Rant: In the land of the Digicams

[RML]

I read something like that, too. One day we'll just need to press the shutter button. And very soon afterwards we won't even have to do that as the camera will exactly know what you want to shoot. Probably you'll have to wear the camera on your head like an antenna, so it will have 360 degrees of view an can react instantaniously, even if the action takes place behind you. I hope by then I'll have passed away.... 😛

 

[Pherdinand]

Soon we will be at the stage of
Client:"So, are my photos ready?"
Photographer:"Sorry, no. The camera decided you are too ugly for portraits."

 

[Jeroen]

Imagine a digital camera with a 'classic' mode - as in that it recognises a Cartier Bresson situation, or a Winogrand shot 🙂

 

[Bertram2]

Let's not forget that many people are just not interested in the technical aspects of photography. For most people, a camera should just take the picture, so that they can enjoy whatever else it is they are doing. Most people are interested only in the results, not the craft.
.

I am sorry but I have to contradict, concerning the results.
It is a very old dream that you have a camerawhich does the job for you and you must not be "interested in the technical aspects of Photography" as you said.

Maybe it works for all the many who do not care much about the quality of the results as long as there are any and indeed the expectations of many P&S users are very low. They have no natural talent to see nor were they educated to see.
Over/unerexposing, flash blown out foregrounds,half cut off heads or legs, terrible colours , red eyes, blurred pics, all this doesn't matter as long as you can halfways recognize that this is your girl friend in front of the Eiffel Tower.

The dealer said the camera is intelligent enuff to to the job and so the result is accepted as the "best possible " one. What a misunderstanding !!!

So far this all-auto promise of the camera industry did not fullfill up 'til today, it just helped to sell more film and to produce more sad pics in the family albums.
And it did not fullfill with the digicams either, S.O.S. ( = same old sh*t).
The pics of these photogs are as poor as they always were, but now you can watch this crap on a little mouse screen on the backside. That's what this "FUN" is all about leaving aside the "fun" of putting nudes and self porn on web galleries.

ALL photogs are interested in RESULTS, in what else ? But you do not get decent pics without any technical basic knowledge. Because this solely makes you see with the eye of a camera. Maybe 3 from 1000 photogs have a natural understanding of that tool, all the rest must learn it and some never do.
Did not all our disapointments first of all come from a misunderstood tool ?
Because the pic did not look like we had seen it with our eyes ?

Results, yes, that's what it is all about, but decent ones, no crap please.

This kind of dialog happens from time to time, related to my Bessa L plus finder and level:
"Does that work with steam ?? Hoho!"
"No, not with steam, with brain, man, just brain, you know ? !"
I admit this is not the right way to open a dialog, but it would be useless anyway.

Emulsionly,
Bertram

 

[bmattock]

It's not all bad. I was showing off my new Pentax *ist DS to a non-camera co-worker the other day and he asked me where the film went. I told it it was a *digital* camera. He looked at me blankly, sighed, and said "OK, so where does the *digital* film go?"

I try to use the appropriate tool for the appropriate job. DSLR, RF, SLR, TLR, LF, Pinhole, Holga, Lomography, DV, and finger-painting: as far as I'm concerned, it's all beans, eggs, bacon, and a fried slice.

I figger those balloon people don't know what they're missing, so they don't miss it. They get their 4x6 prints back and paste them in the scrapbooks and that's fine with them. They might on occasion like a particular print and try to get it printed at 8x10, and look at it and say "Ooh, that's a bit dodgy, innit?" and demand their money back for the print, never knowing that it was their tiny digicam that let them down. But that's just grist for the mill.

Some folks drink Folger's coffee and like it. Frankly, I can't understand that when good Ethiopian Yrgechef is available. But on the other hand, I drink American Bourbon and prefer it to fine single-malt Scotch. I'm such a heathen. Get it? Heathen? Heather? Scotland? Ah, nevermind. I need more coffee.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

"Does that work with steam ?? Hoho!"
"No, not with steam, with brain, man, just brain, you know ? !"
I admit this is not the right way to open a dialog, but it would be useless anyway.

