Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sort of. But it did that by... Protectionism!
And in fact it had begun to grow rich (behind protectionist walls) well before it acquired much of an empire.
Cheers,
R.
Something Important
- Thread starter Bill Pierce
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 69
- Views 11K
And in fact it had begun to grow rich (behind protectionist walls) well before it acquired much of an empire.
Cheers,
R.
Rodchenko
Olympian
Precisely.
icebear
Veteran
Of course YMMV what's important and what's not. The longer he went on and on and on and on and on, you get the idea...
I do not use faux RF's, all my cameras have the real deal 😀.
I am well aware that this is not mainstream 🙄 but it's my choice because I like it this way.
What the heck is he talking about to offer cheaper alternatives for the younger folks? When did he the last time looked at the product ranges of Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus ?? Don't they offer lots of options in all price segments ? I'm not really getting his drift. Feel like I wasted my time, even though stopped like 3/4 trough ....
Even the low level cameras of today deliver technically great pictures for someone pressing the shutter who doesn't have a clue about aperture or ISO. They can just snap and be happy and post in on FB of twitter (new feature, so I read yesterday) and never look at the orig. file ever again, of course it will never get printed in 95% of the cases.
Today's generation has just different priorities and they do not want to pay attention and focus on honing a single skill. Investing time into one subject is so limiting when multitasking is the only thing that counts.
Photography is first of all about seeing. What do you think people do see of their environment staring at the screen of their smartphone?
jsrockit
Moderator
Pioneer
Veteran
Out to Lunch
Veteran
I don't know about 'important' but it is a poorly written and rambling text.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
This sounds vaguely familiar....
Oh,yes. This:
So his recommendation for the "new" world of photography is 124 year old advice?
I am being a bit snarky but I mostly don't disagree with this. It is just that what I find simple--the 5 things I control with my usual cameras(focus, aperture, shutter, iso, and what to point 'em at) seem much simpler to me than the choices I have to make with my digital camera.
The short version he provides at the end is much better written, I think, than the rest of it:
Not sure I agree with the very broad generalizations he's making either.
Rob
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I read it a couple of days ago and posted this comment there:
"Kirk,
I suspect you'll look back on this entry some time from now and wonder why you bothered writing it. I think you'll see that this is the way things have always been. Technology evolves, some people resist, some don't. Some go with the latest, some are happy with the old.
What doesn't change is that thing not related to technology at all - the need to create beauty. We keep doing it, no mater what tool is at hand. And this beauty comes out of our 'human-ness', our relationships with the world and the people in it. That's the fire that moves us forward. If I only had a Holga at hand, I'd still pursue the 'itch' to make beauty."
"Kirk,
I suspect you'll look back on this entry some time from now and wonder why you bothered writing it. I think you'll see that this is the way things have always been. Technology evolves, some people resist, some don't. Some go with the latest, some are happy with the old.
What doesn't change is that thing not related to technology at all - the need to create beauty. We keep doing it, no mater what tool is at hand. And this beauty comes out of our 'human-ness', our relationships with the world and the people in it. That's the fire that moves us forward. If I only had a Holga at hand, I'd still pursue the 'itch' to make beauty."
KyleCharles
Vagabond
I think that the author is missing the mark by putting everything into a "either / or" paradigm.
To say that the camera companies are conflicted because they need to choose to cater to either the old money or new money is just silly.
Isn't there enough of a market in both camps (and enough resources) to be able to offer a range of products for each of them? YES, and that is exactly what the industry has been doing. That is exactly why we have the choices we do, weather it be a Leica MP, Canon 1Dx, OMD, X100, or the hoards of affordable point and shoots that take wonderful photos. There is something for everyone out there.
All of the things he lists at the bottom of the page as "Must Haves" for the industry are things that they have been doing by leaps and bounds. He makes it sound like there have been no advancements in cameras becoming smaller, better, more affordable, and easier to use. Quite the opposite is true. He obviously has not played with any of today's $120 compact cameras.
As far as diminishing sales are concerned, I think it is quite simple: There will be people who are happy enough with the cameras on their smartphones, and people who are not. I don't think the camera industry can really do too much about that, but I could easily been wrong.
Someone who implies that the industry is hurting itself because all they concentrate on is D800's and OMD's is obviously not paying much attention. Pretty funny considering he just came from a camera show.
To say that the camera companies are conflicted because they need to choose to cater to either the old money or new money is just silly.
