View Full Version : Mysterious Digital Dependence
John Cook
8-Jul-2005, 04:52
Whilst I have never owned nor operated a digital camera (and probably never will) I think they are a dandy idea, in principle. Much more efficient than color film processing, as anyone with an in-house E6 dip-and-dunk line will tell you. And any real or imagined deficiency in image quality will soon be overcome with rapid advances in technology. As prices continue to plummet.
I ran into a large display of these cameras yesterday during a visit to my local Circuit City store. Very impressive what they can pack into such a tiny unit. Some of the better units cost less than a Hasselblad lens shade. And no film to buy. What’s not to like?
But I got thinking about my recent experiences with Circuit City.
A few months back, I purchased a radio with an XM satellite receiver. The radio did not function, right out of the box. Something about the antenna, they said. So I drove back to the store and exchanged it for another.
Three days later, the satellite receiver bit the dust. Just quietly sitting on the corner of my desk. No rough treatment whilst riding on a skateboard (I’m 64). The connection broke on the radio as I removed the non-functioning receiver.
Having had enough, I took advantage of the store’s liberal return policy and dumped the whole outfit and cancelled my radio subscription.
And this isn’t the first time I have gone round and round with little electronic goodies. Fifteen years ago, I invested several thousand dollars in a top-of-the-line Yamaha surround-sound stereo system. All the bells and whistles. Then the local dealer died, no one took over the franchise, the store closed, the equipment became “obsolete” with no repair possible. I was left with a very large and painfully expensive pile of silent black boxes. So after a couple of years everything is now resting (quietly) at the local Goodwill thrift store. Never do that again!
At the same time, my friend has an 11x14 Deardorff from the fifties with which he is still earning a living. What’s to break?
After decades of heavy commercial abuse, I am still using the same Nikor tanks and yellow plastic Kodak print trays I bought in 1967. Clean and shiny as the day I brought them home from the store.
The most important feature of my new super-dooper EOS is the ability to turn off all that automation for which I just paid so much. Nice to be able to concentrate on the photography instead of fighting the built-in computer. Just like the old days with my M4 outfit.
My terrifying thought: Is the younger generation getting sucked into purchasing (and becoming dependent upon) a whole range of products the innards of which no one but an Asian factory-trained tech rep understands nor can repair? Great plot for a spy novel.
What do people do when their digital widget board crashes out in the field? How do you explain that to the client who is expecting a dependable professional?
Whatever happened to taking stuff down to your cellar workbench after supper and fixing it yourself? There is no electronic duct tape.
As for me, I have decided that it’s time to return to the simple life. You can have all your fancy buttons.
My wife has been encouraging me to purchase a dedicated laptop on which to write my long-promised photography book. I think instead I shall get out the latest Levenger catalogue and purchase a nice leather-bound notebook and a new fountain pen. Perhaps some iced tea and a chaise for under the maple tree. No batteries nor extended warrantees necessary. And no 128-page owner’s manual.
Just a thought...
Kevin M Bourque
8-Jul-2005, 06:29
John -
The Deardorff/fountain pen/typewriter/M4 is the same as it ever was. Whatever potential they had still exists. They perform the same tasks they did before computers came along. It would be foolish to ignore that.
On the other hand, they're all technological devices. You can break the ground glass on the Deardorff, and the pen can run out of ink or break the nib. True, you're more likely to be able to fix them yourself.
Maybe I'm lucky, but I've had very good experiences with electronics, for the most part. I've got a very nice Yamaha stereo (two channel only), most of which I bought in a pawn shop. I just fixed some problems on it last week! Didn't even have to take it down to the basement (we don't have basements in Charleston).
It sounds like what's bothering you is the rapid product replacement cycle, and planned obsolescence. Your trays and tanks from '67 are still great. My Nikon FM from somewhere in the 70s still works like its new. It does now exactly what it did then, which is to hold lenses and expose film with great reliability. The Coolpix 5400 I bought earlier this year will always be happy to take 5 megapixel snapshots, but the "state of the art" in digicams will leave it in the dust shortly. In five years it will be a paperweight, and my FM will probably be worth what it is now.
You don't have to buy a digicam, or feel guilty for using film. Fill up the fountain pen and enjoy.
"You don't have to buy a digicam, or feel guilty for using film. Fill up the fountain pen and enjoy."
I think there's a little more to John's point than this. It sounds like he wants to use the digicam, but is a bit bummed out by something that's getting lost in the transition. I can sympathise.
I've been amazed by what my digital gear can do (scanning and printing stuff ... no camera yet) but it's obvious that it will be outdated in a couple of years, unsupported in a couple of more years, and will likely break sometime in between these dates. So I develop a very detached, workmanly relationship with these things, always with an eye on what's going to replace them and when, and always with my fingers crossed that they last through the end of the current project. It's not a relationship I enjoy as much as the one I have with my field camera (a little older than I am) or my beseler enlarger (20 or so years old and good as new). I think it's just an unfortunate price we pay for this new category of gear. Relentless innovation instead of stoic immortality.
Mike Chini
8-Jul-2005, 07:10
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. I think that is definitely the main problem with digital photography right now. I'm hoping that some companies such as Leica will maintain the simplicity and elegance of their equipment and make their ccd/cmos chips easily swapable in the event of a failure.
Bruce Watson
8-Jul-2005, 07:10
John,
You know what happened. You know the history. Just like me, you've lived through a bunch of it, but not even us old guys have lived through all of it.
It dates back to Gilbert Hyatt's invention of the micro computer chip in 1971 (US patent No. 4942516). It dates back to John Ambrose Fleming's invention of the "Fleming valve" vacuum tube diode in 1904. It dates back to Nikoli Tesla's invention of the three phase A/C motor in the 1870s. It dates back to James Watt's improvements on Thomas Newcomen's steam engine in 1769.
All these things have a common thread - the use of energy to magnify and increase the capabilities of humans. The first stage was to increase our ability to do physical work by converting energy (heat) into motion (motors). The second stage was to spread this ability far and wide (electrical power generation and distribution). The third stage was to use this freely available energy to increase our minds' ability to work in groups (radio, TV, telecommunications). The forth stage was to use these tools to increase our ability to perform mentally (computers, networking, the 'net, storage).
You can't work on electronics on your workbench after dinner because this stuff is too simple - no moving parts to duct tape. It's binary; either it works or it doesn't. What can be simpler than that?
All that said, I understand where you are coming from. I have enjoyed many an evening sitting on a porch swing just watching the river go by. No cell phone, no computer, no schedule. Just relatives and friend to talk to, dogs to pet, and fireflies to watch. Nice work when you can get it.
But I urge you to think about the "simple life" a bit before you commit to it. You can't really single out just computers and digital cameras. It's the whole infrastructure that makes them possible. What you had when the "simple life" really was simple, was bigger (or lesser) than that. There were no cars, no electricity, no TV, no computers, no refrigerators, no central heating, no A/C. People like my parents were growing their own food, sewing their own clothes, and chopping a lot of wood. It was not the paradise that people imagine, or that some recall. Memory is selective. Be careful what you wish for.
John Boeckeler
8-Jul-2005, 07:16
". . . return to the simple life."
