Why the "mechanical shutter" is better

[john_van_v]

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?

Uh huh, that's the discussion.

I would have agreed with you, say, last September before I started reading about the evolution of our neurology in terms of the development of our artistic natures: human evolution.

What we have in every heathy human is a single package that operates on multiple levels, or layers, not unlike the layer of the Inernet communication principle. At the bottom of the network layer stack we have the physical layer which analogizes to our neurons, and how they interact internally and also interrelationally; at the top of the network stack we have the application layer (or is it presentation layer) which analogizes to this discussion that we are having. In between are connecting layers that accomplish different things that the other layers cannot.

Another analogy that is useful is the Russian doll model of the development of what I am talking about, which is usually discussed in terms of the evolution of morality by [SIZE=-1]Frans B. M. de Waal[/SIZE], which I think of as the evolution of artistic appreciation and the ablitiy to innovate. The inner most doll, our most distant ancestor has a rudimentary moral sense, like that of a mouse, but still a strong one. As the dolls get bigger, they represent better versions of the orginal until we get to the outermost doll, which is us right now.

(Well, not quite, the ultimate outermost doll is the humpback whale which has mental constructs we don't have called network clusters.)

Putting these two linear concepts together into an three dimensional model, I believe we have a model of what art really is. Because of the evolutionary nature of the model, there is no place for the electronic curcuit, except to mimic the natural experience. Mimic invariably means "poor substitute."

As I have mentioned in several places, I have all my life appreciated digital art if it is true to its meaning, as being digital. I have also felt this way about analog electronic art, which I mention in terms of Ozzie Osborn.

But now that I realize how natural we healthy humans are by nature, the "modernness" of prehistoric cave paintings is no accident. We, as we become sophisticated, are returning to our natural roots. The logical construct behind our natural feelings is so far beyond any calculated logical construct, such as in digital art, that I now feel that the digital art pales in comparison to natural art.

If this is true, then we are kind of down to an "equal rights" argument. We are saying that digital art is as equal to and relevant as natural, or analog, art, only so that digital aritsts don't have their feelings hurt.

Jeff Coons comes to mind here; he was a stock broker who became a famous painter with digitalized canvases of absolutely dreadful photographs. I never for a minute thought Coon's work was art by any defintion, and I now believe that he pumped up his art in much the same way stock brokers pump up stock. Unfortuately, Coons's paintings have not crashed in prices like the new ecomomy did in 2000.

 

[FrankS]

Maybe, but then maybe I am helping the guy understand why he keeps getting his ass kicked

Yeah John, whatever. Why be that way? Seems like you are sensitive enough to discern subtleties, why so blunt with your interpersonal interactions here? Or is it the spaces between us from which we've evolved? blah, blah, blah

 

[shadowfox]

Wow, I've read a lot of weird threads in RFF (some of them mine 🙂) but this one ranks up there... so "different" than what I expect from reading the title.

 

[Sparrow]

Uh huh, that's the discussion.

I would have agreed with you, say, last September before I started reading about the evolution of our neurology in terms of the development of our artistic natures: human evolution.

What we have in every heathy human is a single package that operates on multiple levels, or layers, not unlike the layer of the Inernet communication principle. At the bottom of the network layer stack we have the physical layer which analogizes to our neurons, and how they interact internally and also interrelationally; at the top of the network stack we have the application layer (or is it presentation layer) which analogizes to this discussion that we are having. In between are connecting layers that accomplish different things that the other layers cannot.

Another analogy that is useful is the Russian doll model of the development of what I am talking about, which is usually discussed in terms of the evolution of morality by [SIZE=-1]Frans B. M. de Waal[/SIZE], which I think of as the evolution of artistic appreciation and the ablitiy to innovate. The inner most doll, our most distant ancestor has a rudimentary moral sense, like that of a mouse, but still a strong one. As the dolls get bigger, they represent better versions of the orginal until we get to the outermost doll, which is us right now.

(Well, not quite, the ultimate outermost doll is the humpback whale which has mental constructs we don't have called network clusters.)

Putting these two linear concepts together into an three dimensional model, I believe we have a model of what art really is. Because of the evolutionary nature of the model, there is no place for the electronic curcuit, except to mimic the natural experience. Mimic invariably means "poor substitute."

As I have mentioned in several places, I have all my life appreciated digital art if it is true to its meaning, as being digital. I have also felt this way about analog electronic art, which I mention in terms of Ozzie Osborn.

