Why the "mechanical shutter" is better

Status
Not open for further replies.
John, I think film vs. digital is a small part of the man vs. machine argument.

Our minds are great at doing something, reacting to stuff while we're doing it, learning all the time to make it better... But we need to start off crap and then get better.

Then. Engineers come along and because they are geeks they want to make the world a better place so they make things easier by making the machine do some thinking between our action and expected the action of the machine.

Anti-locking brakes, auto-focus &c. do make it easier to do something but also take away full control from the human. And sometimes, if the mind of the human is learned enough it will irk, it irks because something it expects to happen is not. Bit like being a cricket outfielder and the laws of gravity changing from one throw to another :) Or a electronic camera stopping the shutter from firing because it hasn't achieved focus lock even though you know DoF will cover it (grrr).
 
Last edited:
What a fun and provocative post! Thanks for taking the time to put this together. Yes - probably more than I care to admit, I went back to manual film cameras because of the tactile nature of the cameras themselves that digitals simply don't have. I'm sure there's a psychological reason for this - something between the eye, the brain, the hand, and the camera... "feeling" the tension on the shutter release... that is largely absent in electronic devices.

Another example very similar to the preference of some to mechanical film cameras - if I had my druthers, the car I'm now driving would have a manual transmission. I like having complete control over the engine and what gear it's in, the "feel" of the clutch, it makes the simple act of driving more engaging and fun, required more of an investment from you and therefore is more rewarding, it engages your body and your mind, and makes the tool/vehicle more of an extension of your mind/body. Automatic transmissions are certainly more "convenient" like digital cameras but I never really "bond" with cars with the automatics. They serve a purpose, do their job, but are never "fun to drive" to me like the manual trans cars I've owned. Same with digital and highly automated autofocus SLRs vs. an all manual film camera. If anything, I see myself leaning toward going "meterless" with a Russian camera more than anything more automated.

Thanks for this interesting post.
 
Last edited:
NickTrop said:
What a fun and provocative post! Thanks for taking the time to put this together. Yes - probably more than I care to admit, I went back to manual film cameras because of the tactile nature of the cameras themselves that digitals simply don't have. I'm sure there's a psychological reason for this - something between the eye, the brain, the hand, and the camera... "feeling" the tension on the shutter release... that is largely absent in electronic devices.

Thanks for this interesting post.
Click to expand...
Great, you are welcome :) So much so that that toluene <expletive deleted> isn't even bothering me.

Actually this was all a trick; I really wanted to discuss empathy, and how we use feeling to link everything everywhere, and not just our relationships.

Engineering is empathy, in that it uses "memes" (the transport containers of emotional communication) to allow for highly complex communication. A blue print is as much containerized emotional communiation as a recorded folk song is. When engineering goes bad, it is not the engineers to blame, the managers are responsible as they are in control and invariably lack empathy (by design?), and I am especially citing sales managers.

While the Soviet Union did not have sales managers they were as purely centralized, and hence capitalistic, as the inventor of the capital enterprise-- the Roman empire. A really good book showing both the evil and good of Soviet communism, and hence possibly helping to explain the "man against machine" battle is "Beyond the Arals" by John Scott, son of Helen and Scott Nearing, the back-to-the-land gurus.

I believe in science and engineering as much a art, but I do not believe in the "human capital" system that assures that engineers, scientists, and (amazingly) doctors are devoid of empathy-- I call that the "aspergers empire."
 
Last edited:
NickTrop said:
What a fun and provocative post! Thanks for taking the time to put this together. Yes - probably more than I care to admit, I went back to manual film cameras because of the tactile nature of the cameras themselves that digitals simply don't have. I'm sure there's a psychological reason for this - something between the eye, the brain, the hand, and the camera... "feeling" the tension on the shutter release... that is largely absent in electronic devices.

Thanks for this interesting post.
Click to expand...

Great, you are welcome :) So much so that that toluene <expletive deleted> isn't even bothering me.

Acturelly this was all a trick. I really wanted to discuss empathy, and how we use feeling to link everything everywhere, and not just our relationships.

Engineering is empathy, in that it uses "memes" (the transport containers of emotional communication) to allow for highly complex communication. A blue print is as much containerized emotional communiation as a recorded folk song is. When engineering goes bad, it is not the engineers, but the managers who are responsible as they have no empathy (by design ?), and especially sales managers.
 
john_van_v, as a former math, digital imaging, business ethics, project management, and multimedia instructor, the poster who you allude to seems to lack intellectual curiosity and "hand waves" opinions like you've offerred. Seen this lots of times. Some appreciate the the beauty of linear equations, geometry, matrices, off the beaten path thinking... others roll their eyes and say "Why do I need to learn this s--t?" It's better to be in the former class of folks, and I'm grateful that I am.
 
