The Great Digital Swindle...

[jsrockit]

Actually when the HCB exhibition was at Fotografiska here in Stockholm, I felt that a better medium would have increased the impact of the pictures tremendously; content aside, the large prints looked like **** up close to be honest.

What medium would you have wanted hime to use back then? It's not his fault that everyone is huge print happy these days... when he made them, I'm sure he wasn't making huge prints.

 

[Jockos]

What medium would you have wanted hime to use back then?

120 of course!

Still it makes a point that a better camera doesn't have to be worse, as one can imagine when reading some of the posts here.

 

[jsrockit]

120 of course!

Still it makes a point that a better camera doesn't have to be worse, as one can imagine when reading some of the posts here.

Don't you think that the small camera helped him get photos that he might not have gotten with 120? We are talking 80 years ago for some of his photos. He was an innovator with his usage of a small camera IMO. Plus, let's remember that film was not fast back in this time.

 

[Wburgess]

Subject matter and composition trumps any conversation of media type.

But alas, we are miles away from the subject!

 

[icebear]

This could have been said by an old guy in 1959, still shooting his pre-war Kodak Autographic 3A folder. "Why are all these whipper-snappers clammering for that dad-gum Leica M3? You don't need a larger viewfinder to take good pictures. And that new CanonFlex and Nikon SLR-thingy....it costs as much as my first car!"

Well, if each person bought one appliance, car, camera in their life, the world would be a pretty boring place. Like in the dark ages, where nothing advanced for centuries. You bought a wooden bucket, just like your grandfather did 200 years before, and used it until you died.

This was slightly before I blinked an eye for the first time 😉.

I beg to differ and suggest a slightly different point of view:

If you only have one of a kind tool and it's very difficult to replace either due to availability or financial means, you will just take much better care of it and value it higher than just some easy to replace consumer good item that no one even bothers to repair when it breaks after two years. It's just easier and cheaper to get the latest new version and just dump the broken one even when the spare part was just $2 bucks.

But in today's economy where accountants are more important than craftsman, the only important number is the Q4 increase of turnover vs same period last year. This consequently is producing so much waste, that at some point recycling will become the new raw material sourcing. How many of the cameras produced in the last 10 years are still in use ? Nobody is repairing a $100 used value digital camera anymore.

And yes, there is progress in numbers of features and resolutions and mp's - but who is ever going to need this? Do you want to print 5 by 8 feet instead of 2 by 3?

Enough ramblin' 🙄.... whatever new camera makes you happy😉.

 

[Michael Markey]

You know, like seeing the actual faces of the children in the bombed ruins, instead of grainy smudges.....

For somebody raised in the digital age with all the emphasis on greater and greater resolution I can understand why you would say that.
You need to remember that not everybody sees things that way .

So to answer your question ...no , I don`t know because I prefer the grainy smudges and having to use my imagination.
Much as in the same way I may prefer the wireless over the television.

 

[rhl-oregon]

Tempted to add something snarky about the Great Widget-all Swindle...🙄

 

[jsrockit]

But in today's economy where accountants are more important than craftsman, the only important number is the Q4 increase of turnover vs same period last year. This consequently is producing so much waste, that at some point recycling will become the new raw material sourcing. How many of the cameras produced in the last 10 years are still in use ? Nobody is repairing a $100 used value digital camera anymore.

And yes, there is progress in numbers of features and resolutions and mp's - but who is ever going to need this? Do you want to print 5 by 8 feet instead of 2 by 3?

Some good points here Klaus.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Much as in the same way I may prefer the wireless over the television.

The pictures are always better on the wireless! 😉

 

[Pioneer]

The pictures are always better on the wireless! 😉

Much like the pictures found on the printed page of a book. 🙂

 

[regularchickens]

I'm not being swindled. I watch the innovation that happens in this market with interest in the new creative possibilities the technology offers, and I appreciate the ability of the engineers and economies of scale to put the technology into smaller and smaller packages. I don't buy gear often (for my post-eBay standards), so when I do, I try to make it a wise purchase that suits my needs. I prefer to keep using my gear for as long as possible, since I'm aware of the amount of time it can take to get accustomed to working with a new sensor/lens/body/film stock/developer. But sometimes new possibilities are too exciting to pass up.