Emulsionly,
Bertram

A wise man once said "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Pherdinand]

A propos 4x6 prints...
I just got some back, from my local lab, some pics i made on friday of my colleagues playing a football game with another group from the faculty. There are some nice moments captured but most of the images are very blurry. Last set of prints i got back was from a yashica GSN i've never used before, so i thought the RF is out of alignment or such (although not ALL the photos are blurry). But this one, comes from a bright sunny day outdoor activity with a very very good lens (135/2.8) on my minolta af slr, 1/500 shutter speeds at f/8-ish. So i said wait a minute, and checked the negative with a loupe. It's all there, the white middle of the pimples on the football players face can be seen. While on the 4x6 prints the faces are unrecognizable on many frames.

Frankly, i'm pissed off. The lab worked good so far, i was happy with the colour neg results, but lately i got quite some blur in my pics. I suspected bad camera, too much coffee, myself getting older - and it turns out it's the enlarging process!

That's all about "results are important". So many factors why people can be unhappy with the results! Maybe i should shoot slides?

 

[Nikon Bob]

I am sorry but I have to contradict, concerning the results.
It is a very old dream that you have a camerawhich does the job for you and you must not be "interested in the technical aspects of Photography" as you said.

Maybe it works for all the many who do not care much about the quality of the results as long as there are any and indeed the expectations of many P&S users are very low. They have no natural talent to see nor were they educated to see.
Over/unerexposing, flash blown out foregrounds,half cut off heads or legs, terrible colours , red eyes, blurred pics, all this doesn't matter as long as you can halfways recognize that this is your girl friend in front of the Eiffel Tower.

The dealer said the camera is intelligent enuff to to the job and so the result is accepted as the "best possible " one. What a misunderstanding !!!

So far this all-auto promise of the camera industry did not fullfill up 'til today, it just helped to sell more film and to produce more sad pics in the family albums.
And it did not fullfill with the digicams either, S.O.S. ( = same old sh*t).
The pics of these photogs are as poor as they always were, but now you can watch this crap on a little mouse screen on the backside. That's what this "FUN" is all about leaving aside the "fun" of putting nudes and self porn on web galleries.

ALL photogs are interested in RESULTS, in what else ? But you do not get decent pics without any technical basic knowledge. Because this solely makes you see with the eye of a camera. Maybe 3 from 1000 photogs have a natural understanding of that tool, all the rest must learn it and some never do.
Did not all our disapointments first of all come from a misunderstood tool ?
Because the pic did not look like we had seen it with our eyes ?

Results, yes, that's what it is all about, but decent ones, no crap please.

This kind of dialog happens from time to time, related to my Bessa L plus finder and level:
"Does that work with steam ?? Hoho!"
"No, not with steam, with brain, man, just brain, you know ? !"
I admit this is not the right way to open a dialog, but it would be useless anyway.

Emulsionly,
Bertram

I would take no offense at someone being happy with their results even though it may not meet the stringent technical standards of others. They are no less valuable as family snaps for being less than brilliant technically. They are happy in their ignorance so why should I make myself unhappy over that situation? Each to his own but enjoy it.

Bob

 

[Bertram2]

That's all about "results are important". So many factors why people can be unhappy with the results! Maybe i should shoot slides?

A hundred times already I swore to do so because the lab was driving me insane with crap work, but the slide film is not so universal and tolerant as I need it.
But I use slide as often as I can because , still not owning my own scanner,
only the slides tell me what I really DID ! All kind of manipulation in the process is excluded, leaving aside bad soup maybe. That's a special fascination in film photography .
Regards,
Bertram

 

[FrankS]

Bertram, and others not already doing so: I urge you, if at all possible to get into B+W neg film and home processing. From that point, you can either go the traditional wet darkroom route if you have the space, or digitally scan you negs. Relying on someone else to run a machine to print from colour negs, is doing photography only partially.

 

[Bertram2]

A wise man once said "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

A waste of time indeed, because even if you would show him the difference he would not see it or he would keep it as not relevant.
In general I am not somebody who wants to teach people how they can get happy and I hate it to get proselytized myself. To each his own and let ME alone. 😉

Regards
Bertram

 

[BJ Bignell]

Well stated, Bertram. I agree that we are all interested in the results, but I guess what I was trying to say is that as passionate, interested photographers, we also care about how we get those results. Most people don't care about the how. If these people don't get the exact result they're expecting, they don't know enough to realise that they could get the result they want:

The dealer said the camera is intelligent enuff to to the job and so the result is accepted as the "best possible " one. What a misunderstanding !!!