My thoughts exactly. I'm still using my darkroom and old cameras accumulated over 45 years, and I'll probably use them as long as film and printing paper are available. But with the uncertainty of film based photography, and my distinct lack of interest in digital media, I have gone back to my earliest interests and have taken up drawing. I'm pretty sure that graphite pencils, charcoal, and paper will be available for a long time, and they're a lot cheaper than film and printing paper.
David Luttmann
8-Jul-2005, 07:19
Mike,
Exactly how will it be useless in 3-4 years time? When another model comes out, will yours cease to work? Equipment does not become useless because a new model comes out. I have an old Canon D30 which I use for backup and shots of the kids, etc. It works just as well now as it did when I purchased it. It didn't self destruct or take blurry photos when I purchased my Canon 1DS for studio work. This talk of gear becoming useless or obsolete is pure nonsense.
There were no cars, no electricity, no TV, no computers, no refrigerators, no central heating, no A/C. People like my parents were growing their own food, sewing their own clothes, and chopping a lot of wood. It was not the paradise that people imagine, or that some recall. Memory is selective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have just provided a long list of additional dependencies, that you seem to automatically characterize as desireable. All of these things come with a price for their convenience. I know a lot of people who, by choice, cut their own wood, sew at least some of their own clothes, have big gardens, live off the grid on solar power, have no central heating other than woodstove (or only use central heat as a backup), and rarely watch the TV that tells them they need all those other things. I dont know a single one would trade their life for those other conveniences.
Richard Boulware
8-Jul-2005, 07:46
John Cook has really touched a sensitive point in his post, and I fully understand his point.
In my early days in photography, I had a box 'Brownie'. I had to wait weeks for the film and prints to come back to me from the 'drug store'. The waiting for the results of my pictue taking, made the final product (prints) have more value. The waiting....made discipline, patience and the other disciplines here....necessary and thus I assigned more value to the end product.
In todays world of computers, instant gratification, and preoccupation with the personal self...I think we have lost something along the way.
Perhaps it is like the value we assign to something given to us for 'free'! People percieve that things that are 'free' have less value than things that cost time, skill, or money.
I have a b&w shot I made for Vogue Magazine, years ago of a model in a gown, where I used kinetics and also froze the motion with studio strobes in this illustration. The original print hung in my studio display wall. The finished print required about a dozen different dodging and burning operations. It was the only print I ever sold....to models and women clients who visited my advertising studio. after about a dozen sales of this print I finally asked a woman why she wanted to purchase it. She replied..."the model is ALL WOMEN...and represents the secret fantasy we women have about ourselves".
I'm getting off my point....but the print required a lot of work to make...with my dancing about my enlarger dodging and burning, developing, fixing, drying mounting, etc. It has much greater value to me than anything I could mass produce using Photoshop...and was better 'art'!
Certainly digital photography is here to stay and its use in photojournalism, or industry cannot be denied.
To a growing number of people, traditional photography has greater value, as does the black and white print, for home decor, etc.
The physical demands on shooting, processing, and finishing a traditional print is in the early stages of becoming a much more valuable c0mmodity because of the labor, skill and discipline involved in it's production. Many people see digital prints as kind of like 'wall paper'.
For this writer/photographer... the education, discipline, skill and patience of traditional photography will always have more value and give me a greater sense of personal satisfaction.
Why does an 1790's solid walnut inlaid table have more value than a similar product with chrome legs and a Formica top? Not only because it is old....but because some person with great artistry and skill made it with their own hands.
I predict that there will be a time not to far off, that a gallery print with have a sticker on the back which will say..."No digital manipulation in the taking, or printing of this image was used", and below this...will be the signature of the photographer.
Digital is great. It's just a different animal.
Richard Boulware - Denver.
Thilo Schmid
8-Jul-2005, 07:49
John,
I wonder how you manage to connect to the internet mechanically. Or do you actually use electronic (or even Asian) devices to do so?
A coach is much simpler then a car, but I don't think that LA would have solved a horse-dung problem more easily than the car smog problem. "More simple" does not necessarily mean "more easy" as you may find out with your new fountain pen.
Mike Cockerham
8-Jul-2005, 07:50
I agree with Dave , when the Nikon F3 came out did all of the F models suddenly stop, or when the new F6 arrived I don't think my F3 suddenly stopped. Having worked in retail camera sales for 20 years this is what happens. I buy a new 3 megs pixel camera in 1998 and I pay $500 for it , I do not print anything other than snapshots my camera works fine but now I see that I can get 7 megpixel cameras for $400, it must be better than the one I have and it is less money. This is what is driving digital cameras now, not what do I need but what do I want which is the latest and greatest.
Daves D30 still works and does what he needs it to do, your Dorf works for you, but somepeople will tell you that you should dump the 50 year old camera and get a new Wisner or Phillips but will it change what you do with it I don't think so.
Doug Meek
8-Jul-2005, 07:56
John -
I love reading your posts. Please put that fountain pen and leather-bound notebook to use soon. Your experiences and gift of writing just beg for a book to be written.
I am only 47, but I too yearn for a return to the simple life. I guess that I must be a throwback to an earlier generation. I have one of those digital wiz-bang cameras in addition to an extensive large format system. That $1000 digital camera is far more difficult for me to figure out than my $20000 large format system. I must confess to simply putting my digital camera on the "auto everything" function and just hoping for the best. Not so with my LF camera. I control and understand every facet of the image-taking process.
As for your reference to "no 128-page owner's manual", you need not worry. That manual now only exists in cyberspace either on-line or on a cd. Please keep your excellent posts coming John!
David Luttmann
8-Jul-2005, 08:22
"I predict that there will be a time not to far off, that a gallery print with have a sticker on the back which will say..."No digital manipulation in the taking, or printing of this image was used", and below this...will be the signature of the photographer. "
Richard,
I'll look for that disclaimer on all analog prints as well. Obviously someone like Ansel Adams would never have manipulated prints in a darkroom .....and if he did, that is OK because it wasn't manipulated in Photoshop in the digital domain.
Or maybe, that is just a ridiculous, biased prediction.
"More simple" does not necessarily mean "more easy" as you may find out with your new fountain pen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think John probably realizes that "more easy" does not mean "more better". ;-)
You can't work on electronics on your workbench after dinner because this stuff is too simple - no moving parts to duct tape. It's binary; either it works or it doesn't. What can be simpler than that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce--you're joking, right? I hope so because that is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.
Wilbur Wong
8-Jul-2005, 08:35
I am completely sympathetic to use of manual systems in photography and elsewhre in my life, and I appreciate the work of others who do so. I have shot with large format for a quarter of a century and have no expectation of giving that up.
I admit to having a 4 x 5 color lab in my basement which seldom gets used. It is as much a victim of modern economics and the society of which we have become. I was laid off from a company that I went to work for 35 years ago, why? because the mega company which took it over considered me an over paid anchronysm. Never mind I was one of the innovators who made it a sufficient success to be desireable for a take over. Today a dozen designers work there and most of them depend on todays super duper software and computers which replaced experience and innovation. They simply believe that there is greater ROI in the modern model of business, and do not financially equate the long term return for ideas generated that are not quick and dirty.
Because of my work predicament, I find myself scrambling to earn a living on my own and remaking myself. It has not been an easy 4 years, and at age 59 a hell of a time both physically and emotionally to establish a new business.
One of the consequences of this of course, is I "feel" I have little time to devote to my photographic hobby, while I try to make ends meet. I too feel falling prey to the call of going digital, as I know that I can accomplish a work flow in a fraction of the time that is required by large format, film based art. So maybe I could make some personal expressions quickly in little snippits of time.
Yes I have a little point and shoot digicam, but it's used only for snap shots and recording work issues. Do I want a "real" digital camera? Yes, it is alluring, and yes it would be expensive, I wouldn't want to settle for less than a D1S Mark II and an array of tilt - shift lenses. Too bad I can't afford it.
Seriously, even if I had a dream digicam, I am sure that I will enjoy those few moments when I am in the right place at the right time to set up my view camera. The state of mind and rejuvenation of my soul and psyche while under the dark cloth are goals worthy of itself.
I might watch 30 hours of TV a year, I wind up the grand-father clock every Sunday night, and I still heat my home with a wood burning stove. (and I spend several hours a week on the web.)
I remember when TI calculators started being sold in large numbers, there was a rumor that something like 30% were defective, yet they didn't have any quality control to weed them out. They figured out that it was cheaper to let the customers find the duds, and then rapidly replace them for free. Not sure if the legend is true, but it makes sense: at some point, when making something really complex, in quantity, it becomes more practical to replace it rather than to fix it. Furthermore, technology evolves so rapidly that if something lives at least 6 months, its replacement will be better and/or cheaper.
So, most high tech stuff has become "consumables". Not much point in putting a camera in an indestructible titanium body, if the innards won't be good for a long, long, time. Might as well just make the body out of plastic. If you prefer and are prepared to pay for titanium, well, sorry, too bad.
"I predict that there will be a time not to far off, that a gallery print with have a sticker on the back which will say..."No digital manipulation in the taking, or printing of this image was used", and below this...will be the signature of the photographer. "
Do we see stickers claiming "absolutely no new fangled orthocromatic film used in making this image," or "none of that wussy dry plate technology employed," or indeed, "no photographic technology used--just burnt sticks on rock" ... ?
We're just seeing new processes getting added to the old ones, as has always happened. I don't think the original post was just another luddite elegy for the good old days.
Alan Davenport
8-Jul-2005, 09:21
I dunno what to say, John. I was a holdout for a few years, but only because I felt the price of digital cameras was ridiculous for the quality. I broke down about a year ago, and bought a 2MP digi that was being closed out, only this time the price was ridiculously LOW.
Now I usually have the digicam in my pocket while I'm out with the 4x5. One is for photographs, the other's for taking pictures.
Ellis Vener
8-Jul-2005, 09:35
What do people do when their digital widget board crashes out in the field? How do you explain that to the client who is expecting a dependable professional?
I switch to my back ups. What do you do when you find out after processing that the manufacturer screwed up the film batch (I've had it happen) or that your chemistry atthe lab has gone bad or that there was agoof in the processing? (My solution is not to have all of my film processed at the same time but still there are those times when the frame that was absolutely singualr was in the batch was ruined.)
Jorge Gasteazoro
8-Jul-2005, 09:50
There were no cars, no electricity, no TV, no computers, no refrigerators, no central heating, no A/C. People like my parents were growing their own food, sewing their own clothes, and chopping a lot of wood. It was not the paradise that people imagine, or that some recall. Memory is selective.
I dont think John is saying the past was better, I interpret his post as a refusal to get on the digital hamster wheel where we are promised things will "faster and better." OTOH you seem to imply that growing your own food or cutting some wood is "bad." I dont know about cutting wood since I never had to do it, but I do grow my own fruit and vegetables in my back yard. There is nothing more satisfying than eating fruit ripened on a tree, you would not believe the difference, but it takes effort and care. Yes you might go to the supermarket and spend a lot of time choosing your fruit, but it is not the same.
I think John is fed up with the half promise digital delivers. Yes, we are told we can get a digital radio with satellite capability and listen to 10000000 channels, but we are not told we need an electrical engineering degree to set it up, that we will need to make 3 trips to the store to weed out the non functioning ones and then once we have one that works, it might not last longer than the vegetables in the refrigerator. While "more simple" is not always "more better", neither is more complicated. Specially when one takes into account the planned obsolecense, yes your digital camera might not be obsolete in 3 or 4 years, but will it be compatible with the next generation computer? It is like buying a car and the salesman telling you: " you will need to change the tires in this car every 6 months because the ones you have now wont be compatible with the new roads."
Digital is not bad, but then it is not the panacea we have been told it is either.
Ellen Stoune Duralia
8-Jul-2005, 10:05
I think balance is the key here... Well, I think balance is the key period!
I really, really like my iPod, my Mac, the heated seats in my VW... these electronic devices do, indeed, add convenience and comfort to my life.
I also really, really like my old Chopin albums complete with the hissing, popping, and other noise debris that comes with old vinyl. My grandmom's old strainer that still hasn't rusted and has outlasted every other strainer I've ever purchased - oh and her old cast iron skillet.
I'm a real speed demon on the computer keyboard - but the tactile feeling of putting (a good) pen to (quality) paper is sublime and opens a whole new creative stream.
Balance, my friend, is the key.
Brian Vuillemenot
8-Jul-2005, 10:25
We need to embrace technology- it is our friend! The so called "obsolescence" that products go through is largely an invention of the companies that sell tham. For example, is a shiny new 2005 Mustang really any different than one from 2004, 2001, or 1965? They will all get you to the same destination! In fact, cars have now "gone retro", so the styling looks more like the old classic models! Now, I know that the technology behind digital cameras and computers is moving much faster than that behind cars, and there's still a lot of improvements ahead, but eventually it will reach a plateau of quality. I suppose the individual user must decide when the quality has reached the level acceptabnle for his or her uses. As someone pointed out about, even the first digital cameras from a decade ago still do the job they were designed for, so how is that obsolete?
People often reminesce about "the good old days", but I'm very happy to be living now (although, I admit, I'm probably younger than most of the users of this forum). As they say, the grass is always greener! Personally, I can't imagine how anyone did anything before e-mail and the internet- these have certainly greatly accelarated my productivity in almost all aspects of life. I think the answer is to use a combination of the new technology (drum scanning, light jet printing, etc.) and classic photographic methods (large format cameras and state of the art lenses and film)- truly the best of both worlds!
Yesterday, while using a laptop computer to control a Nikon D70 I concluded that both Nikon Capture software and the camera are worth every cent that I paid for them. Among other things, this setup allowed us to take a whole series of closeup photographs in changing natural light. We could fine tune at will, knew exactly what we had, had no need for controlled artificial lighting and saved a bundle on film, processing and scans.
I do a lot of sailing. Until not so long ago, all the old codgers went on ad nauseum about the need to own and be able to operate a sextant because GPS units are "unreliable". The electronics could fail. The satellites could fall out of the sky. Sure, and the sextant could fall overboard. One night, in the Bay of Biscay, we wound up in a situation a mile or so off shore where we had three knots of wind and a dead motor. In the pitch black, a sextant would have been useless. The GPS unit told us instantly where we were, what the currents were doing to us, where we were in relation to a French navy submarine zone. It took hours, but the GPS got us into port safely.
This whole pseudo-Walden Pond way of thinking is tiresome, if only because it is so repetitive.
"This whole pseudo-Walden Pond way of thinking is tiresome, if only because it is so repetitive."
It's actually genuine Walden Pond thinking--even Thoreau was quite full of if. His account was highly fictionalized (at least highly romanticized) and it greatly underplayed how much time he spent in town, at friends' houses for dinner, etc.. Though I don't think he had a digital camera or a GPS.
When E.B. White wrote about living in the country or about his first experience with a Model T ford, he wrote beautifully but not nostalgically. I love Chesterton's essay "A Piece of Chalk", but he had more sense than to use that essay to denigrate oil paint or photography.
Being a Luddite is easy. It is also terribly unoriginal.
Bob Salomon
8-Jul-2005, 11:17
John,
How do you participate in this newsgroup?
You are probably doing so with, gasp, a computer! About as electronic and prone to being outdated at any time.
You want to shoot film - shoot film. You want to shoot digital do that as well.
But could you imagine all the images coming out of the London tube explosions if people down there had not had digital cameras, video cameras and camera phones? Don't think you would be able to have set that 11 x 14 up while the event and the evacuation was going on.
wfwhitaker
8-Jul-2005, 11:46
I can surely understand John's point about the frailty of new technology items. But I don't think his point is so much whether or not one chooses to embrace digital technology, but to what degree. There is always risk with buying the newest and the latest. Fortunately world economics drives technological advancement so that there is room even for some of us luddite-inclined throwbacks to participate. It's really about a choice of lifestyle.
I use cameras from the 40's and 50's and lenses which are a hundred years old for work which is dear to my heart. I also have a digital point & shoot camera for grabbing snapshots to share or for scouting a location.
I have a cell phone which makes me more accessible to the world; and the world more accessible to me. I also have a house full of 75 year-old telephones which are aesthetically much more pleasing and frankly sound about 10 times better.
I have a computer, but it's just a simple laptop and does just fine what I need to do. When it dies I will replace it with whatever the bottom-end laptop is at the time. All I need it for is basic internet access (like this) and letter writing. I also have nice old Royal typewriter from the '30's so I can write letters rather than email. (And sometimes I do.)
But I've never owned a fountain pen.
All the "luddite" screamers here obviously have nothing to add or say for themselves. And you're obviously missing the whole point, which is part of the global problem caused by commercialism, advertising and being sucked into having to have the latest gadget to accomplish the simplest thing.
I've heard noone say that the old times were 'better' in every way. But what there was, appreciation. There were goods made by hand that lasted lifetimes. Simple devices to accomplish simple tasks. Appreciation for an object, created by someone's hands that performed a simple task efficiently.
Do digi-phone images make the world better. Would we all have suffered terribly if we didn't see almost live shots from the London tubes? Come on, get real!
You want to talk about cars? In 1970, you could buy a brand new car for $1500.00 (NO mistake in the decimal point!) It was comfortable, got good gas milage, had a heater & radio. It was enough for anyone to get around. Why now do we HAVE to spend $35,000.00 on new cars? All because they have dvd player and video for the kids (so we don't actually have to talk to them!), gps's and all those gadgets... Plus all the high priced repair bills... Those cars from the 60's and 70's could be completely rebuilt from the gorund up in your backyard, which I've done many times for fun and profit. Try that with a brand new car. It's not only impossible, but illegal...
Computer/digital equip[ment doesn't go rapidly obsolete??? I would suppose you simply haven't been around computers long enough and are too young to appreciate longevity. I hvae dozens of computers here. FOUR of them can run today's software. THREE of them can run ALMOST anything I want. ONE of them can run ALMOST any of the current software, and it's only a year old. Yes, I could fire up DOS 5 or 6 or linux on any of these boxes. But functionally, they would be slugs and not worth the time...
Oh, but digital cameras will last forever... Yep, thet's why I have one here that can only be read by it's original software as the format hasn't been supported in years. Oh, yes, but the format YOUS uses is better and "standard". Yeah, they've been saying that for 20 years now and it still don't hold any water!
But everyone who doesn't fall for the advertising, gotta have the latest and best, "computers will save us" is a luddite.... It just proves how limited and short your life is. When you gain more experience, and hopefully become a bit more wise, you'll know better. Althought in life I have learned that not everyone does learn. There isn't hope for everyone. Some people just never get it... And that's a shame....
Thanks for the posts John. You're always right on the mark and good to read. It just a pity that some people don't understand. All we can do is hope for them...
Paul Cocklin
8-Jul-2005, 11:58
John,
You should have gone with Sirius Satellite...:-)
Paul
David Luttmann
8-Jul-2005, 12:36
"Oh, but digital cameras will last forever... Yep, thet's why I have one here that can only be read by it's original software as the format hasn't been supported in years. Oh, yes, but the format YOUS uses is better and "standard". Yeah, they've been saying that for 20 years now and it still don't hold any water! "
Just what camera is not readable after a couple of years? Let us all know will you. All the RAW formats have been and are supported now as they were at their inception. JPG & TIF have been around for many, many years.
What standard are you referring to that we've been talking about for 20 years that doesn't hold any water. CD technology has been around since the late 70's....nearly 30 years. JPG standard has been around for 20. The computer and software you used backin 2000 works EXACTLY the same with the camera now. CD readers will be around for the balance of our lifetimes thanx to their huge saturation rate in the market. Quite frankly....I don't care if their are no CD readers in 200 years.
But as I said, let us all know what camera and format has vanished in the last 2 years.
David Luttmann
8-Jul-2005, 12:48
Rich,
Keep searching the net. Take all the time you need.......
One thing that's as true now as it ever was: the loudest rants seem to miss the point by greatest leaps.
I really don't think the original poster was trying to add to the giant slag heap of Crusty Old Men vs. Stupid Kids posts that are already free for the taking on this site. But since that's where it's heading, I'll add one observation, based on famous rants dating back to Plato's time:
Things are always getting better, and things are always getting worse. And there have always been people in love with the idea of progress, who see only the former, and people who who fear change, who see only the latter. Neither of these groups offer a perspective that's of much help to anyone.
Those who worship progress can commit attrocities; those who fear change tend to stagnate and whine endlessely. Both suffer a form of blindness--the former are unaware of their history; the latter simply choose not to learn from it.
Mark_3632
8-Jul-2005, 13:29
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. And people are being sucked into a desire to "have" and to "want" driven by corporations who readily admit that they do not build things to last anymore, that it is completely normal to have to replace electronic items on a regular basis. I was listening to a review of plasma TV's. The guy said the color would begin to deteriorate rapidly after two years but they were well worth the huge price tag.
I for one am with John. I want something to last when I buy it and I will purchase items based on their ability to last. Purchasing something to be on the cutting edge is a reflection of poor spending habits. Money is tight and being a teacher means it always will be. There is no way I can justify jumping on the digital band wagon. As Paulr says he expects to have to replace items and crosses his fingers hoping what he has will last out his current project. There is no way I could afford that attitude. And there is no way that would save me money in the long run.
