Considering what we are.

[pendennis]

Actually the whole opening post makes little or no sense. It's a string of soundbites with little or no meaning.

The optical quality is easily 10 times what it was in 1930.

...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.

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.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

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.

 

[pocketshaver]

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.

 

[zombiesniper]

In before this thread gets locked down. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MVPernula]

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

2. 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....

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

I added numbers to things in your post so you can know what I'm replying to.

1. Can I get a link related to the Petzcal and Voigtländer microscope thing you mentioned? Very curious.
2. I mean.. Lenses don't need those to make great shots, they're tools we have to simplify the process. You're going on about the fact that we aren't advancing, but image stabilization, be it in camera or in lens, is a huge deal to many! Not just in photography but in videography as well, which when mentioning it also happens to be something we can take for granted in todays cameras. Video. Not something you can do with your "30$ yardsale camera and a 5 dollar roll of Kodak Pro Image."
3. This claim is just ridiculous.

 

[Overread]

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.

You know I think we are at the stage of saying how about you show us rather than keep telling us. If you're going to make wild claims that go against the experience and observations of everyone else, put up the photos and show us your examples which prove your case.

 

[pendennis]

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.

Photography - Light Writing - Note the primary syllable is LIGHT

Light is the driving factor in lens design - period. You can't focus light with square glass to satisfy a rectangular image. In fact optical physics has gone far beyond "simplistic lens design". Minerals to transmit light are limited, and optical physicists spend careers looking for better transmission means. You've made a vast simplification of an extremely complex science. Coatings allow for better transmission of color, and allow focusing light into a single point. Uncoated lenses can't be manipulated into doing that.

As to a "$10 polarizer", don't bank your shot of a lifetime on one. There have been millions of dollars invested in developing filters, and as in any purchase, "you get what you pay for". And a lens hood is only one tool, and be sure it doesn't vignette your image.

Technology has driven the market. For years, photographers using long lenses, and long exposure times needed assistance in halting blur, especially when a tripod couldn't be used. Try handholding that Nikon F3, MD4, and 600mm f/4, using Kodachrome 25, and get the shot of the macaw in a jungle in Central America. Oh, BTW, you're shooting for National Geographic.

Now, rather than wow us with a modern film like Pro Image, try using some old Kodacolor and a Kodak Six-16. Come back when you have a skin tone better than a $3K digital camera.

You're arguments an inane, and have no relevance to the making of images. You've posited unsupportable arguments.

 

[Christie Photo]

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....

Ahhh... this is a bit revealing. This is not about the art of photography (what we are). This is about the technical side of photography.

So ya know... it's not the camera and film combo that is producing the skin tones you like; it's the lab.

-Pete

 

[Derrel]

Is there an emoji for "throws hands up in the air and looks side to side as if to say WTF?"

Asking for a friend.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

You know, I really can't decide whether the fire is being stoked occasionally or if this really is a case of, "if you have an opinion it's remarkable how biased and distorted you view becomes when you try to support it."

But for some fun, and to stop this getting too serious...

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

Petzval... Waiting... Hmmm... No auto correct here. Perhaps it was pelt with waste...

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.

Well I don't know about lenses by the coats are definitely better, even becoming "Fort William Waterproof", (which is roughly equivalent to a 30m diving watch...). As for flares, gave them up a while ago, and didn't you mean a 10 Gallon Hat can reach over those layers? Damn autocorrect...

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....

I thought it was the photographers shaky hands that needed it, not the lens...

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

Then you'd all have the same photo, "hang on, that's not my wife!"

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.

I think there might be a lot of things you don't see...



ENOUGH!

 

[Overread]

As the OP is no longer a part of the community I'm locking this thread since its not really got anywhere to go now.