"Does that work with steam ?? Hoho!"
"No, not with steam, with brain, man, just brain, you know ? !"

That's actually kind of funny. Next time someone asks you a really stupid question like this, look them straight in the eye and say "Yes it does! How did you know?" Faux sincerity with deadpan delivery will shut them up for good. My guess: They'll be embarassed for being such a fool and ask a real question, because they are actually interested, but weren't mature enough to just come out and say it.

Or, if you're running around with something substantial like a TLR, or better yet a monopod, just hit them with it. They'll learn! 😀

 

[Bertram2]

. Relying on someone else to run a machine to print from colour negs, is doing photography only partially.

You are right of course, I've just been too lazy, for buying all that and learning how to use it, that's all.
But I feel there is no escape , sigh. 🙄
Regards,
Bertram

 

[Max Power]

Most people who take photography seriously are in fact interested in the results, although, for myself, the process is a huge part of it. In fact, such a huge part that I don't really like to use a digicam when I can use any of my film cameras. My wife shoots the digicam and I shoot film, the reason, amusingly enough, is that I simply cannot get the digicam to do what I want it to do 😀

I suppose that notions such as shutter speeds, f-stops, DOF etc etc are so lodged in my brain that with a quick mental check for light levels, and what aperture I want to use, everything just falls into place. In other words, I make the camera do what I want it to do...The camera does not dictate to me. If I want to force the digicam to become my tool and for me to take posession of it, I must trip through some totally unintuitive menus which are hard to see because the LCD doesn't display well, then I have to twiddle some dials and push some buttons and on and on and on and by the time I'm ready, the moment is gone :bang:

My X-700, C220 and FED 5 do what I tell them to do, my digicam tells me what to do, and for me, that is totally absurd and unacceptable.

Just my $.02

 

[bmattock]

My new Pentax *ist DS has a T-mount Spiratone 85mm f1.8 lens on it right now. The camera is set to 'manual'. I set the f-stop, then I use the thumbwheel on the camera to set the shutter speed. Then I press the shutter release. There is no delay - zero. No AF, no AE (unless I want it, which is kinda nice with an ancient T-mount lens, I have to admit). I could press the shutter with no lens mounted and it would do it. It does just exactly what I tell it to - no argument.

I've only had it a week. The only faults I find with it so far is that 6mp is not nearly enough to let me crop as deeply as I'm used to, and since it does not shoot in B&W, my red filter is getting no joy lately. I can 'save' in B&W, but no point to doing that in-camera.

A tool is a tool. Some better for some jobs and not as good at others. Pick the right tool for the job and be happy. Digital is just another tool.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I get to use my R60, Wratten 87c, and 88a Filters! I normally put the R60 on the lens so that I can see through the viewfinder. I will probably put an 87c filter over the CCD to get just IR and be able to see through the finder. Setting the exposure is fun, the meter does not "see" in IR, so some work is required. Usually ev-3 does it, but lots of bracketing. You can also use an IR cut filter for regular black and white.

I do have a color attachment for my digital camera; remove the digital back, put on a regular back, and load it with Kodacolor.

 

[Allen Gilman]

Yeah, know what you all mean - all those people holding the the digital p&s's just haven't got a clue. It's a good thing we're on the knowing side - I mean, we really know what's goin on here and, if we're smart about it, we could just keep quiet and let it be our little secret. Just smile knowingly at those ignorant little fools and know that we're in the know.

 

[Duncan Ross]

Over/unerexposing, flash blown out foregrounds,half cut off heads or legs, terrible colours , red eyes, blurred pics, all this doesn't matter as long as you can halfways recognize that this is your girl friend in front of the Eiffel Tower.

Aw. I spend Sunday evening walking in the countryside with my Cosmic 35 which specialises in all the above!

I feel really bad now... 🙁

 

[Duncan Ross]

A wise man once said "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

I /love/ that quote Bill, it is such a great remark! My other favourite is one I heard from a Polish friend; "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

 

[RML]

When Customs release my R-D1 I'll be shooting digital. For now I'll shoot film. If the R-D1 is truly a traditional RF with a sensor instead of loaded with film, I couldn't give a star's arse whether some people frown upon digital cameras. For me the type of camera (SLR or RF) is what makes the difference, not the medium.