Why the "mechanical shutter" is better

[back alley]

trust the force.

 

[sepiareverb]

I don't really care, as long as it trips when I push the button.

 

[FrankS]

I'm guessing they started to combine internet cafes and smoke cafes in Amsterdam. 🙂

 

[john_van_v]

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

I thought about that too. I bet the gun-nuts could really dig this debate, then kill us all, and let God sort us out, lol

 

[Michiel]

I'm guessing they started to combine internet cafes and smoke cafes in Amsterdam. 🙂

I don't think they have, but you can bring the stuff home if you like.

 

[Michael I.]

a nikon f3 died on me where a nikon fm2n did not

 

[VinceC]

>>a nikon f3 died on me where a nikon fm2n did not<<

I've only had a camera die on me in mid-assignment one time. I brought two Nikon FM2n's to Somalia in December '92. The shutter on one froze upon arrival, so I spent the next three weeks with one body. Worked out well enough, but on future SLR film assignments, I tended to carry an F and an FM2 ... The F's never let me down. But in the Canary Islands in '97, one of the metal strap-holder eyes on my F finally wore all the way through.

 

[rxmd]

Hi John,

firstly, I am a bit amazed at your invectives against tuolumne; your communicative skills appear developed (evolved?) enough that you shouldn't really have a need for that. But then the human mind is always good for surprises, and I wouldn't be surprised if that introduction here will qualify me as well for being labeled a "flaming sock puppet".

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.

Firstly, the Soviet Union did have sales managers, secondly the capitalist enterprise isn't really a Roman invention (you have to go back at least until the Greeks for that; Rostovzeff's classic "Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World" is a good introduction, even though it's from 1915). Thirdly capitalism and centralisation aren't really either the same thing nor prerequisites for one another. On the contrary, the most capitalist parts of Soviet society (since you've brought that up) were precisely those where central control did not apply, like the black market for goods and services.

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."

That doesn't prove anything. You are right that we can't interface with electronic circuitry directly, but that's really stating of the obvious, isn't it? As long as we still press a button for taking the picture, there is a mechanical interaction, and since actually this mechanical interaction is all there is, technically you have just disproved your own argument. 😉 To ask the question from my first post again: is the Leica M7's electronic shutter actually worse than the MP's mechanical one? If being sufficiently ancient apparently qualifies electronics for human beings (like the guitar amp example you brought up), is, for example, the Electro GSN's electronic shutter primitive and outdated enough that you can accept it as being equivalent to a mechanical one?

Your evolutionist argument here reminds me a lot of the similarly quasispiritual arguments in the 1830s and 1840s when people said that travelling at over 30 km/h on a railroad will make the human brain go mad, because we are naturally incapable of movement this fast. That said, I think the core of your argument is not concerned with anything observable about shutters, but mainly with a romantic sentiment about the good old things. One could call that traditionalism, or cultural pessimism, or love for what's inherited and good and right, or being a luddite. 😉 And IMHO your talk about neural systems and about constructivism and about capitalism and the Roman empire is really largely a rationalisation of this sentiment that has little to do with the subject, and I am under the suspicion that there is a certain factual inaccuracy when it comes to the details.

Philipp

 

[john_van_v]

rxmd

I guess I have to answer this though I don't want to.

Toluene started by flaming me in many ways, and is now being nice. That toluene was flaming me, and that toluene has no identifying information, not even sex, does not matter to you because you need to pervert my defense (which seems to have worked as toluene is being nice to me now) into moral insult to strengthen your position immediately tells me that your arguments will be very, very weak.

I guess I should say to you what I said to him/her; if you were more open minded, you wouldn't get your ass kicked so much!! Really buddy, I am trying to help you here. You could have avoided all those ass whoppings that I am absolutely certain you have had if you had tried to embrace other people's ideas before trashing them.

This is a discussion designed to look at the relationship between the environment of the surrounding community and the extension of the human consciousness through the shutter release to the shutter. The point of which is to enable people to take the kind of expert picture that hasn't been taken since the advent of electronics in photogrpahy, and especially since the rise of the digital camera.

Because of that, and also because I have to leave for a road trip right now, I have to limit my response to your writing.

You say that the Soviet black market was capitalism. The Soviet black markets were gangsterism just as any other black market, though they probably evolved into the monstrosity that is Russian capitalism today. Capitalism requires a capital and is defined as a diffuse tribute collection system which depletes localities of their natural resources and exploits their inhabitants for the purpose of accumulating the wealth derived from those practices in centralized locations. It is of no concern to the capitalist that the people in the localities suffer as a result of the depletion of the resources; the capitalist has no empathy, where the lack of empathy is clinically defined as aspergers syndrome. The latter part is my contribution.

I get nearly all my knowledge of capital from Lewis Mumford; if you want to insult Mumford, go ahead. He won't care as he has been dead since the 80s.

Now, on to you. The fact that you confuse capital institutions such as global banks with street corner thuggery shows that you have zero grasp on reality, and I am willing to bet ANY money you have aspergers, hence your sucky attitude.

One last question. Do you have an photography to share? Or are you here just to regurgitate didactically framed lies?

As I said, I really wish I could close this thread as it has served its purpose, and my purspose is not to right every wrong, such as your thinking process, but to show people how to right those wrongs through my art.

 

[Michiel]

Some of John's writings when it comes to other people seems disproportionate, but that is my humble opinion.

When I have been wondering is this (long post, sorrry) :

John's thesis is that a mechanical shutter is a better extention of our mind than an electronic shutter is.

I'm proposing a fictional experiment:

What if we can create an ordinary camera and have the shutter triggered by an electric pulse. Then take some of the already existing brain activity measurement systems, make it detect when you are thinking about triggering a shutter (imagine this part please), and send the trigger signal to the shutter.

This way the electronics of our brain are directly connected to the shutter, and all mechanical things that are in the way and not as efficient (like arms, fingers, buttons, cogwheels, springs) are not necessary anymore. The only mechanical thing will be the actual shutter movement.

Following John's reasoning, should this now not be more natural and therefore better than mechanics that rely on shutter buttons which have nothing to do with our own body?

So my question is, is a mechanical shutter simply the best we can offer at this moment? A way to make do untill we figure out something more natural? Cannot an electronic shutter similarly be just a way to make do untill we figure out something more natural?

My mind seems to accept that in this reasoning, none are perfect and none are "natural". My grandparents have all used typewriters but to me that doesn't make the typewriter anymore real or natural than a wordprocessor.

However, the typewriter is easier to understand. Are we talking about simply comforting feelings about things we can understand, instead of philosophical theories on tool as an extention of our being?

 

[VinceC]

>> Capitalism requires a capital and is defined as a diffuse tribute collection system which depletes localities of their natural resources and exploits their inhabitants for the purpose of accumulating the wealth derived from those practices in centralized locations<<

Capital has several definitions. The "capital" in capitalism is derived from Capitale, the Latin for property. The capital for seats of government and upper-case letters comes from Capitis, the Latin word for "head."

Capitalism is not really connected to centralized government. It is more a relic of individuality and the human drive for personal gain in the form of seeking and possessing property and useful items -- to desire is to be human. A camera is capital. The underpaid photographer, slaving away for a thankless mean-spirited photo editor is labor. Since the days of Cain and Abel, we have traded labor for capital. It is part of the human condition. The Pyramid builders knew this. So does Wall Street.

 

[skibeerr]

Cogwheels and springs I, we, understand. Electronics I do not understand.

And for some of my beautiful electro cameras I am in constant fear of unreplacebel parts failing. Hence the (subjectiv) comfort I feel with a mechanical camera.
Also I lak the expierience to benefit from motors etc, they go faster than my brain. Perhaps in time my view changes. Would hate to become a Fundi.

Shoot in peace,
Wim

 

[john_van_v]

Hi Michiel, thanks for the input

Let me see... (this will take some thinking)

disproportionate?? Ugh, I am beginning to feel like the caveman on the Geico ads, and I beginning to see his point!!

I actually had prior knowledge about the attittudes here on RFF from a committed RF collector who got so serverly insulted here on RFF that he felt he had to leave; he basically said he was "defending a newbie" from the usual land sharks. I also believe that toluene is someone elses on this list, who thinks he or she is being clever by using a sock puppet strategy. I actually used to play the sock puppet game back in 1988 when there was only a handful of us on the net, and only for fun.

Be it as it may...

John's thesis is that a mechanical shutter is a better extention of our mind than an electronic shutter is.

I am saying that mechanical shutters may help extend the rhythm of environment that the shooter is trying to capture into the camera. The reason is that a mechanical shutter should work better with the natural systems that we use to undertand the environment, which includes not only our minds, but our entire nervous systems, and also our concious extension into the environment. That interrelation, if achieved, should produce splendid pictures. I also think that the photographer cannot help but have some influence on the environment, meaning that there is feedback from the photographer to the subject audience.

My argument is evolutionary and constructivist.

If you are going to design an experiment, it is going to have to take in all the conceivable components, as this is not neural science but social science, where neurons are just a component.

... create an ordinary camera and have the shutter triggered by ... [a] ... brain activity measurement system ... so as to detect when you are thinking about triggering a shutter ... [to] send the trigger signal to the shutter... [quote/]

That would be an fRMI, but the brain activity that you are talking about is too general. The thoughts ~about~ triggering the shutter will actually preceed the decision to trigger the shutter, and will light up the same regions on the fRMI readout.

But, ok, lets pretend that we have the perfect fRMI. Reading on, Brother...

This way the electronics of our brain are directly connected to the shutter, and all mechanical things that are in the way and not as efficient (like arms, fingers, buttons, cogwheels, springs) are not necessary anymore. The only mechanical thing will be the actual shutter movement.[quote/]

I think you are describing the human memory, the image of which can then be transfered to a canvas with paint using a brush-- that is a natural, non digital art.

The assumption is that our limbs are unnecessary; not only are you divorcing yourself from your body, but also from the environment you are trying to photograph. Will this help you make a better picture? I don't think so.

If you keep stripping things away, there will be nothing to photograph.

The better strategy is to go the opposite direction; to engage the enviroment, and to enjoin the subjects so as to produce the best environment possible for creating photographs-- to play with them so to speak rather than to observe.

Following John's reasoning, should this now not be more natural and therefore better than mechanics that rely on shutter buttons which have nothing to do with our own body?[quote/]

I have to wonder what your definition of natural is; you are saying it is more natrual to wire the brain to the shutter that it is to rely on our God given, or naturally evolved system. You use the analogy of a typewriter as if type writing is somehow an art. Handwriting may be, but the art in writing is the choice of words and the ideas, not the keystroking.

The best analogy is really the classical musican, who uses every part of her body to contribute to the sounds; the wind instrument extends into the lungs as part of sound resonation in a good musician. A so-so musican only pushes air and moves keys.

... instead of philosophical theories on tool as an extention of our being?

There may be philosophical theories about the tool as an extension of the being, but here is it is simply fact of life.

 

[Michiel]

Replying shortly, it is obvious that I am not able to express my ideas clearly enough (maybe to myself as well) to add anything more to the discussion.

What I have indeed noticed though is that John and I have different notions of what is natural, and what our "artistic intent" (if I can invent a word here) originates from.

But please carry on 🙂