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.