visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
kmack said:
I have to agree with Kevin, et al. Puts makes some valid points. There's nothing objectionable here. Why all the hyperbole here?
Finder
Veteran
visiondr said:
Because he shows he does not understand the photo industry nor photographic equipment manufacture. He paints his very sentimental picture of what he would have liked history to be. He is also rather arrogant in thinking only his approach to photography is the acceptable one. And people should not buy things because they want to.
peterm1
Veteran
I think Mr Puts may be a bit of a Luddite (i.e. mistrusts new technology.) But that is his right of course. I have a little sympathy for his views that modern cameras can do too much for the photographer sometimes. In theory this frees up the photographer to concentrate on composition etc. In practice it can lead to ignorance of the fundamentals and mindless shooting of shots just for the sake of it. I have a D70s (a nice camera but hardly leading edge these days) and even now I often use manual lenses on it. As this does not meter with MF lenses this makes the camera in principle like an early M series - or perhaps more aptly an old early Asahi Pentax before they had meters. Why - because its fun to do. But if I am going on holidays and want to take a camera with me more often than not its the D70s because its much cheaper to shoot and much more convenient than a film based rangefinder. Thats life.
aad
Not so new now.
I actually enjoy Mr. Puts' articles. His views as expressed in the article reflect a deep-seated dislike of individual choice.
landsknechte
Well-known
So, if I understand this correctly:
A $5000+ camera is a more modest choice than a consumer camera costing a tenth of the price?
Consumerism and mass marketing in the photographic sphere are wholly products of the digital age?
Anyone who doesn't agree with Erwin on their choice of cameras is obviously brainwashed?
A $5000+ camera is a more modest choice than a consumer camera costing a tenth of the price?
Consumerism and mass marketing in the photographic sphere are wholly products of the digital age?
Anyone who doesn't agree with Erwin on their choice of cameras is obviously brainwashed?
nzeeman
Well-known
i dont think that this article was bad. i find its point of view very accurate. he described very nicely all bad things that this late capitalism brings for photography and where mankind is going. manufacturers make cameras which will help you to make photos faster but other industries do it to - they make washing machines which will clean your clothes 50% of time faster, clothes dryer so you dont need to wait long for drying, dish washer - so you dont lose time with that.but nobody tells us why do we need to save time. we are not in rush - we need to live our lives nice and simple and in our own pace. and all those simple things they want to make faster - they are real life and time which manufacturers "save" for us is imaginary thing and have nothing with reality.
Finder
Veteran
nzeeman said:
You mean like the box bownie and the Kodak ads of the day saying you press the button and we will do the rest? Well, the 20th century was like that. Exactly how far back in time do we have to go before we find cultures not looking for easier and faster ways of doing things?
burninfilm
Well-known
Well, following the premise that human culture has the inherit need to evolve and progress, you might say that humans have always been developing ways to improve technology. However, if you look into actual anthropological data, you'll see that this notion is actually a folk model fabricated by intensive agricultural and industrial societes. If you want a slower paced life without the need for extensive labor, perhaps you could look into the lifestyles of pre-agricultural or foraging peoples?
And in all actuality, people have the ultimate buying power that dictates what capatilistic companies produce. Not the other way around. Sure, there might be what some consider "propaganda" by companies like Nikon, Canon, and yes, even Leica. In fact, if you want hardcore propaganda, just read the Leica website! Leica's tactics aren't any better than those of any other company. They are all trying to sell the consumer a product. Their tactic is persuasion, not brainwashing. It's just that Leica is producing products that the average consumer doesn't seem to like very well!
Now, I'll end this post so I can do something better than waste a few minutes of my life, discussing an issue that is in no way important to the lives of any one of us.
And in all actuality, people have the ultimate buying power that dictates what capatilistic companies produce. Not the other way around. Sure, there might be what some consider "propaganda" by companies like Nikon, Canon, and yes, even Leica. In fact, if you want hardcore propaganda, just read the Leica website! Leica's tactics aren't any better than those of any other company. They are all trying to sell the consumer a product. Their tactic is persuasion, not brainwashing. It's just that Leica is producing products that the average consumer doesn't seem to like very well!
Now, I'll end this post so I can do something better than waste a few minutes of my life, discussing an issue that is in no way important to the lives of any one of us.
3js
Established
Finder said:
Oh yes, and think of that a 100 ISO 35 film is roughly equivalent of 18 mega pixels, so why in the h*ll they have been selling us half products that have been there from 1950´s in a form of a film. Hype, hype. Is faster or easier = better? Not in my mind. Putts is right. I can take a Leica or what ever quality product that dates from 1930´s and make a picture you can´t say of how it´s been taken. Ok, where´s the progress? 80 years and nothing? Why could´t they first make it equal to film? People are so easely misslead by advertising.