But now that I realize how natural we healthy humans are by nature, the "modernness" of prehistoric cave paintings is no accident. We, as we become sophisticated, are returning to our natural roots. The logical construct behind our natural feelings is so far beyond any calculated logical construct, such as in digital art, that I now feel that the digital art pales in comparison to natural art.

If this is true, then we are kind of down to an "equal rights" argument. We are saying that digital art is as equal to and relevant as more natural art, only so that digital aritsts don't have their feelings hurt.

Jeff Coons comes to mind here; he was a stock broker who became a famous painter with digitalized canvases of absolutely dreadful photographs. I never for a minute thought Coon's work was art by any defintion, and I now believe that he pumped up his art in much the same way stock brokers pump up stock. Unfortuately, Coons's paintings have not crashed in prices like the new ecomomy did in 2000.

So that’s a no then?

Would you agree that human perception, our nervous system, is only possible due to a natural electronic circuit? Why would a mechanical device be a better interface to it?

PS it’s not an issue for me, if t goes click when I press the button I’m happy, just interested

 

[Kin Lau]

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.

Just tested the Minolta XD-11, Pentax ME Super and Nikon FG. No difference in whether it's set to mechanical release or electro-magnetic release on all 3.

 

[Bobfrance]

Not had a lot of dealings with the folks on this particular thread but I have found RFF one of the friendliest forums on the net. In comment on this particular thread I'd just like to say:

Franks S - I have read quite a number of your posts and have a lot of respect for your views and knowledge.

Tuolumne - Never come across you before but you seem okay to me and I think you have as much right to comment as anybody else.

John_van_v - Never come across you before either. You have obviously put a great deal of thought into your world view. Would it be too much to ask that you extend a little patience/tolerance to those for which it is new and may not share it?

That's me done. I don't wish to hijack what is a very engaging thread.

Carry on!

Bob.

 

[john_van_v]

Wow, I've read a lot of weird threads in RFF (some of them mine 🙂) but this one ranks up there... so "different" than what I expect from reading the title.

I know, it's great.

I tried to start this argument on the Fujica list on yahoo, which is really a Fujica-biased m42 (Pentax, for newbies) thread discussion.

No go, they ignored me; not to take away from that group, it's actually a pretty cool group, mostly collectors, and damn few hotheads.

 

[john_van_v]

So that’s a no then?

Would you agree that human perception, our nervous system, is only possible due to a natural electronic circuit? Why would a mechanical device be a better interface to it?

PS it’s not an issue for me, if t goes click when I press the button I’m happy, just interested

What I have been trying to say, by using various examples, that the human nervous system, which is different than the artistic system, can key in to a mechanical device because we have evoloved around mechanical experiences, such as trees and tools. That is just the way it is, and that is my "proof."

The best that electronic circuitry can do is mimic a mechanical experience; the web, for instance, shows us an HTML document that we are supposed to believe is a piece of paper. It does this deceit pretty well, I will admit, but I would still rather have the more honest obviosly digital character screen we had in the old days.

Then we come to the word "perception." Starting last September, I started to doubt there is such a thing. Using the Constructivist idea of a community of knowledge, what we do in a healthy human community is share information; the community of knowledge, or community knowledge, is the truth. If it weren't, we would all starve-- again a really simple truth.

So in the bigger sense, also as I tried to relate before, the entire cosmic conciousness (tongue in cheek reference there) flows through the photographer's finger into the camera shutter in ways not different that a classical pianist. The entire experience, which is real rather than percpetive, becomes integrally connected, the experience expressed in the photograph is the summation, yet only a piece of, the entire (Constructivist) community of knowledge. And to get that final edge of perfection, we need to have that mechanical connection because, as I mentioned, that is how we have evolved.

Still, true, that is an indirect, though valid "proof."

Read on Brother !!

 

[Sparrow]

So simply because we evolved around mechanical devices we are unable to continue that evolution through electrical ones? I think not

 

[pachuco]

Um, I like mechanical because I can't remember to buy batteries.

 

[Sparrow]

Not had a lot of dealings with the folks on this particular thread but I have found RFF one of the friendliest forums on the net. In comment on this particular thread I'd just like to say:

Franks S - I have read quite a number of your posts and have a lot of respect for your views and knowledge.

Tuolumne - Never come across you before but you seem okay to me and I think you have as much right to comment as anybody else.

John_van_v - Never come across you before either. You have obviously put a great deal of thought into your world view. Would it be too much to ask that you extend a little patience/tolerance to those for which it is new and may not share it?

