Margu
Established
upgrading is competition with other photographers. he has that so i must have it too, its as simple as that.
when you actually need to buy something because you "need" it, it feels not very good, in fact one feels coerced to spend money.
when you actually need to buy something because you "need" it, it feels not very good, in fact one feels coerced to spend money.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
If buying cameras gives you pleasure and does not harm others, why not buy cameras?
If not buying cameras gives you pleasure and does not harm others, why buy cameras?
I think that much of this discussion is on a par with which end of the egg to open.
If not buying cameras gives you pleasure and does not harm others, why buy cameras?
I think that much of this discussion is on a par with which end of the egg to open.
RichC
Well-known
I feel that this need to buy the newest camera is symptomatic of a sickness in our society. It's a sickness that encompasses far more than cameras, and is an intimate binding between technology and consumerism, driven by aggressive capitalism.
It's a subject I explored in my Digital Archaeology project.
Here's the short essay that accompanied the project:
It's a subject I explored in my Digital Archaeology project.
Here's the short essay that accompanied the project:
Digital Archaeology
This project came about from a recent experience: my video player broke so I asked a friend if I could use hers. She laughed: didn’t I know that VHS video was long dead!? She had thrown hers out years ago. I was taken aback: I consider myself a bit of a technology geek, yet I had not noticed the demise of the video cassette – which once, not so long ago, had a place in every home. This incident made me think about our relationship with consumer electronics.
Tool-making defines our species, but the pace of technological change today is unprecedented. This revolution is exemplified by the mobile phone – no other technology in the entire history of our species has spread so widely, or so fast: at the start of the 1990s, less than 0.25% of the world’s population owned a mobile phone, but today this figure has risen to a staggering 75% (five billion handsets).
However, consumer electronics quickly become obsolete. Two iconic products dramatically illustrate this short lifespan: there have been 13 generations of Canon’s flagship compact camera, the PowerShot G, since its release in 2000 – each model becoming obsolete after only about a year; and the first iPad, released just three years ago in 2010, has been superseded by four newer generations.
This fast turnover of technologies and electronics has created serious problems for society, three highly visible ones being the ever-increasing volume of electronic waste; diminishing natural resources; and the widening gap between those who cannot or do not use current technology – the "digital divide".
We are simultaneously in awe of and intimidated by today’s advanced devices: we want to possess them, but fear being possessed by them; we are schizophrenics, both technophiles and technophobes.
The photographs in Digital Archaeology depict iconic consumer electronics paradoxically of archaeological age. Despite their very recent manufacture, these devices appear seemingly decades old, perhaps centuries. Electronics as archaeology is a contradiction: how can 21st-century technology be as ancient as the photographs suggest? This dichotomy is heightened by the intended presentation of the images: displayed on light boxes, there is an allusion to the marketing of these highly desirable products. The project aims to provoke questions about time, technology and obsolescence and the consumer – and on the role of the increasingly visible LCD screen in our culture.
This project came about from a recent experience: my video player broke so I asked a friend if I could use hers. She laughed: didn’t I know that VHS video was long dead!? She had thrown hers out years ago. I was taken aback: I consider myself a bit of a technology geek, yet I had not noticed the demise of the video cassette – which once, not so long ago, had a place in every home. This incident made me think about our relationship with consumer electronics.
Tool-making defines our species, but the pace of technological change today is unprecedented. This revolution is exemplified by the mobile phone – no other technology in the entire history of our species has spread so widely, or so fast: at the start of the 1990s, less than 0.25% of the world’s population owned a mobile phone, but today this figure has risen to a staggering 75% (five billion handsets).
However, consumer electronics quickly become obsolete. Two iconic products dramatically illustrate this short lifespan: there have been 13 generations of Canon’s flagship compact camera, the PowerShot G, since its release in 2000 – each model becoming obsolete after only about a year; and the first iPad, released just three years ago in 2010, has been superseded by four newer generations.
This fast turnover of technologies and electronics has created serious problems for society, three highly visible ones being the ever-increasing volume of electronic waste; diminishing natural resources; and the widening gap between those who cannot or do not use current technology – the "digital divide".