Everybody has different needs. If your needs are met by your gear and you don't see them changing, great! You aren't being forced to discuss or purchase new products. The world will carry on regardless.

 

[pdh]

We all want to get better, faster;

I think when you say "We" in that sentence, you must mean "I" (referring to yourself)?

Because I don't want faster, and I have no idea what "better" means.

 

[Michalm]

It occurred to me this morning, whilst reading through the Nikon Df thread, that people were taking fantastic digital photographs ten years ago with cameras which you can barely give away these days. Nevertheless, many of us seem to be salivating like Pavlov's dogs as each new multi-thousand pound/dollar/euro camera body is released, even though the actual impact on the quality of our photography is likely to be negligible at best. Why is that? Are we all slaves to the photographic industry's marketing people? I suppose we must be.

For me it is like getting closer to what i'm familiar with since film days, film dynamic range , 24/36 mm format and color reproduction. It took digital technology a while to get close to that level with the latest ff cameras. I'm still waiting for camera with upgradable sensor which can be replaced with new one like computer with new memory , because sensors will keep getting better, there will be no need to upgrade camera every 2 years then.

 

[Roger Hicks]

For me it is like getting closer to what i'm familiar with since film days, film dynamic range , 24/36 mm format and color reproduction. It took digital technology a while to get close to that level with the latest ff cameras. I'm still waiting for camera with upgradable sensor which can be replaced with new one like computer with new memory , because sensors will keep getting better, there will be no need to upgrade camera every 2 years then.

Could be a long wait, though, because bigger sensors normally demand faster processing, e.g. double the megapixels, double the processing rtime...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Michalm]

Could be a long wait, though, because bigger sensors normally demand faster processing, e.g. double the megapixels, double the processing rtime...

Cheers,

R.

Well if we are lucky it will be sooner than later http://nikonrumors.com/2013/09/27/n...or-a-camera-with-interchangeable-sensor.aspx/

 

[Godfrey]

It occurred to me this morning, whilst reading through the Nikon Df thread, that people were taking fantastic digital photographs ten years ago with cameras which you can barely give away these days. Nevertheless, many of us seem to be salivating like Pavlov's dogs as each new multi-thousand pound/dollar/euro camera body is released, even though the actual impact on the quality of our photography is likely to be negligible at best. Why is that? Are we all slaves to the photographic industry's marketing people? I suppose we must be.

Why is the desire of the industry to sell products, and the desire of photographers to know about and buy new products, a "great digital swindle"? Do you think the manufacturers didn't make a big hullabaloo about a new film camera, and that photographers didn't go dashing about trying to find information about them? And buying them even though they already had perfectly useful gear that they weren't exploiting all they could do already?

This is nothing new at all. And not a swindle of any kind. And certainly not confined to anything "digital". There are just more ways to make noise nowadays, that's all.

G

 

[Roger Hicks]

Why is the desire of the industry to sell products, and the desire of photographers to know about and buy new products, a "great digital swindle"? Do you think the manufacturers didn't make a big hullabaloo about a new film camera, and that photographers didn't go dashing about trying to find information about them? And buying them even though they already had perfectly useful gear that they weren't exploiting all they could do already?

This is nothing new at all. And not a swindle of any kind. And certainly not confined to anything "digital". There are just more ways to make noise nowadays, that's all.

G

No, hold on, Godfrey. Pointless pseudo-innovation is and always has been a swindle. There are just more people who will swallow rubbish nowadays, along with more meaningless pseudo-innovation. EDIT: And more people who have the money to buy the latest essentially worthless material goods, rather than saying, "Sod that. I'll spend the 'upgrade' money on taking pictures instead." [End edit] That's all.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well if we are lucky it will be sooner than later http://nikonrumors.com/2013/09/27/n...or-a-camera-with-interchangeable-sensor.aspx/

Insh'Allah. What worries me is "Nikon has filed similar patents in the past - see here and here."

Cheers,

R.

 

[Michalm]

Insh'Allah. What worries me is "Nikon has filed similar patents in the past - see here and here."

Cheers,

R.

Pehaps Leica could take the lead then , they suppose to be making cameras that last ''forever''. 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Pehaps Leica could take the lead then , they suppose to be making cameras that last ''forever''. 🙂

Again: Insh'Allah!

Cheers,

R.