Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Modern cameras have no soul

stowpirate said:
Not a 100% true but I did like the following :)

"Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image. The less time and effort you spend worrying about your equipment the more time and effort you can spend creating great images. The right equipment just makes it easier, faster or more convenient for you to get the results you need."
Click to expand...

I have not seen on ken rockwell dot com where he tries to take closeup photos of soaring golden eagles with a kodak instamatic.

It is a funny thing but almost all the people who make this "not the camera" argument are people who use some of the very best equipment available on the market.

Why did they bother if a basic point and shoot can do it all.
 
Want to make macro images of insects - get the right camera or right lens

Want to make images of flying birds - get the right camera & right lens

Want to make ambient light portraits with pleasing out of focus backgrounds - get the right lens / camera

Want to make lanscapes capable of large print - get the right camera / lens

Want to make underwater photos - get the right camera / lens / housing

Want to make ..

You get the idea ..
 
me163_10_sm.jpeg


Nodoubt to record his body being dissolved by the rocket fuel!
 
Hocus Eye. said:
Stowpirate

You seem to assume that everyone knows about Rudy Opitz and the Komet 163. In any case he denies that the rocket fuel would turn the pilot to jelly while admitting that it would ignite on contact with orgainic material including skin.

Here is a link for anyone curious. Go to the next page for the info on the fuel:-

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight4.htm
Click to expand...

You know the story then? Apparently after one flight and perfect landing just a few bones remained. There is also a story that one of these rocket planes exceeded the sound barrier but due to the war no record could be claimed - unlikley as the aircraft was in vital places just fabric and wood! I would love to fly one as a glider as they were apparently very neutral in handling but difficult to land!!! Also nice camera these clockwork robots. I keep looking out for one but so far no luck at car boots and charity shops :)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_camera

The c-stoff part of the fuel was highly corrosive. I think you will find that t-stoff would either explode or dissolve organic material or with c-stoff if it did not ignite dissolve organic material - nice safe fuel!!!
 
weltweit said:
I have not seen on ken rockwell dot com where he tries to take closeup photos of soaring golden eagles with a kodak instamatic.

It is a funny thing but almost all the people who make this "not the camera" argument are people who use some of the very best equipment available on the market.

Why did they bother if a basic point and shoot can do it all.
Click to expand...

Rather like Lance Armstrong saying 'it's not about the bike' - he never did have a pop at the Tour de France on a Chopper, did he? :D
 
kyser_soze said:
What do you think a fucking camera is you muppet? A branch from a fucking tree? Cameras ARE technology, from the very begining a technology requiring a relatively high level of productive capacity in society as well as a whole host of supporting materials science, chemistry and engineering to make one. Indeed, cameras were and are one of the most enduring obsessions of modern technology.

Fucks sake...
Click to expand...

This is basically the point. Obviously the OP is to some degree tongue-in-cheek, but there are an alarming number of people around who genuinely believe in the existence of some great ideological divide between past generations of technology, and those that exist now. Were the great minds of 20th Century photographic technology to return today, they would not dismiss modern cameras as 'soulless', because cameras today are made in the same spirit as they always have been - one of relentless improvement. Craftsmanship is important and should be preserved as a value, but cameras are and always have been first and foremost an exercise in technology.
 
slowjoe said:
This is basically the point. Obviously the OP is to some degree tongue-in-cheek, but there are an alarming number of people around who genuinely believe in the existence of some great ideological divide between past generations of technology, and those that exist now. Were the great minds of 20th Century photographic technology to return today, they would not dismiss modern cameras as 'soulless', because cameras today are made in the same spirit as they always have been - one of relentless improvement. Craftsmanship is important and should be preserved as a value, but cameras are and always have been first and foremost an exercise in technology.
Click to expand...

That does not mean that technology is always good or even desirable.

One of the things about digital that is often overlooked is the environmental impact. There is the built in planned obsolescence and extremely short product life cycle with brainwashing commercialism results in a hunger to get the new gadget as soon as released. Cameras, mobile phones, media players, cars and computers are mostly obsolete at point of sale and this cycle is actually accelerating in recent years. Then there is the energy used by technology and the impact on global warming and the environment. With traditional film this tends to be limited to a few nasty chemicals flushed down the sink. Also most photographers only process a few negs to paper in a darkroom so impact is small. With digital it is not just the number of cameras, you have battery charging and replacement, energy used while post processing on computer, some nasty chemicals used in the cameras, computers, printer inks, paper. Then the matter of recycling and disposal.

I know I have simplified this but I am sure that a lot of people can see technology is taking over and we are heading towards a virtual world :)
 
That's a rather biased view isn't it ;)

You can't say film just involves a few chemicals, and then when assessing digital, point to all the manufacture, transport, energy etc involved.
 
I'm not sure about the 'soul' thing and my view may be a consequence of me being a beginner at this photography lark, but I definitely feel more involved in the process of picture taking with my F3 than I do with my highly automated D200. Arguably the latter takes better pictures, but with the former I feel a lot more personally involved in the outcome.
 
mauvais said:
That's a rather biased view isn't it ;)

You can't say film just involves a few chemicals, and then when assessing digital, point to all the manufacture, transport, energy etc involved.
Click to expand...

There are less images involved with film obviously there is manufacture and getting films to the user - but I did say I had simplified it somewhat. You can pull any point of view to pieces if you so desire ;)
 
Bernie Gunther said:
I'm not sure about the 'soul' thing and my view may be a consequence of me being a beginner at this photography lark, but I definitely feel more involved in the process of picture taking with my F3 than I do with my highly automated D200. Arguably the latter takes better pictures, but with the former I feel a lot more personally involved in the outcome.
Click to expand...

It is a bit like the old valve radios and tuning into that transmission that you know is somewhere between the calibration marks on the dial. It is not the same to just push a button and get instant reception and a digital readout confirming the frequency. There is no soul involved in that:confused:

Imagine tuning into this broadcast:

http://www.btinternet.com/~stowupland/soviet.mp3
 
stowpirate said:
It is a bit like the old valve radios and tuning into that transmission that you know is somewhere between the calibration marks on the dial. It is not the same to just push a button and get instant reception and a digital readout confirming the frequency. There is no soul involved in that:confused:

Imagine tuning into this broadcast:

http://www.btinternet.com/~stowupland/soviet.mp3
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the difference isn't purely a matter of convenience. The process is at least nominally an artistic one, so it matters how much you were involved.

Now I imagine that for someone who is already expert, the sort of stuff I'm talking about is so basic that automating it doesn't make any difference, and the artistic decisions are all at a much more abstract level. For someone like me though, being forced to think about e.g. exposure or work with the tighter constraints of a relatively primitive camera actually enriches the experience.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Yeah, but the difference isn't purely a matter of convenience. The process is at least nominally an artistic one, so it matters how much you were involved.

Now I imagine that for someone who is already expert, the sort of stuff I'm talking about is so basic that automating it doesn't make any difference, and the artistic decisions are all at a much more abstract level. For someone like me though, being forced to think about e.g. exposure or work with the tighter constraints of a relatively primitive camera actually enriches the experience.
Click to expand...

I agree:)

Technology actually takes away control and then claim's to have manual functionality. In reality most of the so called manual processes is automated with then you get the added obstacle of poor ergonomical design especially on compact cameras.

Manual cameras with no electronics are so much easier to understand. That bit of magic soul or whatever you want to name it has been lost as we drift more towards a virtual world.

I think the future looks bleak as the current generation has more or less disentangled from reality and turned its back on history and only interested in instant results.

Convergence of technologies with everything all onto your mobile, then take young impressionable kids with no understanding of the world and social networking sites like twitter and we all have a big problem :confused:
 
FridgeMagnet said:
what problem?
Click to expand...

Going OT now. Take as an example bebo and you will get the picture - its not all bad but if the antisocial trends with a preoccupation with violence and no control mechanism built in. We now have a violent sub culture pre occupied with guns etc - I think you know what I am getting at :)
 
Well, if they take pictures of themselves toting guns and then post them on Bebo, it'll be easier for the Police to find them, won't it? :)
 
cybertect said:
Well, if they take pictures of themselves toting guns and then post them on Bebo, it'll be easier for the Police to find them, won't it? :)
Click to expand...

But they use the technology, meaning mobiles cameras to glorify the cult following. I think it is also so widespread that short of shutting down sites like bebo or real time moderating it will just get worse :confused:
 
stowpirate said:
I agree:)

Technology actually takes away control and then claim's to have manual functionality. In reality most of the so called manual processes is automated with then you get the added obstacle of poor ergonomical design especially on compact cameras.

Manual cameras with no electronics are so much easier to understand. That bit of magic soul or whatever you want to name it has been lost as we drift more towards a virtual world.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I buy this.

The first camera I remember using was my parents' Polaroid = instant results.

The first camera I owned was a Kodak 110 Instamatic when I was nine or so, which had no controls at all (no automation either, it was largely pot luck). No manual functionality there, but I did learn that taking a picture of someone with the sun directly behind them wasn't a smart choice.

I'll grant that I did have to understand what I was doing with the manual Praktica SLR and lightmeter that I got for my 11th birthday, but by then I was already reading books on the basics of photography - I had the motivation to learn before the camera.
 
stowpirate said:
That does not mean that technology is always good or even desirable.

One of the things about digital that is often overlooked is the environmental impact. There is the built in planned obsolescence and extremely short product life cycle with brainwashing commercialism results in a hunger to get the new gadget as soon as released. Cameras, mobile phones, media players, cars and computers are mostly obsolete at point of sale and this cycle is actually accelerating in recent years. Then there is the energy used by technology and the impact on global warming and the environment. With traditional film this tends to be limited to a few nasty chemicals flushed down the sink. Also most photographers only process a few negs to paper in a darkroom so impact is small. With digital it is not just the number of cameras, you have battery charging and replacement, energy used while post processing on computer, some nasty chemicals used in the cameras, computers, printer inks, paper. Then the matter of recycling and disposal.

I know I have simplified this but I am sure that a lot of people can see technology is taking over and we are heading towards a virtual world :)
Click to expand...

The environmental impact is terrible, yes. But wastefulness does not equate to soullessness - and if it did, the popular 35mms of the mid-20th Century would be condemned along with the digitals of today, because they too were pioneers of mass-produced disposability. They represent an earlier stage in the process of 'technology taking over', not a time before.
 
BTW, this kind of debate has been going on since Kodak introduced the #1 camera in 1888.

We got Pictorialism in reaction.
 
slowjoe said:
The environmental impact is terrible, yes. But wastefulness does not equate to soullessness - and if it did, the popular 35mms of the mid-20th Century would be condemned along with the digitals of today, because they too were pioneers of mass-produced disposability. They represent an earlier stage in the process of 'technology taking over', not a time before.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that soullessness is something like your attachment to a family pet or relationship and family. A state of mind caused by familiarity :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Why are official companion camera apps always so crap?
Replies
2
Views
499
weepiper
weepiper
editor
One Month Two Cameras - superb site about 'old' digital cameras
Replies
6
Views
467
MBV
M
I
Beginner-friendly video camera recommendations
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
iona
I
editor
Pentax 17 - a new, half frame film camera for the Instagram age
Replies
3
Views
705
editor
editor
sim667
Anyone else ever get overwhelmed by their camera gear?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Virtual Blue
V
Back
Top Bottom