We are simultaneously in awe of and intimidated by today’s advanced devices: we want to possess them, but fear being possessed by them; we are schizophrenics, both technophiles and technophobes.
The photographs in Digital Archaeology depict iconic consumer electronics paradoxically of archaeological age. Despite their very recent manufacture, these devices appear seemingly decades old, perhaps centuries. Electronics as archaeology is a contradiction: how can 21st-century technology be as ancient as the photographs suggest? This dichotomy is heightened by the intended presentation of the images: displayed on light boxes, there is an allusion to the marketing of these highly desirable products. The project aims to provoke questions about time, technology and obsolescence and the consumer – and on the role of the increasingly visible LCD screen in our culture.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Perhaps because it does harm others. At the risk of sounding rather more of a Green Party supporter than I am, the idea of endless consumerism and economic growth is simply unsustainable. RichC, above, explains the same thing in more detail.
Cheers,
R.
RichC
Well-known
Quite. Also like to point that I'm no starry eyed idealist, and have no axe to grind with capitalism per se - but rampant free market capitalism makes us buy unneeded cameras, and needs tempering.
A social market model is far better: look to Sweden, for example: very high taxes pay for lots of state support, but Swedes have extremely high incomes, standard of living and quality of life - among the highest in the world.
A social market model is far better: look to Sweden, for example: very high taxes pay for lots of state support, but Swedes have extremely high incomes, standard of living and quality of life - among the highest in the world.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
RichC
Well-known
Don't think you can blame economics for that!
skibeerr
Well-known
Michalm
Well-known
Cameras are being upgraded like computers , a decade ago people would seek to find better way to develop film and would only upgrade cameras every few years , but now I have seen people upgrading cameras and lenses few times a year . Perhaps economy benefits a lot from that fact , but i doubt amateur photographers do as much. Focus has shifted away from photography and technique to playing with new toys.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Pioneer
Veteran
I agree and disagree. I agree that the pace of change is accelerating. I agree that people may make bad choices when upgrading their technology, whether that be cameras or other technology. I can agree that companies are also making more sophisticated use of these technologies to try to convince people to make decisions, good or bad, to buy things. And I agree that our society is on an unsustainable path that will have to change at some point before we bury ourselves in trash.
But I disagree that this is all inherently bad. These technologies have changed the way we live. It is easier to communicate and share ideas. In this forum alone we can converse daily with people all over the world in ways that could never have happened only a few years ago. I can pick up my cell phone and call any one of you if we each decide we want that. The ability to rapidly take pictures and share those pictures with anyone and everyone in the world is completely disrupting the old ways of doing business as a photographer, but it is also blowing the doors off of bad practices across the world.
No one really knows where this will end up but this age we currently live in is absolutely amazing to me. It scares me and it thrills me. On one hand we are being manipulated by companies and governments. On the other we are using those same technologies to expose and proclaim to the world what those manipulations are causing.
I don't think that I personally need a new camera this year...and probably not next year. I can make my own decisions about what I need or don't need, though I do recognize that even those thoughts are being influenced by our present society. But neither do I want to stop what is currently happening. I think that we all know and understand more of what is happening in our world today than we did even 10 years ago, and I don't want that to stop.
But I disagree that this is all inherently bad. These technologies have changed the way we live. It is easier to communicate and share ideas. In this forum alone we can converse daily with people all over the world in ways that could never have happened only a few years ago. I can pick up my cell phone and call any one of you if we each decide we want that. The ability to rapidly take pictures and share those pictures with anyone and everyone in the world is completely disrupting the old ways of doing business as a photographer, but it is also blowing the doors off of bad practices across the world.
No one really knows where this will end up but this age we currently live in is absolutely amazing to me. It scares me and it thrills me. On one hand we are being manipulated by companies and governments. On the other we are using those same technologies to expose and proclaim to the world what those manipulations are causing.
I don't think that I personally need a new camera this year...and probably not next year. I can make my own decisions about what I need or don't need, though I do recognize that even those thoughts are being influenced by our present society. But neither do I want to stop what is currently happening. I think that we all know and understand more of what is happening in our world today than we did even 10 years ago, and I don't want that to stop.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Godfrey,
I hold no brief for Wikipedia, but as a quick-'n-dirty reference, Sweden is 44th, well behind the USA at 33rd.
If you prefer WHO figures, try Sweden at 18.7 male, 6.8 female per 100,000, against the USA at 17.7 male, 4.5 female, or Estonia at 30.6 male, 7.3 female.
But whichever figures you prefer, at least make some attempt to verify them first.
As you say, you can blame economics for anything -- especially if you don't care about the accuracy of your figures or the credibility of your arguments.
Cheers,
R.
gdi
Veteran
... and France 24.7/8.5
Which is very hard to do without knowing the source and methodology of the numbers. The WHO numbers are a true mishmash of figures from the 70's and 80's up to 2009, with no indication of the source of the information; I wouldn't rely on them.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I don't understand why people have such a hard time accepting the fact that there is a technological aspect to marketing, and that just like technologies in other applications have progressed, so too have the technologies for marketing. The creation of precision targets and frequency of delivery are just a couple of the areas in which technology has made a huge difference to marketing. And those changes have enormous affective influence.
People, especially those who are really deeply invested in the mythology of modernity (which is itself a kind of fetishization of technology), often like to fantasize themselves as being in control of a lot more things than they really are. But ever since the end of the 19th century, with theories of the unconscious, deep structure, etc. etc., there is very little question that parts of what we consider to be even our most intimate self are actually the work of forces beyond our seemingly rational individual aspirations.
Pioneer's argument makes a lot of sense, but I still think that after a certain point, we will have to develop collective strategies of refusal. It can't all be just okay, and it can't all be simply just an individual decision.
People, especially those who are really deeply invested in the mythology of modernity (which is itself a kind of fetishization of technology), often like to fantasize themselves as being in control of a lot more things than they really are. But ever since the end of the 19th century, with theories of the unconscious, deep structure, etc. etc., there is very little question that parts of what we consider to be even our most intimate self are actually the work of forces beyond our seemingly rational individual aspirations.
Pioneer's argument makes a lot of sense, but I still think that after a certain point, we will have to develop collective strategies of refusal. It can't all be just okay, and it can't all be simply just an individual decision.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
A great quote by Weston. Even over a half century ago it was in the conversation.
"The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it." - Edward Weston
"The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it." - Edward Weston
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I'll have to disagree with you there.
Ever since Thomas Malthus, people have claimed that we're going to run out of resources, sooner rather than later. We haven't. In fact, the opposite is true. The more of us there are, the more quickly our technology advances and the larger the population our planet sustains. Yes, there are many people who are not getting their fair share. That is not because we lack the resources to give them as good a life as others have. It is because we choose not to give them that fair share.
Here's the thing, though. The more toys we make (cameras, cars, computers, etc.) the more the wealth gets distributed. China and South East Asia are the current winners in this game but every country is benefitting. BBC4 just ran a programme by Hans Rosling, which showed that the world as a whole continues to get richer and that even the third world countries have longer lived and healthier populations than even a generation ago.
So far as I can see, excess consumption is bad but sensible consumption is good.
RichC
Well-known
There's the rub - sensible consumption... There may be more wealth spread among more people than ever before, but the environment is going to hell in a handbasket!
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Compare that with this article by Dr Jason Hickel of the LSOE, which shows not only a clear, documented net flow of wealth from poor places to rich places (a net flow that also characterizes the past five centuries of development), but also increasingly extreme scales of inequality. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/201349124135226392.html
Considering just how bad the "M Society" phenomenon (extreme polarized income inequality) is getting in the UK alone, I suppose that some parts of the BBC are desperate to paint a rosier picture.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I will point however that this discussion is now way OT. The question at issue here was rather the effect of upgrade-fever upon photography.
I think that quote from Edward Weston pretty much sums it all up, and yet has been largely relegated to the trash bin in the era of the incessant digital in-security.
I think that quote from Edward Weston pretty much sums it all up, and yet has been largely relegated to the trash bin in the era of the incessant digital in-security.
dmc
Bessa Driver
Off topic, perhaps. But a very interesting discussion non-the-less.
Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner
Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner