Considering what we are.

Discussion in 'Photography Beginners' Forum' started by pocketshaver, Nov 28, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DanOstergren

    DanOstergren Move, I'm Gay. Praise Satan. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    Messages:
    3,905
    Likes Received:
    3,327
    Location:
    Hollywood CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    There's an angle here though; these "discussions" are clearly intended to be problematic in nature and aim to create tension. It's the same with this person's topics asking for advice; if they don't like the answer they get, that answer is met with condescension and sarcastic insults. We just keep feeding this troll even though we shouldn't.


     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 6
  2. Grandpa Ron

    Grandpa Ron No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    176
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I hope by now most folks have figured out that once you move from cold hard facts, what is left is opinion.

    To get upset over what another person thinks photography should be; is foolhardy.

    I define photography by my rules, biases, likes and dislikes. That is why I take the pictures I like, the way I like them. Fortunately, most of us share approximately the same views, colored by our own vision of photography.

    There is nothing mystical, earth shattering or even new. Just various opinions and rhetoric that make for somewhat entertaining if not downright amusing reading.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. pendennis

    pendennis No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2014
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    117
    Location:
    Dearborn, MI
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I've been doing photography in some form, or the other, for over 50 years. My first camera was a Kodak Star Flash; from there to an Argus C-3, and so to more advanced equipment. I've never given a lot of heed to those who hype gear, and I've always used the "form follows function" axiom. When the job called for 4x5, then a 4x5 it was. If I needed something in 6x6, I had that, in 35mm, digital... You get the picture. However, the object was always the image.

    I was not a big darkroom technician, so I hired others to get my end product. That worked sometime, sometimes not, technology at the time didn't allow for the wide range of image creation I sought. However, when I discovered the scanner and image editing, I could go back in time and recover those memories. I framed images, internally disappointed, though others talked about how great the photo was.

    I still shoot film and digital, and there are as the adage goes, "horses for courses".

    The limiting factor in the art and technology of photography is the human mind. If you can imagine it, you can get the image to output as you saw it.

    Technology is a marvelous thing. It drives science. For instance, the science of thermodynamics didn't come into existence until James Watt harnessed steam; Until Zeiss, Leitz, and others harnessed the ability to coat and develop modern lenses, the science of photography didn't exist.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. ACS64

    ACS64 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2018
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    13
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    This statement intrigued me so I looked up the multiple histories of the microscope. Nowhere did I find Voightlander or Pexel mentioned in the history of the microscope. I think the rest of the OP's argument is equally flawed.

    AC
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. MVPernula

    MVPernula TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    18
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I also can't find anything about that.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  6. Derrel

    Derrel Mr. Rain Cloud

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    45,306
    Likes Received:
    17,262
    Location:
    USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Voigtlander, Petzval,perhaps?
     
  7. dxqcanada

    dxqcanada Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    7,077
    Likes Received:
    1,283
    Location:
    Woodbridge, Ontario, Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Soocom1

    Soocom1 Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,932
    Likes Received:
    599
    Location:
    Southwest US
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    From Wiki:

    Voigtländer - Wikipedia


    Now its simple. The argument is weird, but brings a philosophical point that IMO few want to explore.

    Except annoying trolls like me.
     
  9. Tim Tucker 2

    Tim Tucker 2 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2017
    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    223
    Location:
    Scotland
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Actually the whole opening post makes little or no sense. It's a string of soundbites with little or no meaning.

    Where is the proof for this statement, or is it just the OP's approximation again to suit the narrative? Optical quality in the 1930's was actually extremely good, as was precision engineering. Mostly missing were advanced lens coatings, computer aided complex designs and the ability to mass produce them at a marketable price. Don't forget that Newton's "Optiks" was published in 1704, The 1930's saw nuclear fission, the first jet engine, and Kodachrome.

    We took photographs from the moon in 1969, and digital pictures orbiting Neptune from a spacecraft that was launched in 1977...

    I've seen this tired old argument many times before on other photo forums, that "my camera is better than anything Ansel Adams had" and then spending inordinate amounts of time fabricating an argument based on science, film/MP comparisons and camera specifications to prove this.

    And then pointing it at the same Tunnel View shot.

    Has Tunnel View become more scenic, does it have more detail, is it sharper, composed of more vivid and saturated colour than it was before simply because camera technology has advanced? No, but on many forums you see photographs that seem to have no purpose other than to prove this with impossible DR, unreal sharpness and hideously thinned and saturated colour. And yet many fail to see just how abstracted their images have become when they spend their time concentrating on proving the technology rather than understand why people are generally in awe of nature.

    I don't understand this narrative we create in mainly the Western world where we have to re-invent everything in ever shortening cycles to create the illusion we are forever moving forward and towards greatness. Digital doesn't just need to be better than film, it need to defeat film in every aspect. "Film is dead!" It's a forum favorite where many digital photographers feel the need to prove logically why the technology they have bought into is *where it's at* and has obliterated the opposition.

    It's an interesting question which was missed by the Op who's thoughts seem to be jumbled and at times incoherent.

    It's as blatantly obvious that Tunnel View is not an intrinsically more vibrant and photogenic place just because you own the latest digital camera as it is obvious that it wasn't really B&W in Ansel Adams' time. It is also as obvious that if you expect a more vibrant and photogenic Tunnel View from a more modern camera that you have fallen for the marketing, and equally obvious that just because Tunnel View is the same colour as before that the technology hasn't failed, (though there probably is more dust now...).

    You need to look objectively and in the right place, then you'll see it. Compare a 1930's newspaper to a modern web based one. From the front page to the sports section, and pay particular attention to not only the number of photos, but the diversity of geographical location and the length of time from pressing the shutter to world wide publication.

    ;);););)
     
  10. pendennis

    pendennis No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2014
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    117
    Location:
    Dearborn, MI
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I would only differ with you in that the "technology narrative" is the great driver, no matter the endeavor; and it's not the "my Nikon (Canon, Leica, Sony, etc.) is better than your (add appropriate name). It's also not limited to the Western World. The Western World happens to be where the freedom to explore technology changes is largely centered. It's one of the reasons the West recognizes intellectual rights and properties, a concept not unheard of, but largely ignored in the East.

    Coming right behind technology changes are the demands of the customer. When enough customers want a consumer grade 50 megapixel DSLR, then the companies will produce it, technology available. The same holds true with computers, televisions, automobiles, etc. Increased production volumes generally bring down costs.

    Improvements in technology are typified by Moore's Law (processor chips double in size, and halve in cost every 18 months). And Moore's application long predates the computer chip. Calculating devices also showed the same improvements, and nearly the same time/cost line.

    In an earlier post, I mentioned that the science of thermodynamics was created by the steam engine. Genetic science wasn't possible until the invention of the X-ray, and scientists pulled the studies of Darwin and Mendel of dusty shelves.
     
  11. Tim Tucker 2

    Tim Tucker 2 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2017
    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    223
    Location:
    Scotland
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I get your point, and have always agreed that technology drives camera development. But it doesn't drive creativity.

    In many ways what we consider to be an excellent sport photograph hasn't changed, but our ability to achieve it has. Technology has never been our problem, but our tendency to glance and jump to assumptions that we then fail to question has. We buy a modern digital camera and we can reliably predict that our ability to shoot better sports pictures because light levels no longer limit, focus is automatic, exposure is automatic. But we assume, so because we can take better photos we make a connection without thinking, we assume that it also includes more creative photos. A better camera allows more creativity...

    But creativity happens when we use our imagination, when we think, solve problems. Technology removes the need for us to do this, it does the thinking for us and when this happens we become less creative.

    It's not that more capable cameras don't allow you to be more creative, just that the link *higher camera specs = more creative potential* is wrong. When we expect greater technology to provide greater creative potential we may also fall into the trap of assuming that less technically advanced cameras have less creative potential. Whereas in reality the it was those very same technical shortcomings that forced you to think and use your imagination rather than rely on the technology.

    A better camera obviously has a better creative potential?

    The link between creativity and technology simply doesn't exist in the simple and logical way we would like it to. We so often look only to the camera for the answer, and make broad assumptions without thinking because they sound most logical. But perhaps it was never the camera that had the creative potential, perhaps it was always the photographer. In which case a worse camera forces the photographer to be more creative. And a better camera doesn't negate the photographer's creativity.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2019
  12. pocketshaver

    pocketshaver TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 5, 2019
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    15
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit


    Petzval. ****ing auto correct on here.

    Technology hasn't evolved beyond that simplistic lens design. Sure you can get coatings now that really help with flare,, but a 10 dollar circular polarizer can outdo those layers. And when combined together, can really do some sweet **** for you. Especially if you use a hood.

    If they made a lens, that didn't need internal image stabilization, AND Image Stabilizer software in the camera body itself, to make great shots....

    If they could make digital cameras give you the same image between each model and brand.. then youd have something.

    But when a 3,000$ digital camera cant give me the same true to life skin tone as a 30$ yardsale camera and a 5 dollar role of Kodak Pro Image.... I don't see advancement happening.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page