer, which performed as designed.

If pre-electronic (or even pre-electric) is your cup of tea, this may not be the most convenient century to live in. Might as well get used to it. Inventing a time-travel gadget would be out of question, since it would have to be based on a computer...

Me, I prefer to drive rather than ride or walk to where I am going even though my car has a computer in it. Several computers in fact. Used to have cars with no computers and would never go back to those.

[Marko]

Don't get me wrong, I love geewhiz, but I doubt the device would find a market, that said, most fortunes are built by ignoring the naysayers . Cool noodle.

Speaking of doubts, naysaying and predictions - similar things were being said about digital cameras in general and DSLRs in particular only a few years ago and look where we are now... To put things in perspective, Canon d30 - a 3 MP DSLR was released some 8 years ago and cost $3000. A 1 GB CF card cost $500 at the same time. Today, a 21 MP FF Canon can be had for 3/4 of that amount and a 16 GB card for about 20%.

It is much less a question of technical possibility as it is a game of marketing and numbers. If enough people needed or wanted such a large digital format, I have no doubt we could see an affordable version of it in our lifetime.

[Vaughn]

I think the point about the faulty altimeter is that the jet was on auto-pilot and that piece of digital wonder (the auto pilot) has gotten to be depended on too much to the point that even though the flight crew knew there was faulty info being fed into it, they assumed it would still work properly (as in "not crash the plane").

So instead of Ted Orland's "Expose for the secrets, develop for the surprises.", we will tend to get a lot of "Expose by digital display, develop for uniformity." Users will be depending on limited computing power, hardware limitations, and the parameters set up by the programmers to visualize the final image -- instead of depending on the far superior computing power and imagination of one's own brain.

Vaughn

[JBrunner]

To me, "electronic" means less moving parts which in turn means "more reliable". Digital essentially means binary which means less noise. My point was that the error was in altimeter (which happened to be non-digital) rather than in the flight computer, which performed as designed.

If pre-electronic (or even pre-electric) is your cup of tea, this may not be the most convenient century to live in. Might as well get used to it. Inventing a time-travel gadget would be out of question, since it would have to be based on a computer...

Me, I prefer to drive rather than ride or walk to where I am going even though my car has a computer in it. Several computers in fact. Used to have cars with no computers and would never go back to those.

You seem to think I am a Luddite, which isn't true, I work with some pretty state of the art camera systems, all of which are more complicated and more prone to problems than the systems they replaced in my experience. Also you seem to be confusing electronic with digital, which wasn't my point at all. No camera with electronics is as reliable or offers the opportunity for creative intuition as a traditional view camera. Its simple math, and simple control, and has nothing to do with my cup of tea, except that I like to concentrate on photography, and like the technical part of it evolved to a set standard that meets my needs without having to re-up and re-learn every 2 years or so, or more likely, constantly. I'd rather have the technical part in the bag, and be a photographer 24/7.

For me, it is a matter of what I prefer to concentrate on. It does seem to be a strange philosophy in "photography" these days. I certainly don't begrudge invention, and I find this an interesting concept, but I doubt it will have the level of interest that will make it a viable product for mass consumption. DSLR's had a huge consumer base who didn't know a stop from a hole in the ground waiting for the next best thing, and the megapixel race still bears that out.

Anyway, I'm not here to rain on the parade, just saying that personally I wouldn't be that interested in one more gadget I don't need to part me from my money and distract me from actually photographing things. I think that is one of the biggest problems facing many photographers, divorcing themselves from magic bullets and figuring out that a proper exposure properly developed and well printed as the result of from something well seen is the real magic bullet, and all the tech in the world won't get you there.

[Marko]

I think the point about the faulty altimeter is that the jet was on auto-pilot and that piece of digital wonder (the auto pilot) has gotten to be depended on too much to the point that even though the flight crew knew there was faulty info being fed into it, they assumed it would still work properly (as in "not crash the plane").

But the point is that "that piece of digital wonder" as you call it did work properly. It was the result of human error in judgement combined with faulty piece of "non-digital wonder" that brought that plane down.

I am willing to bet that human errors in depth perception and the rate of speed downed many more airplanes than all the flight computers combined.

So instead of Ted Orland's "Expose for the secrets, develop for the surprises.", we will tend to get a lot of "Expose by digital display, develop for uniformity." Users will be depending on limited computing power, hardware limitations, and the parameters set up by the programmers to visualize the final image -- instead of depending on the far superior computing power and imagination of one's own brain.

Vaughn

I am old enough to remember old-fashioned science professors making this very argument against routine use of computers in science under the pretext that it will dumb down the students and make them too reliant on computer brain instead of their own. Had they had it their way, there'd still be no microbiology and genetic engineering as we know it today. No CT scans and no MRI either. Many other scientific disciplines would either be severely held back or wouldn't exist as we know them.

In fact, computers are just instruments designed to automate repeatable mental tasks and liberate our brains for truly creative thinking. A mental shovel, to continue using the same metaphor if you will. Just like the real shovel digs no holes by itself, neither does this mental one think on its own. If human users fail to do their role - as they did in the case of that plane, we shouldn't blame the tools.

[Marko]

You seem to think I am a Luddite, which isn't true, I work with some pretty state of the art camera systems, all of which are more complicated and more prone to problems than the systems they replaced in my experience. Also you seem to be confusing electronic with digital, which wasn't my point at all. No camera with electronics is as reliable or offers the opportunity for creative intuition as a traditional view camera. Its simple math, and simple control, and has nothing to do with my cup of tea, except that I like to concentrate on photography, and like the technical part of it evolved to a set standard that meets my needs without having to re-up and re-learn every 2 years or so, or more likely, constantly. I'd rather have the technical part in the bag, and be a photographer 24/7.

For me, it is a matter of what I prefer to concentrate on. It does seem to be a strange philosophy in "photography" these days. I certainly don't begrudge invention, and I find this an interesting concept, but I doubt it will have the level of interest that will make it a viable product for mass consumption. DSLR's had a huge consumer base who didn't know a stop from a hole in the ground waiting for the next best thing, and the megapixel race still bears that out.

You seem to be confusing one's preference with the facts of the matter. A camera, any camera, is just an inanimate piece of equipment, a tool for the task. It has no mind of its own and it depends entirely on what is going on within 12 inches behind it. It's main and only function is to keep the light sensitive material on one end dark and let the controlled amount of light at the specified moment in time through the other end. It has nothing to do with creativity or intuition - those are the user functions, not camera functions.

If I consider you a Luddite, that's only because you come across that way in your own words. Look up a definition of the term, then compare with what you just said above and you'll see that you were paraphrasing Nedd Ludd himself almost verbatim. I am just noticing the pattern.

[GPS]

So all those catastrophes and failed launches and lost satellites, and the initial focusing system failure on the Hubble and so many other mishaps including the very recent satellite collision were all a result of a calculated decision stemming from someone's careful and deliberate brainstorming session where they chose just the right idea among so many?
...

Oh no, "all those catastrophes and failed launches" etc. were just trials to see if the ideas are feasible at all or not... How otherwise could we know?? Let's have a try guys, to see if the idea could work - let's shoot it up, we shall see... Ups, it didn't work. Engineering à la the brave engineers who cannot dream up an idea but they can realize them all...

To me, "electronic" means less moving parts which in turn means "more reliable".
....

Oh! What moves is less reliable than what is electronic. Simple as that. Yet another big truth about engineering...

The problem is that when you defend nonsense you can do it only with more of the nonsense. Some more in the collection?

[JBrunner]

You seem to be confusing one's preference with the facts of the matter. A camera, any camera, is just an inanimate piece of equipment, a tool for the task. It has no mind of its own and it depends entirely on what is going on within 12 inches behind it. It's main and only function is to keep the light sensitive material on one end dark and let the controlled amount of light at the specified moment in time through the other end. It has nothing to do with creativity or intuition - those are the user functions, not camera functions.

If I consider you a Luddite, that's only because you come across that way in your own words. Look up a definition of the term, then compare with what you just said above and you'll see that you were paraphrasing Nedd Ludd himself almost verbatim. I am just noticing the pattern.

Your point about a camera being an inanimate object is exactly my point, we do agree in a round about way. Why complicate what works? Unless someone suffers from a visual or cognitive impairment, how is looking at a video display an improvement over viewing and focusing the light that makes the exposure? Why would I want to push more buttons, carry more stuff, think about more things, twiddle more dealios in the field, when I could simply put my head under the cloth and look? It doesn't seem to serve much purpose except to be another crutch in the quest to buy ones way into being any good. I'm definitely not a Luddite, simply a focused person. If some technology comes along that truly improves my ability to concentrate on the matter at hand, I will adopt it. I haven't seen that to be the case, mostly things developed to urge me to be a consumer. Dream up a need, reinforce the need, offer the solution, make the sale. Not being a consumer doesn't make a Luddite. Mostly I prefer to have the craft part of things to be and remain second nature. If one prefers one can do what one may, and it is simply my preference that my inanimate objects stay that way . I prefer as little as possible in my way, and viewing the composition on the ground glass is direct as it gets. The simple and direct nature of LF is quite simply a distillation, whereas I find the other direction to be a dilution, and most gadgets and gimmickry weighed on photographers these days serve only as a diversion from the matter at hand, to the point now where even cameras themselves are now overcomplicated gizmos built to be everything to everyone, offering easily attainable average results to average photographers and requiring vast machinations of ancillary hardware and software for exceptional results by a good photographer. (As an aside, I think having the image upside down has done more for many photographers sense of composition than all the formula in the world, but of course that is subjective as anything else you or I have written here.)

[Marko]

Oh no, "all those catastrophes and failed launches" etc. were just trials to see if the ideas are feasible at all or not... How otherwise could we know?? Let's have a try guys, to see if the idea could work - let's shoot it up, we shall see... Ups, it didn't work. Engineering à la the brave engineers who cannot dream up an idea but they can realize them all...

Does the name Hindenburg ring a bell somewhere behind all that hyperventilation?

The fact that hydrogen is explosively flammable and that helium is not never occurred to the genius who came up with an idea to design a lighter-than-air flying machine! Oops, a bunch of people burned to death...

How about Titanic? That particular genius thought 1,200-seat lifeboat capacity was plenty for a ship that takes 3500 people. Oops, 1,500 people dead.

Or perhaps Apollo 1? Three people dead because the hatch was designed to open only inwards. Oops.

All examples of great forethought and creative prowess... Plenty more in recent history.

Oh! What moves is less reliable than what is electronic. Simple as that. Yet another big truth about engineering...

The problem is that when you defend nonsense you can do it only with more of the nonsense. Some more in the collection?

No, but that's why you're here, following me around and yapping at every turn.

Dude, go get a life!

[aphexafx]

Everyone who is spending their time posting here arguing for traditional methods and simpler cameras: Can you imagine for a minute that there are other areas in photography besides wheat fields and mountian-scapes? That’s fantastic, please, move on. The OP wanted to discuss his idea and also the progression of technology for LF photography...