Isn't there enough of a market in both camps (and enough resources) to be able to offer a range of products for each of them? YES, and that is exactly what the industry has been doing. That is exactly why we have the choices we do, weather it be a Leica MP, Canon 1Dx, OMD, X100, or the hoards of affordable point and shoots that take wonderful photos. There is something for everyone out there.
All of the things he lists at the bottom of the page as "Must Haves" for the industry are things that they have been doing by leaps and bounds. He makes it sound like there have been no advancements in cameras becoming smaller, better, more affordable, and easier to use. Quite the opposite is true. He obviously has not played with any of today's $120 compact cameras.
As far as diminishing sales are concerned, I think it is quite simple: There will be people who are happy enough with the cameras on their smartphones, and people who are not. I don't think the camera industry can really do too much about that, but I could easily been wrong.
Someone who implies that the industry is hurting itself because all they concentrate on is D800's and OMD's is obviously not paying much attention. Pretty funny considering he just came from a camera show.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
A false dichotomy? On the Internet? Surely not!
This is one reason why I spend far less time on forums than I used to. I waste far less time arguing with people who either know very little, or are unable to make sense of what they do know.
Cheers,
R.
Pioneer
Veteran
But Roger. Discussion and argument are very useful learning tools to help one to sort through and make sense of they have learned. Growth requires that you go out and do and then come back to learn more or to reinforce those things you think you have learned. The student is not always going to agree with what the mentor/teacher is teaching. I think this is particularly true in photography.
The basics are relatively black and white and the contrast between the right way and the wrong way is pretty clear. But the further you go the more gray things become and the subtle tones mean things are no longer as clear and, in fact, there is no real right or wrong way but a personal choice.
I do agree that arguing your point of view is easier on a forum because in most cases you are reading faceless words on a computer screen. But I think it is still an effective learning tool, as long as both the mentor and the student are willing to keep an open mind.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I rest my case. I didn't say I'd given up arguing. I just said, "I waste far less time arguing with people who either know very little, or are unable to make sense of what they do know.".
Cheers,
R.
kirktuck
Newbie
Just because other people know lots and lots of stuff that you don't understand or care about is no reason to be so dismissive. A lot has changed in the industry since people first started loading film into the bottoms of their cameras. I don't mind disagreement or debate but the level of truculence and venom displayed seems about out of place in something as calm as Bill's forum...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Then again, what if you DO understand it or care about it?
Truculence and venom? Not exactly.
Dismissing the link as trivial, verbose and ill-written? Yes, possibly.
Cheers,
R.
Scrambler
Well-known
Settle, petal.
Have you read the other active threads, where, for example, there's a lather of excitement about a retro Nikon tempered by suggestions that putting a shutter speed dial on a top plate is returning to the Dark Ages?
This forum is admittedly, unashamedly, for the use of photographers of a quirky and possibly dying breed of camera (you did see the Leica Killers thread, didn't you? THAT is the spirit of the forum in cold blood.)
I for one liked your piece.
If I'm completely honest it also seemed to me that you are of an age for a midlife re-visioning. The journalistic world you (and your parents 1980's dollars) so heavily invested in is passing. The first step is dissatisfaction, then experimentation, then choice and finally commitment. I'm heading to the doorstep myself.
Welcome! Honestly, it's not as bad, even in this thread, as it seems.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Addendum: None of it is THAT important. It's different ways of taking pictures. World peace? Cure for cancer?
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
kirktuck
Newbie
This from a paragon of interesting writing....
fdarnell
Well-known
Value
Value
What will be the value of this work if it is never committed to print?
Kind of like an idea has no value until it is committed to paper. All the worlds great artwork for centuries was committed to some tangible form.
Everything is this new genre is intangible. I think that is seriously limiting its long-term value.
Value
What will be the value of this work if it is never committed to print?
Kind of like an idea has no value until it is committed to paper. All the worlds great artwork for centuries was committed to some tangible form.
Everything is this new genre is intangible. I think that is seriously limiting its long-term value.
j j
Well-known
When someone as talented and interesting as Kirk drops in to RFF it would be nice if they were made to feel welcome. I'm guessing he will not be back – who would when greeted like this? – and RFF is much the poorer for it.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I'm glad you wrote that before me 😉
I think there might be some insights there, I just lost the will to read on after the fourth paragraph or thereabouts.