It seems that the computer industry and those things that are connected to them are prime examples of poor quality ethics.
Richard Boulware
8-Jul-2005, 13:49
Dear Mr. Dave Luttman:
Sir, with all due respect, you missed my point. My point is that one can produce a complex print with analog photography where there is a hands on pattern of dodging and burning in making the print. If one makes ten prints, no two will be exactly the same.
If you use your beloved photoshop, you can get a final finished product and just hit the 'print' button ten times, and you will have ten exact images. Kind of like 'wallpaper'! ( a work of lesser value.)
Digital is a worthy addition to the would of photography, and I think it is just GREAT.
I however, prefer the hand made, individual works...closer to starting a work of art with an empty canvas and a palette of color....although I hardly think they are comparable.
I'll continue to made 'one-of-a-kind' guy.....and you can happily produce your 'wallpaper'
Kindest regards,
Dave, I'll answer you this one time only becuase in all that rant, you actually asked one real question.
I have a Kodak DS-50 digital camera. Ever hear of it? I doubt it, but it was the best available in it's day. For those wondering... Even though I still have it and still use it, no, I never really got my money's worth out of it. Mostly because the reason I bought it didn't pan out and it quickly became a novelty for web-pic use only...
As farc as the rant, you display only your ignorance. There are at least 8 common variations on the TIFF format. Non are compatible. There are possibly a dozen or more formats in existence but they're not as common. It is only through the dillengent work of software programmers that you can read most TIFF's. The same applies to JPeg but to a lesser degree.
I remember when TIFF and JPeg came out. People ranted and rave "Not another format!". "It will never catch on". "Why waste the time to support it?", and on, and on.... The same applied to PNG now.
Yes, CD are a bit over 20 years old now (you do love to exagerate, on your side, don't you?). BUt NOT computer CD's! Do you remember 5 1/4 disks. How about 8 inch floppies? Let's see now... Cassestte tape (computer, not music!), the rave of using video tape for computer systems, paper tape, punch cards???? All were the 'standard' that would never go away.
Graphics... How about .bit, .pcx, .bin, .bmp, .wpg, oh-hell I can't even remember all the formats any more. But all wre the 'standard' that would never go away...
"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. What will you do with a CD full of JPegs in 20 years? There won't be a computer on the planet that can read them. In the practical sense anyway, as if anyone needs a paper tape read right now, I still have a functionint teletype in my shed with a "high speed" reader attached ;-)
Dave, no real offense meant, but just how old are you and how long (short?) have you been involved in computers? And I'm sure you'll desperately need the return... I've been involved with computers since the early 70's when the best you could do was buy a kit, see test scroll by (actually, scrolling came later) on a TV or monitor and if you had enough money, you could save/read a program from an audio cassette tape. That's long before the internet, before usenet, before compuserve or delphi, before "digital imaging" and long before people could understand why anyone would want to own such a thing... In the 70's computers were new and fun. I the 80's they got exciting and/or work. In the 90's they became a way to pay the mortgage. Now, they're horribly boring, bloated, slow and time consuming... I trust I'll have to ad nothing more to that!
As far as 'fear'. Paulr, you're 100% right. There will always be fanatic on both sides of just about everything. I see few of them here and most of them are the one spouting digital. The 'silver' folks only seem to get upset when the digital people try to pass of their work as true photography. I am not afraid of anything digital. It just bores me to tears... How exiting can a pixel be??? Not very much when you actually have to play with them all day!
There also nothing wrong with acknowledging and appreciating older processes and thouroughly enoying partaking in them. Be it woodworking, clay, paint, building ship models, trains, tooling leather, or photography. There is as much enjoyment in a process as some people think they get out of the finished product. It may be heresy to some that dwell hereabout, but I enjoy the process much more than the final product. And that process involves light (photons, photo) from beggining to end.....
I think I've said enough on this topic even though I'm sure 'someone' will have some youthful glib reply that I won't bother answering.....
Thanks again John...
Gene Crumpler
8-Jul-2005, 13:54
If you want something that will last a 100 years and be worth twice what you paid for, get a nice rolex watch. I have a 30 year old gold "Date" Rolex watch that you can barely tell from the same model selling today for $16k. I have had it for 4 years and I can sell it for 2 1/2 time what I have in it! Interestingly, the watch has the same design features as the "NEW 2000 president" Many think it is the newest president.
Cameras are not investments, but tools
Gene Crumpler
8-Jul-2005, 14:04
Rich;
I've got you beat on old computers. I was doing full -scale chemical process optimization work at Allied Chemical with punch cards in the early 60"s! I remember when Fortran 4 was the latest thing and no one had any idea what a huristic (sp?) program was.
"I am not afraid of anything digital. It just bores me to tears... How exiting can a pixel be??? Not very much when you actually have to play with them all day! "
However they're intended, I see remarks like these as coming 100% from the fear camp.
There were luddites making remarks just like this one when the dry plate was invented. "I'm not afraid of it; just don't try to pass that nonsense off as real photography!"
I'm sorry, but the world has already moved on. The definition of photography has expanded, as it has done from the begining and as it will continue to do. The fact that it now includes things that didn't exist back in (insert your notion of the golden age here) is of no consequence to anyone but you and others with a similar intolerance for change.
You may consider this reply youthful and glib, but it's based on studying the actual history of this medium we all use, not on wallowing in my private fantasies of how things were or how they should be. Photography indeed has a noble past--one rich with great work and processes and ideas. It would do you well to learn something about it, rather than just blindly condemning its present and its future.
Paulr, the 'youthful and glib' wa snot pointed at you, which should have been obvious. I was even agreeing with you and appreciated your remarks, until now. 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!!!
Yes, I make my living with technology writing software 50 to 60 hours a week and I'm a 'luddite'. I'll mark that down in my PDA so I don't forget it!
Because we enjoy an old process makes us 'luddites"??? I think you should re-read the deffinition, or re-read my posts...
You can write intelligent response in conversations Paulr, but you should possibly keep your emotions away from your reasoning and pay more attention to what people actuall write!
Gene... As far as punch cards... I'm really sorry I missed them, Although I have friends that had to use them in college. But ince we brought up the internet and computers (okay, mostly by me), I'll try to call your bet. I have in my shed, one of the easrliest models of the DEC PDP line that was integrated in the beta testing of the 'internet'. That's what was hooked up to the teletype! Oddly enough, the 'net' was never meant to be public... Sometimes I think the original plan was right....
As far as watches go (and paulr will love this one!), I'm a pocket watch fan and never saw the draw of such expensive wrist watches. Although if anyone knows where I can find a 'new' Casio scientific calculator watch, I'd sure love to know. It was one of my most useful tools in it's day...
John Cook
8-Jul-2005, 14:44
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
8-Jul-2005, 14:57
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
8-Jul-2005, 15:08
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
8-Jul-2005, 15:12
*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
8-Jul-2005, 15:15
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.....
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
8-Jul-2005, 15:39
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
8-Jul-2005, 16:58
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!
"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
8-Jul-2005, 19:28
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.
Jorge Gasteazoro
8-Jul-2005, 19:31
"Digital processes cannot be true photography" is a defensive luddite position.
Jesus Paul, would you give it a rest? I dont think John intended this thread as one more thread about ink jet vs classic processes.
Digital processed cannot be true photography is an opinion, not a posture. I would have thought that the fact that many of us "Luddites" are using a computer to access this forum would have made it evident to you we are not against digital progress. I would like to think we are just selective in the uses we give it. Where is better we do, where is not we dont.
Oren Grad
8-Jul-2005, 20:26
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.
I, too, will regret very much if film goes away entirely. I don't think it will happen anytime soon, at least with B&W film which is what I really care about, but it's certainly possible.
But there are two sides to every coin. A massive shift of the market to a new technology tells you that there are many people who are happy to be free from being "forced" to use an older technology that they find less satisfactory, for whatever reason.
The "glass half full" view says that photographers who are hard-core devotees of traditional materials have benefited over the years from a generous cross-subsidy implicit in the volume sales of traditional emulsions to users who bought them because they didn't have much alternative, not because they especially appreciated their subtleties or enjoyed the particular discipline of using them.
Now those users are free to take their patronage elsewhere, and we have to pay full freight if we want to keep traditional products alive. That's unfortunate for us, and time will tell whether we can afford to keep them alive. But I don't see that there's any particular injustice here.
"would you give it a rest? I dont think John intended this thread as one more thread about ink jet vs classic processes."
Hey man, I didn't hijack this thread. I'm doing my best to beat back the hijackers. It's very tiresome when every mention of a pixel brings the wolves to the door.
"I would like to think we are just selective in the uses we give it. Where is better we do, where is not we dont."
If that were the case, no one would be arguing. Everyone would be happily using whatever process they like. But as it is, certain people seem to need to attack the legitemacy of newer processes, and to do so every chance they get. Never mind that it's almost always people with little or no serious experience with the processes they're attacking. That's where the word "luddite" comes in. I like it. It sounds like the name of a barbaric tribe, one that storms into your village with clubs at regular intervals to steal babies.
Melchi M. Michel
8-Jul-2005, 21:35
Oren,
I didn't mean to imply that there was any injustice being perpetrated by the market (though that means very little; I doubt that a hurricane victim would feel any better when told that the hurricane that razed his house had no moral aim). Rather, just as marketing gurus and digital advocates lobby casual users (rather successfully) to cast off their antiquated film feeders and pick up the latest product, I think it is completely appropriate for admirers of traditional methods to try to recruit or retain users by occasionally writing posts extolling the virtues of these older methods. Further, I think they should be allowed to do so without having the epithet of "Luddite" hurled at them in response.
Jorge Gasteazoro
8-Jul-2005, 21:57
Well Paul, from my POV you are one of the highjackers too.....
Mike Chini
9-Jul-2005, 00:00
Dave-
Sorry for the delay in response...
Talk of the uselessness of digital equipment is not nonsense. I work with numerous pros, some have whom have been shooting digitally for quite some time. Most of their equipment from just 2 years ago is 100% useless to them right now. Some of it is no longer supported; some of it has broken and other equipment never worked all that well in the first place but it was purchased to satisfy certain clients. My main point however is that the durability is not there. CF cards fail constantly. RAW file support down the road is a huge question mark. CCD's also fail along with the complicated electrical components surrounding them. I simply do not feel confident that my spending $5K for a Nikon D2X will be worth it in the long run. I'm sure this will all change in the near future but I still think that most corporations' emphasis now is on image quality, speed and file size and as with any new technology, people are quick to upgrade on a regular basis. Instead of overhead going down (since the advent of digital) it has gone WAY up - constant software upgrades, hard drive storage and backup, memory cards, new lenses, batteries, chargers, printers, ink, heck even electricity, high speed internet etc. Most of the pros I know and work with have very deep 5-figure investments in digital right now with no end in sight. Just 3 or 4 years ago, their overhead was a fraction of that. Sorry for the rant...anyways, I'm sure you can still go out with your D30 and take a picture. But odds are that camera won't outlast my Toyo AX and you should consider yourself lucky if it's functioning well a few years from now.
Oren Grad
9-Jul-2005, 08:45
Rather, just as marketing gurus and digital advocates lobby casual users (rather successfully) to cast off their antiquated film feeders and pick up the latest product, I think it is completely appropriate for admirers of traditional methods to try to recruit or retain users by occasionally writing posts extolling the virtues of these older methods. Further, I think they should be allowed to do so without having the epithet of "Luddite" hurled at them in response.
Melchi -
I agree entirely.
David Luttmann
9-Jul-2005, 09:26
Mike,
I agree. Talk of usefulness is not a waste. However, people who go on about formats vanishing in a couple of years, JPG being not readable by any computer in 20 years, etc, etc, is pure garbage.
But for Rich, the tables can be turned as well. Shall I ask him where to get film for a disc camera, 126, 127, super 8, 110. All those formats and many more have fallen by the wayside. It's not like have different digital formats is something new. For him to go on and on about digital formats vanishing is ridiculous as the same thing has happened with film. I don't hear him screaming about that. Funny isn't it.
Once again, I guess having a camera that is obsolete is OK if it's film, but not if it's digital. SOme people just have a fear ( or bias) for anything new.
Brian C. Miller
9-Jul-2005, 09:44
I come from the perspective of having four computers under my desk, one of which is a dual-processesor 64-bit PA-RISC workstation which weighs over 100#, and another uses liquid cooling. I started with computers when Commodore made the P.E.T. I am my landlord's ISP.
I expect that I shall come off as a luddite, though I am not anti-machine. Rather, I am pro-functionality and pro-cost effectiveness.
For many years digital cameras haven't been all that great, i.e. not as really useable as a camera as a camera is useable as a camera. They aren't that versatile. I recently borrowed a 5Mp Canon from a friend. Recent vintage, I think he bought it last year. To use this camera I had to go to the Canon website and download the 100+ page manual and drivers. Then I spent over an hour learning how to get it into macro mode and manual focus. (I never could tell if it was precisely in focus or not) I have never experienced such absolute frustration with any film camera.
I have played tech support for another fellow because he decided to use a digital camera with his handyman business. He isn't technically adept, and I had to really work with him so he could use his camera, and print out pictures to show his clients what he had done on the job. I really think he should have bought a decent P&S film camera and just stuck with it. One day, I joked to him, "You bought a digital orgasm and it was pixelated!" He agreed.
I'm not buying a high-end digital camera until I am convinced that I will benefit from it, i.e., that it provides better value that what I have with film and a scanner. With my Epson 3200, I get scans which are the same quality as the basic $50 drum scan I get from the pro lab. That's worth six drum scans. My Epson 2200 does a good job of printing, and 60 prints from it means its paid for itself. I develop color film in my Jobo, and it doesn't take that long, and I am happy with the result. And I bought the Jobo used once, half-price, with all of the accessories thrown in for free.
Therefore, there is no digital siren sweetly singing to me. I have a quality bar that a digital camera must cross. It has to have a certain level of functionality as a normal camera. I have no interest in buying something because someone else is fascinated by it.
Digital cameras have replaced 35mm cameras for many photographers. No digital camera will replace 35mm for me because my main use of 35mm is for Kodak HIE. When Kodak stops producing HIE then I'll chuck my 35mm cameras. I use HIE because it doesn't have an antihalation layer, and that quality of the material is significant to what I produce. While a digital camera will render an IR picture, it doesn't have the necessary bloom or response range I require.
While John Cook is satisfied with not using digital at all, I am satisfied to use it where it actually fits.
Brian, there's nothing remotely luddite-ish about what you wrote. You looked at your needs, examined what's available, and made a choice. That's far from making a blanket prejucicial decision, and it's also not a judgement you're imposing on other people.
Bruce Watson
9-Jul-2005, 10:54
John,
I get your point. You don't think this is progress. But I do. Let me explain why I think that:
I too could fix my bicycle when I was a boy. I still can. But my current bike (10 years old now, a hopeless antique) is bigger (as I am bigger), but weighs half as much. It's probably 4x stiffer, and handles what seems like an order of magnitude better. The wheels and tires take more than 3x the pressure, and rolling resistance is about 1/4 of the old bike. It's a great pleasure to ride. And it did cost some, not a lot, more, with inflation factored in. And it wouldn't be possible without the engineering advances of the last few decades - the progress we've made in everything from aluminum alloys to computer aided design (CAD), to computer aided manufacturing (CAM), to new tire designs.
The deal is, it's a much better bike.
Just like cars. I could and did work on my dad's 1963 Chevy Bel-Aire. It had a straight six that was simple to work on. But, you had to work on it. It needed a lot of regular maintance like setting the timing, periodic replacement of distributor parts, and setting the valves (you remember hydraulic valve lifters?). It weighed over 4000 lbs, all steel, even the dash (would slice though people in a crash), and handled like a freight car. It got 20mpg no matter how you drove it, and it polluted like crazy. Yes, I could fix it when it stranded me, which it did a few times.
My new car weighs a lot less, gets a lot better milage, is an order of magnitude safer, and needs much less maintenance, has much more power, and is an order of magnitude more fun, and an order of magnitude more reliable (I haven't had so much as a flat tire in the last 20 years, with the lone exception of that piece of junk ford I had - the cheap plastic water pump impeller came apart and stranded me for a couple of days - because the local ford dealer couldn't get the part from ford). Yes, I can't really work on it. But I'll willingly make the trade of not needing to set the timing or replace the points and distributor cap for cleaner air, better engine performance, and better gas milage, and higher reliability.
The deal is, it's a much better car.
As to people not knowning how the technology they depend on works, this has always been the case. In the 1970s, I had an interesting conversation with my mother. I asked her if she knew how her refridgerator worked. She didn't. So I explained it to her - that it's a simple application of the laws of physics for gasses (PV=nRT). All it is, is controlled gas expansion and thus cooling, and it's done with a plate with a pin hole in it. She understood it perfectly. A week later I asked her again. No clue. Why? Because she just wasn't interested in knowing.
On the other hand she's an awesome cook and has been for 50 years or more. She's tried to teach me with little success. Why? Because I'm just not interested.
People follow their own interests. They can't know everything - our collective societies have amassed way too much knowledge - there's too much to learn.
And that, I think, is the crux of the problem. What civilizations do, is allow specialization, and trading. I've never been able to make my own shoes. But I don't have to be able to make my own shoes. I can trade my engineering skills to a company for money, and use that money to buy shoes.
And shoes are a good case in point. I have weird feet. Size 11-AA, with a broken bone in my right foot that gives it some odd angles. There's not a hiking boot sold in the world that fits my feet. So I went to Utah and had a guy hand make me a pair of boots, custom fitted to my weird feet. Hand crafted and all that (say it with me - "no two alike"). They do in fact fit pretty well, and I'm very grateful that I could afford to fly to Utah and pay this guy for three days of his time.
The boots work, but they weigh three times what a new boot weights from most any current manufacturer (those injection molded foot beds are wonderful). It's all leather, and so has maintenance requirements (have to wash it, dry it, nourish it, dry it, color it, polish it, water proof it, all about every six months). And it cost an order of magnitude more than a really good boot from REI or a similar retailer.
To sum up, I paid a huge amount of money for a boot made with 1880s tech. Would I buy a modern boot if I could? Damn right. But this was my only choice, and it does get me and my LF camera up the train and to the top of the moutain - something I couldn't do before.
But I always say, you should use the tools with which you are most comfortable. Use that fountain pen if you want to. I'll stay at the computer. We'll both be happy.
Brian, there's nothing remotely luddite-ish about what you wrote. You looked at your needs, examined what's available, and made a choice. That's far from making a blanket prejucicial decision, and it's also not a judgement you're imposing on other people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just plain silly, baseless, and fearful. Nobody has ever told you not to do anything, exhibited prejudice against you for doing it, or tried to impose any judgement on you for what you choose to do or believe. Holding people to a truthful standard is hardly prejudicial, and I'm sorry you feel so persecuted.
Melchi, thank you!
Brian and Bruce, well said. But watch out cause you're both on the border of being a 'luddite' ;-)
I'll simply add one thing. There's a huge difference between being able to work on a piece of equipment and not being allowed at all. In decades past, be it cars, cameras, pens, typewriters, radios, etc; we all could do maintenance or repair ourselves if we so chose. Very little needed any specialized tools. Some things were made difficult by the person doing the work! I maintain a 1953 Ferguson tractor that get used quite a bit. It needs an occassional oil change, empty the dirt out of the fuel filter and once a year new plugs, points, rotor and cap. It all takes about 45 minutes, per year! And NO special tools required. You can set the points with a matchbook and screwdriver (which workes just as well on all pointed autos too!).
Now jump to today. If I had a brand new tractor, there would be little maintanence I could perform except maybe changing oil and filter. Cars are even worse. In some states right now it's illegal to work on them yourself. If the feds regulations go through, it will be illegal for anyone but authorizerd dealers to work on cars. And the specialized tools needed are simply not worth the expense (big suprise).
Look at modern electronics. I am a trained technician and made my living for years doing electronics both commercially and for industry. I made a good amount of money repiaring home electronics. I finally gave it all up because home electronics are made now to be disposable. Very little can be repaired even if you could locate the parts. Then, the cost of a repair is higher than buying one new.
This whole situation leads to the throw away society which loses all respect for 'things'. Cheap comodities that get thrown away when it either breaks or the interest is gone. What do we buy today that we can pass down through generations of our families?
It is our _choices_ that have been limited...
And again, I'll bring up the 'respect', as I see it as the root of most of our societal problems. You can see it in the arguements that come about here on the forums. People in general no longer repsect anything, let alone other people. I express my simple opinion that I have no use for digital fauxtography and certain disrespectful folks jump all over me calling me names and twisting what I say. Have I really affected their lives that much by expressing an opinion? Seems they may have some psychological problems that should be addressed... Bring up politics and it's even worse....
All things may not have been better in days past, but many things were. remember leaving house doors unlocked? Getting stuck on the road and having 3 other cars stop to make sure you're okay and help get you going? Conversations where people were allowed to disagree, enjoyed the discussion, and respected each other? Equipment that you could fix yourself, if you wanted to...
I _choose_ to do real silver photography and work on 75 year old cameras. I have little interest in digital cameras or fauxtography. Am I a 'luddite"? You should have heard the laughter from my wife and friends when I told them I was called that! ;-) Then again, they understand the meaning of the word....
Did you know that 50% of brides were married before! And that you have a 50% of getting divorce after you married.
Welcome to capitalism. No rules, personal feelings, just the bottom line.
If you are likely to change your spouse, I do not think that there is much hope for keeping your digital camera for a long time.
Brian C. Miller
9-Jul-2005, 15:18
No, Wayne, I don't feel persecuted here at all. Far from it.
I was persecuted in college for working hard and being intelligent (3.67 GPA, software engineering). Its amazing how lazy people with low intelligences will gang up and brutally attack someone, even if it is to their own detriment. Its as if they think that if they are hateful and foul enough, something good will happen. While I was forced out and didn't get my degree, I honestly doubt if they got theirs. The class required teamwork and coursework, and they performed niether.
I consider the denizens of this board to be an elite, erudite group. Opinionated, certaintly, and I wouldn't have it any other way. It gets kind of hillarious watching the more opinionated members make verbal faces at each other.
As for the label of luddite, I can't see any big deal there. Its just one more misnomer, same as calling an inkjet a giclee. Remember, Ned Ludd and his men trashed those new-fangled spinning machines. Our "luddite" photographers simply choose to use traditional, conventional processes. The "progressive" photographers have found that using a digital camera and computer systems increases an important thing: their cash flows. The groups have different goals and needs, no big deal. There are "evangelists" in both groups. Whoopee.
As for the current state of electronics, does anyone realize that a 200+ pin FPGA is something that no hobbyist is going to replace? Ever? I worked for RadiSys as their lab god (genius lab technician), and those densities are necessary in our modern electronics. Special equipment is required to lift off the part and replace it. Those soldering irons cost $1000 each. So of course it is so much easier to chuck something and then replace it. Troubleshooting modern equipment is just nuts when its some internal gate that's gone bad, all the signal levels look correct, and it will cost more technician hours than the board is worth. Sure, I started out with tube equipment. But that's mostly history.
Imagine how large your cell phone would be if it ran on tubes.
You mean the cell phone that I dont have? Tried it for a short while just last summer, and quickly learned that most people dont know the difference between convenience and dependence. Within weeks of getting it I found myself "needing" it, when I had gotten by just fine w/out it for years. That was the end of that. I have no plans to get another, but I wont rule it out if I someday live beyond the land lines.
Sorry you were persecuted, people can be real a*******. Personally I dont mind being called a luddite, and I know many people who would be downright proud. It sure beats having techno acquisition syndrome. Its pretty silly to call me a luddite though, because I dont oppose new technologies, and I dont oppose other people using it (though the associated massive waste and consumerism it produces is a definite concern). I simply oppose it being called....well, there are enough threads going on that subject already.
Dan_4341
9-Jul-2005, 19:23
MAYBE - Maybe John (and others like him, Maybe even me) would have a different feeling about the digital photo technology of today if
A- the higher quality gear (everthing from DSLRs in the 2k+ price range to medium format backs and 'large' format scanning backs in the many thousands) were:
(1) as easy and intuitive to use as most film cameras (with only minimal workflow through a computer)
(2) would not be replaced by far superior equipment in 2-3 years (not all of us are pros who can write-off their equipment purchases as tax deductbile expenses, and we don't all shoot 100s or 1000s of images a year).
(3)And, with the rapid pace of change, the various storage mediums, software, etc. don't necessarily remain usable for many years at a time (like film technology). Having to constantly upgrade software, deal with umpteem pieces of hardware from different battery types, chargers, storage devices, changes in printing techology, so-called 'standard' image formats, etc. requires almost constant learning (it's the almost constant ONGOING changes is what I'm talking about). Those who enjoy that, great, but for those of us who'd just like to concentrate mostly on getting the image for the most part - it's a pain. I work with computers for a living, and dealing with the same crap for a hobby gets to be old quickly.
B. The consumer 'digicams' - almost everyone and their brother (except I guess for the few Luddites here, including myself) seems to be in love with these little pieces of over-hyped wizzmos. Would it really kill the manufactures to make an optical viewfinder anywhere near the size of a $90 Olympic Stylus P&S film camera, so a person can actually see something easily ? Oh, I can hear it now - but what about those great 1.5 - 3" LCDs. Oh yeah, I forgot, the poor creatures like me who have to wear reading glasses won't mind doing that for taking pics each time, will they, and if they do, who gives a rip, since they're probably old farts who will drop dead pretty soon anyway. Ok, then I could buy a wizzmo EVF camera. But, . they don't fit in a pocket like so many film P&S cameras do.
Maybe the digital ideal will be seen in the future in supersmall wearable webcams that photograph everything we look at 24x7. We'll be strapped to vest battery packs recharged by the sun, or portable nuclear power generating plants, and the unit will stream real-time images wireless to the net. Artifical intelligence will process and manipulate the images while we sleep.
All hail and the kiss the butt of the digital manufacturers and everyting digital.
Pardon me while I light my candle and crawl back into my cave with slowly decaying film stocks.
"Nobody has ever told you not to do anything, exhibited prejudice against you for doing it, or tried to impose any judgement on you for what you choose to do or believe. Holding people to a truthful standard is hardly prejudicial, and I'm sorry you feel so persecuted."
The issue isn't persecution; it's one of pointing out intellectual dishonesty and lazy thinking when I see it. I'd like to make sure people who are less sure about the issue hear other sides of it before making decisions that might limit them.
Your ideas might feel like persecution if they were held by people in a position to persecute (publishers, curators, critics, dealers, arts funding organizations, etc..) but luckily they don't seem to be.
Your ideas might feel like persecution if they were held by people in a position to persecute (publishers, curators, critics, dealers, arts funding organizations, etc..) but luckily they don't seem to be
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, apparently a lot more than just the image counts after all, if you would feel persecuted simply by having your imaging called something else. Why would you even care? Like I said, give it 10-15 years. As digital becomes more and more powerful, the differences will become undeniable even to (most of) its adherants.
I don't understand what you're refering to or what you mean, Wayne. I haven't said anything about "more than the image counts after all ... " I'm not even sure what conversation that refers to, but it doesn't have anything to do with the words of mine you quoted.
That snippet was an attempt to say that if curators, publishers, editors, galleries, etc... shared your views, I might feel persecuted--because then my current body of work (which unlike my previous ones uses digital printing methods) would likely be rejected or marginalized for reasons I consider unfair. But since these people and establishments do not seem to be acting out of thoe prejudices, I do not feel persecuted. Does this make sense?
You didnt say anything about "only the image counts", but I hear it all the time from those with similar views.
No, I dont understand why you would feel persecuted if curators etc shared my views, which are simply that digital imaging should be (and will be eventually, IMO) considered distinct from photography. This is not a prejudicial or discriminatory view (I have said many times neither is "better"). The only change to you would be that your work would hang on the DI wall instead of the photography wall. That wall is just as good as any other.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.