That's me done. I don't wish to hijack what is a very engaging thread.

Carry on!

Bob.

I too have respect for Frank’s opinion

 

[john_van_v]

Just tested the Minolta XD-11, Pentax ME Super and Nikon FG. No difference in whether it's set to mechanical release or electro-magnetic release on all 3.

I have Nikon EM, which is about the same as an FG I think. It has film in it and its at the beginning of the roll; none the less I took a few practice shots and didn't notice a difference.

Then I took my Oly OM-1, which actually has a slower response than the EM, but I felt I could coordinate the shutter realease with an actual event more so than with the EM.

What I mean by coordinate is match the rhythm of the event with the mechanics of the camera.

If you are trying to catch a soccer player indenting a soccer ball w/ a kick, you cannot think of the process as a linear series of events each with a delay such as human reaction time. You have to be "into" the scene enough, and aware of the camera enough, to coordinate the two events. On the neurological level, this is empathy; this is art.

(Ok, I am ready-- you want to know why I am being so mean to the flaming sock puppet if I use the word empathy all the time.)

 

[ferider]

Hmm, what a different thread ....

Then we come to the word "perception." Starting last September, I started to doubt there is such a thing. Using the Constructivist idea of a community of knowledge, what we do in a healthy human community is share information; the community of knowledge, or community knowledge, is the truth. If it weren't, we would all starve-- again a really simple truth.

So the definition of "healthy community" is absolute and truth is not ?

😀

Roland.

 

[Tuolumne]

I think Jacques Derrida preferred mechanical shutters, too

I think Jacques Derrida preferred mechanical shutters, too

We think we click the electronic camera of today or the mechanical camera of yesterday. But our click of today is of yesterday and elsewhere. The miracle is that clicking has not been cut from its archaic roots -- even if we do not remember, our finger remembers, and what we say began to be said three thousand years ago. Inversely shutter clicking has incorporated our own times, before even we know, the most recent elements, linguistic and semantic particles blown by the present winds.

/T

 

[john_van_v]

So simply because we evolved around mechanical devices we are unable to continue that evolution through electrical ones? I think not

Not in your lifetime; not in anyone's. Evoltionary changes at our level of sophistication take 10's of thousands of years at least. On the other hand, we have nearly completely devolved it into nothingness at least a few times in the last hundred.

Now we are melting the ice caps, and calling it evolition denying that there is such a thing as de-evolotion.

Or am I being too intolerant of all the wealthy globalists who are trying hoplessly to satistify the vacuums which are their souls --really relace their missing artistic neurons-- with wealth, control, and the comfort of their slutty wives: the people trying to destroy the planet.

I am sorry if I get that way, but it seems real. Last I checked photography is real.

 

[john_van_v]

We think we click the electronic camera of today or the mechanical camera of yesterday. But our click of today is of yesterday and elsewhere. The miracle is that clicking has not been cut from its archaic roots -- even if we do not remember, our finger remembers, and what we say began to be said three thousand years ago. Inversely shutter clicking has incorporated our own times, before even we know, the most recent elements, linguistic and semantic particles blown by the present winds.

/T

Happy now?

 

[Tuolumne]

"If you are trying to catch a soccer player indenting a soccer ball w/ a kick, you cannot think of the process as a linear series of events each with a delay such as human reaction time. You have to be "into" the scene enough, and aware of the camera enough, to coordinate the two events. On the neurological level, this is empathy; this is art."

If you are trying to capture the indenting of a soccer ball with a kick you should use a camera with a motor drive, either digital or film, either mechanical or electronic. It doesn't matter. Else, you are trying to build the Panama Cancal with a shovel. While doing so is possible, it will take as long as the evolution of our nervous system to interface with the mechanical film cameras of tomorrow.

/T

 

[Tuolumne]

What fun! 😉

/T

 

[Joop van Heijgen]

The 'mechanical shutter' is better for those who want 'to feel', ' to smell', ' to hear', to communicate' the camera. This in order to have the idea that you can 'understand' your camera and can communicate with it! The camera like an 'organic' instrument!

 

[Sparrow]

Not in your lifetime; not in anyone's. Evoltionary changes at our level of sophistication take 10's of thousands of years at least. On the other hand, we have nearly completely devolved it into nothingness at least a few times in the last hundred.

EDIT
.

The mechanical shutter has been around for “10's of thousands of years” what did we use it for before photography? thank god we haven’t got the hang of firearms yet!
I’m going to count electric sheep mow, it’s late here, goodnight