I have a few cameras that have dual systems, electronic shutters with a mechanical backup (1/100)... I know for sure my Minolta XD-11's have it, I'm pretty sure the Pentax Super ME and Nikon FG do as well.

When I get home, I'll see if I can even tell the difference in feel btwn electronic activation vs mechanical.
 
It took airplane pilots a long time to accept "fly-by-wire" technology because they also wanted the tactile response.

I'm not certain that, in the philosophical realm, one can easily distinguish between mechanical and electronic.

Each of us, individually, is an organized grouping of atomic structures guided by electro-energy impulses. When we interact with our environment, electro-energy impulses arrange our atomic structures in such a way that they come into contact with the energy and structures of other discrete groupings of atoms -- other people, rooms full of air, basketballs, Leicas.

In taking a picture, the atomic structure of my finger presses against the atomic structure of the camera's shutter button. The energy follows the path of least resistance as it seeks an outlet, either through motion or heat. The energy motion of metal linkages can trip a shutter. Or the energy motion can be transferred to an electronic relay that continues to transfer this energy motion via the same laws of physics as the mechanical interface -- both systems rely on the constant interaction of energy seeking the path of least resistance though an atomic structure.

The issue of empathy is not dependent on electronic versus mechanical. Mechanical systems can be developed which have poor or no tactile feedback (for example, most American family cars from the 1950s). Tactile feedback can be built into a mechanical system as well. In essence, tactile feedback is a side-effect of inefficiency and push-back within a system. A system of perfect efficiency would have no tactile feedback (for example, pedalling a well-oiled bicycle in a weightless environment). However, our electo-energy sensory systems require some inputs from tactile feedback in order to judge the effectiveness of our actions in an inefficient world. For this reason, I always switch on the inherently useless feature of my digital point-and-shoot camera that makes a tiny faux shutter sound when it takes a picture. The audio feedback, via waves of energy motion passing through the atoms that make up the air around me, allows my brain to more easily process the concept and awareness of the exact moment the photograph was taken.
 
Last edited:
NickTrop said:
Some appreciate the the beauty of linear equations, geometry, matrices, off the beaten path thinking... others roll their eyes and say "Why do I need to learn this s--t?" It's better to be in the former class of folks, and I'm grateful that I am.
Click to expand...
I think that is at the heart of the man vrs machine argument (or myth?).

My main man is Lewis Mumford who in his "Technics and Civilization" predicted the tech crash of 2000 in 1937-- he could not have possibly known about the Interent, but he understood information communcation technology, and how stock-brokers think.

Science, math, technology-- these are democracy to Mumford. The twisting of these things for Mumford, a proper and straightlaced city planner, where "authroity." He had the Authoritarian Technic fighting the Democratic Technic: Hitler vrs Darwin.

I saw this analogy instantly in the Linux vrs Micro$oft battle-- but it is not that simple. In the end, Linux failed the desktop users after using us for their political battles-- Linux is now only useful to Google, IBM, and the weather prediction poeple. It has failed the "masses" dilberately and through lies. (In short the monolithic kernel is in no way better than the microkernel).

As I discovered the Linux deceit, I started looking at my life, and how I spent 12 yrs in the "hole" (or cubicle) doing systems development and operarations for the biggest creeps on the planet, Wall Street financial creeps.

I too got the great feeling from my work that you describe and appreciated the beauty of how a human friendly system can be so graceful, but now I realize it hurt me in the long run by keeping me from my (and all of our) real purpose, which is to interrelate. Health is in interrelation, as proved many times in compassion/immune system studies.

We don't really live in ourselves so much as in the physical spaces inbetween us. This is how were evolved, and therefore this is how we have to live. In the end, science explains life, love, and even God.
 
Last edited:
...:D:D:D:D:D...
Sorry if I hurt your feelings, John. Just because you post something doesn't mean we all have to admire it.

/T
 
Last edited:
Tuolumne said:
...:D:D:D:D:D...
Sorry if I hurt your feelings, John. Just because you post something doesn't mean we all have to admire it.

/T
Click to expand...
yet another strategy, and you wonder why seemingly nice people are so cruel to you in real life
 
Last edited:
John; why would one be better? Both are only human artefacts after all, can you not imagine that someone may achieve the same connections through an electric device that you get from a mechanical one? Is the value judgment “better” appropriate here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom