Do you ever get the idea that people that spend...

[Victor Samou Wong]

Quite a bit go far out of their way to defend the stuff that they use? For instance. These days it's people defeinding their digital purchases, like the mortgage on their 4x5 back or their inkjet refill fees or photoreal paper. Not so long ago it was just people defending their purchase of a multi-quadzillion dollar unobtanium lens or supercalifragilistic camera body. How much bias do you think that people get when their wallet is suddenly relieved by a thousand or four?

This probably sounds a bit didactic, but I just have to ask since, after browsing forums, photo.net and here, I'm marvelling at the plethora of different responses. The most vehement defenses seem to be those in the possession of mortgages for digital gear, and I can't stand it. Just go take the damn pictures, I want to tell em. Who cares if you can blow it up to 80 feet by 60 feet. or 11x14" using an inkjet -or not. Is it archival or not? Good for you.

The only people that benefit from this are the camera companies, because they know that the more unobtanium they cook up, the more cash that gets spent. They weren't making enough profit when people were simply buying cameras (when they were still made with quality) then just keeping them for a good number of years. So they have to come up with schemes to get people to buy. The last example of this was Advantix. The camera companies colluded on that one to make an advanced new camera system that necessitated the buying of a new camera. Sounded great until you found out that advantix had a smaller negative.

Call me a purist or an old fart (actually I'm jsut 30) but I'd prefer to take pics with just me, my military speed graphic, optar 127mm f4.5, two grafmatic backs filled with fp4 and the snow outdoors. I was out in the rain the other day with this outfit, which total probably cost me less than $200 bucks. Was I concerned? No. Would I have been concerned with a digital camera? Hell yes. Electronics and weather don't go well together. Heck, weather and analogue don't go together, my Nikon F601 was killed by african dust. The thing I love about large format, is it's unpretentious nature. It's just a light tight box, and it doesn't have much to prove. A return to taking the pic. I tell you the camera companies are laughing all the way to the bank as they sell us more breakable stuff. Oh I know that some of the digital cameras have gaskets... but only the most expensive ones.

Having been a computer imager for a while, I'm painfully aware of how you have to control colour as you take a picture, So you have that flexibility, but then you have to view it on the computer monitor -oh wait now you have to retouch it. But your computer monitor and your inkjet, are they talking the exact same language? So depending on how calibrated things are between your camera, your monitor, and your output device, you will have to spend more time vaccillating around, making expensive reprints when the colour isn't right. So much for saving time, and so much for the experience of taking a photo, and so much for the money you saved by avoiding film..

Now, I own and use a digital camera, a 5MP Canon s50. It's great, I love it and use it. I am intending on replacing my old, africa-stained Nikon F60 with a D70 some day But I wish sometimes that people would stop defending after they've spent about as much as a small car on their gear. You certainly aren't going to COMPLAIN about it after spending that much!. (Your wife might kill you).

Cheers...

[Dan Fromm]

Um, Vic, most people who have to buy one of a number of very similar high-dollar items agonize over the decision. After they've bought one, they miraculously discover that the one purchased is highly superior to the others. I'm thinking of cars, where the phenomenon is very common, but it happens with cameras too. In the case of 35 mm SLRs before digital came in, note that for all of the violent partisanship that each brand and model generated, no maker drove the others from the market.

All that said, digital cameras are useful tools and clearly meet a need. I think it was, um, mischiveous of you to bring up digital vs. film again.

About Advantix, I think you're mistaken. It was pushed by film-makers, not camera makers. Back when Kodak was a serious company, they did a lot of research on what their customers actually did. This brought us the Instamatic range of cameras. Kodak found that > 90% of the pictures their labs developed and printed were taken with a normal lens and that people who used 35 mm cameras hated the loading/unloading process. In its time the Nikon F was a wonderful camera, but for most of the people who take pictures -- and this includes many Nikon and Leica owners -- a good grade of Instamatic would have done as well. It brought us Super 8 film and cameras. Turns out that people who shot 8/8 hated loading and then reloading in mid-roll. It brought us 110 film and the infamous disc camera. Kodak found that few people give a hoot for image quality, so why push larger negatives? Instead they pushed convenience. And few people enjoy keeping track of individual negatives, so why not tie 'em together? Hence the disc.

So you'll know my prejudices, I shoot Graphics too. They're fine for what I do, but they're limited. A good LF photographer can't do everything he/she/it thinks important with a Graphic, the cameras are short on movements. There are excellent reasons for using a real view camera instead of a good grade of, um, box camera that takes large film. There are even better reasons for using lenses shorter and longer than normal. Sooner or later you'll stumble across them.

Its not all conspicuous consumption. It wasn't when most of the people shooting 35 mm would have been as well off with Instamatics, and it isn't now. Some photographers really need cameras more capable than, respectively, the Instamatic of sainted memory or the Speed Graphic.

Cheers,

[Victor Samou Wong]

If you feed people mediocrity long enough, they'll get used to it. You're right, 'most' people who buy high zoot items miraculously find them better.

From what I remember Kodak did have to collude with the large camera firms, so that they would agree to change their formats. It was a partnership from the beginning. Admittedly people didn't care as much about image quality and hated film loading, however I believe that the advantix partnership did little to illustrate the relative problems of the system having a smaller neg either. To this day I talk to people about it and they're suprised to find out that the negs were smaller. I jsut think it all boils down to corporate contempt n a way.

Nonetheless I can see what you're saying about the need of better tools. I agree. I just think that the consumption of better tools should stem from really useful attributes. I'm just pretty sick of 'feature creep', another way of describing planned obsolescence. Like software packages, camera companies have become really good at slamming on features that are semi-useful but not essential. Then of course you just have to buy that new camera to get those features.

Yes I have thought about getting a camera that actually swings from side to side and has more bed extension. Yet I can still be pretty satisfied with the one that I have now. A good large format photographer can make good pictures with any camera.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

There is nothing better than the right tool for the job, sometimes that tool is expensive.

[Victor Samou Wong]

Have we given too much supremacy to the tool?

[Oren Grad]

I jsut think it all boils down to corporate contempt n a way.

Kodak and the other companies invested very large sums of money in R&D and marketing in hopes of increasing their profit by selling products that consumers would find more useful than the ones previously available. In this, they failed. The financial return on these investments was far less than the companies projected. This is because, on the whole, consumers rejected both product lines in favor of alternatives. What exactly is it about this scenario that leads to a conclusion that the companies were contemptuous and consumers unwitting dupes?

I just think that the consumption of better tools should stem from really useful attributes.

Are others not allowed to make their own judgments of what is useful? Must everybody seek your permission before making a purchase?

I'm just pretty sick of 'feature creep', another way of describing planned obsolescence.

Then don't buy such products. Nobody is forcing you.

A good large format photographer can make good pictures with any camera.

What if the photographer finds it easier or more enjoyable to use a camera with more than minimalist features. Is that a crime?

Have we given too much supremacy to the tool?

Suppose a person existed who took enormous pleasure in researching, selecting, purchasing and using the finest camera there is, by whatever definition you want. Imagine that he never in his entire life produced a picture that required anywhere near the full capabilities of that camera, or that you or anybody else considered to be important or memorable in any way, but also that he died happy and satisfied with the experiences he had with the camera. Is there something wrong with that?

[Mark Woods]

I was involved in the roll out of the Advantix product. It was a collaboration of Fuji, the Swiss manufacturer of the processor, and Kodak. It was not Kodak alone. The idea of the system (that was never realized) was not only the camera/film/processing/thumbnail images, but also the electronic recording media on the film. Part of the idea was to use this for recording information at the time of exposure, or voice to include the with the image in an electronic marriage on the computer. The system was never matured and failed. So, I'm not sure what the lesson is, but it was a design that the engineers and focus groups saw as a need and something people would use -- if all the aspects that were thought of were integrated at the time of introduction. Who knows why management didn't do it. They didn't, and the rest is history.

Kind Regards,
MW

[Oren Grad]

Sorry, by "both product lines" I meant disc and APS.

Mark, thanks for the historical input. I remember the discussion at the time of introduction of APS about the potential of the data recording capabilities designed into the system. In hindsight, I think the verdict of the market was that integration of images and other data is best done through an all-digital system. Look at how practically every new digital P&S at even very low price points now integrates movie and data recording with still-picture functions.

[Nitish Kanabar]

If you feed people mediocrity long enough, they'll get used to it.

Huh! Tell that to the US car makers. During the 70s they lost their market share to the Japanese automakers. Why? A better alternative was available to customers cheaply and they choose it. Can't say that people were so used to mediocrity that they could not recognize a better alternative.

"I just think that the consumption of better tools should stem from really useful attributes."

Consumption results from fulfilling needs. Rarely does the presence of *useful* attributes have anything to do with consumption. Case in point - a digital Casio wristwatch has far more attributes and features than a Rolex that costs more than ten thousand dollars. Both are tools that keep time - but the Rolex addresses a different need than the Casio. The usefulness of a attribute is directly proportional to the need it addresses. If my need is for a watch that packs a ton of features - stopwatch, alarm-clock, calculator, digital-compass, etc. then I'll find the attributes of a Casio more useful compared to a Rolex. If my need is to show the world that I'm financially successful and that I've *arrived* in exclusive circles, then I'll find the Rolex's attribute of high-price and its exclusivity to be more useful. Who is to decide that one particular attribute is more useful than another?



"Have we given too much supremacy to the tool?"

Some do, others don't. Some chase the magic-bullet while others work on their aim. A superior tool helps a skilled user achieve their outcome. Appreciation of a superior tool doesn't grant it supremacy over the tool-user. A master marksman isn't hitting anything if their muzzle is crooked. At the same time, a hammer and chisel in Michelangelo's hands produce far different results than the same hammer and chisel in my hands!

[Brian Ellis]

"Call me a purist or an old fart"

O.K.

[Victor Samou Wong]

Thank you all for an interesting discussion.

Then don't buy such products. Nobody is forcing you.

In a libertarian sense, yes, no-one is forcing me, especially since photography is a career. However this reminds me of the computer graphics industry, where the mere appearance of having older software is a detriment to a person, even if it may have the same function. You see, this is the key to my gripe, that the libertarian sense, no you don't have to buy things, however that doesn't work in a magic bullet chasing society.

Suppose a person existed who took enormous pleasure in researching, selecting, purchasing and using the finest camera there is, by whatever definition you want. Imagine that he never in his entire life produced a picture that required anywhere near the full capabilities of that camera, or that you or anybody else considered to be important or memorable in any way, but also that he died happy and satisfied with the experiences he had with the camera. Is there something wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with enjoying that, and it's his perrogative. We have a great deal of freedom, and we're also free to be pretty unproductive too.

Huh! Tell that to the US car makers. During the 70s they lost their market share to the Japanese automakers. Why? A better alternative was available to customers cheaply and they choose it. Can't say that people were so used to mediocrity that they could not recognize a better alternative.

Yes but didnt several people have to die in a flaming pinto first before that shift began? I think that people do eventually come around.. but it takes a while. For instance, we don't know whether archival inkjet inks cdr's or dvd-rs will last, any more than we know whether RC paper prints will last. But if either of these things poop out, we'll have lost hundreds of thousands of pictures to them by that time -if and when they do.

Of course there's no profit running around like Chicken Little, but it's food for thought anyway, so I think.

Some do, others don't. Some chase the magic-bullet while others work on their aim. A superior tool helps a skilled user achieve their outcome. Appreciation of a superior tool doesn't grant it supremacy over the tool-user. A master marksman isn't hitting anything if their muzzle is crooked. At the same time, a hammer and chisel in Michelangelo's hands produce far different results than the same hammer and chisel in my hands!

Agreed.

Cheers!

[Bruce Watson]

vic,

I think you spend too much time worrying about what other people think. Stop worrying and get out and make some photographs. If you have to worry, worry about your art, and let other people worry about theirs. Life is too short to do otherwise.

[darr]

"I think you spend too much time worrying about what other people think. Stop worrying and get out and make some photographs. If you have to worry, worry about your art, and let other people worry about theirs. Life is too short to do otherwise."

Well said!

[darter]

For every person spending $500/month on equipment, is a guy crowing about how he is using his grandfather's Graflex and lenses fashioned from flea market binoculars and printing 16x20 prints in a 21""x13" suitcase darkroom. See it all balances out.

[Victor Samou Wong]

Who says that I'm worried about other people?

I am concerned about the consumeristic system that is true. I don't see what's wrong with that. I also don't see what's wrong about complaining that people are unobjective in their judgement calls because they have committed their wallet to them. It's unscientific isn't it? People come to this forum for good unbiased information on Large Format right? Is it wrong to be concerned about that?

Remember that I mention how I prefer to do things a certain way, but I don't indicate that it's the right way or the only way. I don't advocate myself to be superior in any post. There is no crow here, -unless you're eating it. You've read the part about where I said that I preferred doing things a certain way, and missed the part about both having digital and planning on buying it in the future. It's not my intention to raise the digital/analogue debate, I'm more interested in the way that we as large format photographers think when our cameras are often not much more than light tight boxes with moveable ends.

It's hilarious the kind of response that I've had. It almost makes me think that there's a certain chord of truth to what I've posted.

Cheers

[Randy_5116]

I have spent most of my adult life in a business that supplies high-end architectural products. A lot of my time was spent researching current market trends. There are a certain amount of designers that still want an "old school" or retro look in their design, but the market generally follows distinct patterns. Since I am in the business to make money, am I likely to spend all my time and effort to produce a product for the minority just because they still exist? There will always be the group that wants this or that particular type of medium for their work, but if the majority of the spending group is going to digital or whatever the next step is, it is highly unlikely that the supplier is going to continue trying to appease the minority. I do happen to drive a 1967 VW with an 8-track tape player, shoot whole-plate and 8x10, BUT I also own a digital and a 2005 high-end auto that talks back at me more than my wife does. I do not expect Detroit to continue producing autos that the majority of the public is not interested in purchasing. I do not hold that against them. Nor do I expect the camera and film/paper producers to continue producing and marketing product for the minority. Monetarily it does not make sense. I applaud people like CJ and others that take the time to learn wet-plate, daguerrian, etc, and the process necessary to produce their own medium. The majority public wants more, quicker. Hence the disk camera, aps, digital. If low-end is where you are at, cool. Go out in the garage and dig out your old pc-xt with the dual 5 1/4 floppy drive. It isn't a personal vendetta against any group, nor is it planned obsolesence. It's just business.

[John_4185]

vic Quite a bit go far out of their way to defend the stuff that they use?

And you are above such posing, ...

I'd prefer to take pics with just me, my military speed graphic, optar 127mm f4.5, two grafmatic backs filled with fp4 and the snow outdoors.

... nope, I guess you aren't.

Call me a purist

You ain't a purist. Hell, you shoot digital, too. That's as pure as cross-dressing.

or an old fart (actually I'm jsut 30) but [...]

I've been thirty twice. Hell, last time I took the lens off my rangefinder was before you were born.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Have we given too much supremacy to the tool?

Nope......If you hike 5 miles to shoot a camera that weights 8 pound is much better than one that weights 25 pounds, if you make your living making table top and product shots, a Sinar P2 is a much better choice than a Deardorff. As I said choosing the right tool can save you a lot of grief and save you money in the long run. If you make a living doing magazine spreads and fashion shots a digital camera and set up is in inavaluable.

OTOH. there is nothing wrong with wanting to own a beautiful camera, even if it is expensive. For those who can afford them I say good for them.

[Victor Samou Wong]

I'd prefer to take pics with just me, my military speed graphic, optar 127mm f4.5, two grafmatic backs filled with fp4 and the snow outdoors.

... nope, I guess you aren't.

well.. once again, that's just what I prefer, not what I think that everybody else should use.....The reason why I put this out is that it's hideously cheap.

I've been thirty twice. Hell, last time I took the lens off my rangefinder was before you were born.

Yeah I find myself in an interesting position since I'm not young, but I'm not old. One thing is for sure.. I've just become a high school teacher, and when I see all of the young teenagers running around, damn do I feel old. Yet in the grand scheme of things I'm still pretty young.

Actually, I don't call myself a purist either.

Nope......If you hike 5 miles to shoot a camera that weights 8 pound is much better than one that weights 25 pounds, if you make your living making table top and product shots, a Sinar P2 is a much better choice than a Deardorff. As I said choosing the right tool can save you a lot of grief and save you money in the long run. If you make a living doing magazine spreads and fashion shots a digital camera and set up is in inavaluable.

Yeah I agree with the aspect of choosing something for function, especially when it comes down to business. I just don't like peeing contests with cash.

Cheers.

[Randy_5116]

"As I said choosing the right tool can save you a lot of grief and save you money in the long run"

Driving a nail in the wall with a pipe wrench may work, but a hammer does it much better. Shooting the race at Indy might work with a 7x17, but...

[Victor Samou Wong]

If you could make that work at the Indy, those pictures could be quite interesting, I think. There are hundreds of creative possibilities.

[Bob Younger]

Back to the original question, the defense of a decision, especially when that decision had high cost ($$, emotional, physical, or....) is called cognitive dissonance. It is a well documented phenomenom of social psychology. It has been documented in smokers, purchasers, and in experiments that resulted in physical or emotional pain based upon decisions. It's why people continue to look at the sales brochure after buying a car. People look for support for the decision. In large measure it's why the cigarette companies were so successful in deflecting the overwhelming research that determined cigarettes were harmful. Some of the early experiments determined that the higher the perceived price the more vehemently the decision was defended (both internally and externally).

[John_4185]

Cognitive dissonance arises when there is a challenge to what a person thinks he knows. It's not really about buyer's joy or remourse. I don't see how it applies to buying a camera unless it's done under duress - for example, your boss demanding that you own and use a POS digital camera for photographs, and your LF for a lunchbox.

[Lukas Werth]

I support the motion, and I think there is a lot to be criticised about all those consumer's dreams. Cameras are tools, worthwhile pictures take dedication and concentration, and are more about knowing how to do, including how to use available equipment, than about knowing how to obtain. More bluntly: consumerism has for a long time one of the biggest setbacks of photography as an art form.
Those dreams we dream about having that latest gadget are as stupid as those about the newest car. Yes, stupid, because it is not we who dream them. Dreaming them, we are the industry's string puppetts. Just stop for a moment to imagine how stupid commercial advertising really is. Is there *ever* anything learned, anything gained from it? They are made to lull individual drives and intellectual capabilities, and the people who make them make their money fooling people. The idea of the "free consumer" is an oxymoron.

[Bob Younger]

I agree that cognitive dissonance is different from buyers remorse, or joy. However, from the website http://www.answers.com/topic/cognitive-dissonance the following example. You can substitute the words, "very expensive photography equipment" for "washing machine." But the question asked about people who vehemently defend their decision in the face of questions about whether they have "the best."

"Once two cognitions are held and there is a conflict between them, one falls into a state of cognitive dissonance. This may be demonstrated by someone purchasing a brand of washing machine, initially believing that it was the best product to buy. One's cognition is that a good washing machine has been bought. However, after the purchase, one may be exposed to another cognition informing one that there is a better washing machine out on the market (for example, through an advertisement). This then leads to an imbalance between cognitions and a psychological state which needs to seek consonance between the two cognitions."

And, regarding the degree of dissonance: "Post-decisional dissonance may be increased by the importance of the issue, the length of time the subject takes to make or avoid the decision, and the extent to which the decision could be reversed."

[Ed K.]

Bet that grafmatic and whole rig wasn't the cheapest thing in town at the time it first sold.
The cool part about living in this time period is that we have so many choices. When a client
has their art director standing right there, and the job deadline is tomorrow, digital goodies
sure make sense. And for the artist to capture the moment or the method, how great to
use any old tool the artist finds useful! The only part that upsets me is the amount of
misrepresentation in some of the marketing, or a bit of frustration that I can't find
a particular tool I'm looking for at a price I'm willing to pay. Old fart, eh? You've got
at least 10 years to go before life really begins. I hear your pain though, however as
Clint Eastwood said the Marines line in "Heartbreak Ridge", "you adapt, improvise and overcome!".
Semper Fi! And get some great pictures while you can still lug that press camera around!

[Victor Samou Wong]

All of my working out has to be good for something. I would guess if anything, large format photography is a great way to stay in shape.

Life begins in ten years eh? I'll be looking forward to it!

Cheers

[John_4185]

vic Life begins in ten years eh? I'll be looking forward to it!

Now go to sleep like a good Rumpelstiltzkin (sorry to be so Grim as to spell it out for you), or like Snow White if that's your style.

[John_4185]

I meant RIP friggin VAN friggin WINKLE!

See what you have to look forward to in thirty years? In thirty years your skull will be drilled for internet access, cameras and sound, consciousness will be licensed, and democracy will be ... wait, it's already gone. So ferget that right now.

It must suck to be young.

[Guy Tal]

Interesting that this comes up in a forum where many members opt for ultra large formats, archaic processes etc. It comes down to a very basic tendency - people like to belong to exclusive elitist groups. Those who can't or won't get there based on exceptional personal achievement often opt to buy their way into them.

I have met too many people who feel their work is superior by virtue of the format it was captured on, the difficulty of their printing process, or the scarcity of their materials. By the same token - those who opted to pursue AZO will promote their prints as superior, those who lug around 16x20 behemoths will claim their negs are "better", and those obsessed with the MTF of a rare and expensive lens will scoff at any cheaper alternative. Are any of these claims ever put to an objective test? Whay would such a test be?

To the vast majority of people, a good image made on 35mm film, scanned on the cheapest flatbed, and printed on a desktop inkjet printer may very well "beat" an uninspired cliche captured in ULF and contact-printed by the most skillful master. What does that mean? In the context of art - a lot. In the context of social dynamics - absolutely nothing.

Guy
Scenic Wild Photography (http://scenicwild.com)

[QT Luong]

Guy, that's indeed one of the main reasons I got into LF in the first place. When everything else is equal, the bigger camera yields the better picture. In my experience of photographing in classic landscape locations in the American West, often "everything else is equal", in the sense that it's quite difficult to improve on those repertoire compositions.

[John_4185]

When everything else is equal, the bigger camera yields the better picture.

Gold plated hardware, lens barrel, and a rare wood laminate camera body helps, too. Another stunning poseur effect is to pack along a tuxedo, top hat and white spats into the field, and change into it after setting up the camera. A powerfull LED spotlight and mini-loudspeaker playing Bach (if you are a metric zonie) or otherwise Wagner (if you are a photoshopie) finishes the kit.

I'm thinking of adding it to "Stafford's Photographer in a Box" kit, orders available only through select matchbook covers.

[joseph therrien]

Being involved with motorcycles and guitars as well as photography I am often defending my expenditures in one area of enthusiasm to the practicioners of the others. Have you seen what people spend on boats or automobiles? Photography as a hobby is certainly not the least expensive was to enrich one's soul but it is far from the most expensive. The act of playing an instrument, riding a motorcycle or producing a photograph is as much an aesthetic experience for the doer as it is for the person who observes the act. If you can produce an image that satisfies you using a converted shoebox with a pinhole in one end; great. If you also need to belittle the efforts of others because they are taking a different approach; well maybe not so good.

[John_4185]

http://course1.winona.edu/jstafford/tmp/butcherboy.jpg

joseph therrien Being involved with motorcycles and guitars as well as photography ...

The above is the last bike I built from scratch. KISS.

Where's Sir Perez. He belongs in this thread.

[joseph therrien]

Although a little off topic (OK completely off topic) I am restoring a 1971 BMW R75/5.

[John_4185]

It is only OT if you don't include a picture. :) (I rode a '66 R69s and and then a '81 R100rs into the ground.)

On Topic - Could carry a LF on the '81. Tripod was a huge hassle.