# Considering what we are.



## pocketshaver (Nov 28, 2019)

In terms of equipment capability.  We haven't really progressed much throughout the ages.  Seriously we haven't.

When the first microscope lens was created by Voightlander/Pexal, the standard for high grade work was created.  When Kodak took the low cost market over with fixed power, fixed aperture meniscus lens cameras, that "pocket camera" "point and shoot" market segment was concreted for eternity.

Now we have lots of pride in our cameras, we really do. We should the level of technology going into the lenses now is marvelous. It really is. The optical quality is easily 10 times what it was in 1930.

The Vitomatic II when it was released was a high grade camera. It cost around 180 dollars back then. Not a cheap thing.  IT was the D7200 of its day in terms of quality and function. And results.  But yet nowadays 99% of people at a camera store would toss it out if they found it in a bag with a 5 year old Kodak point and shoot.

But with quality film, a lens cleaning, a tripod, and proper focusing and control on exposure, it will create images that are able to win next year photo contests, and grave the cover of any magazine in the world.

Yet we keep getting suckered into thinking new models always make it better. Looking at photographic "how toos" online, it seems we need the image stabilizer turned on when playing with manual control, and to some extent some seem to think that aperture control mode on a DSLR is MANUAL control, because you like control stuff manually....

Now every region seems to have its own preference on equipment. Australia and UK amateurs seems to prefer the one piece super zoom cameras, ya know they think its a crime to use removable lenses because get this...  IF YOU TAKE THE LENS OFF outside you just get dust and dirt inside the body, AND THAT ONE SPEC RUINS THE CAMERA.

Funny, I thought used film cameras BREED dirt on lenses and on the mirror when they aren't used for 20 some years.. And I remember how the replaceable lens cameras were heralded as major, important breakthroughs when they were put on market.

The main issue with the superzoom is the next to smallest size sensors they use, and the fact the super zooms have issues with image quality in the top 1/3rd of their magnification range, and issues in low light. And they are popular in countries that have had some extra good low light photos taken over the years.


----------



## weepete (Nov 29, 2019)

In terms of equipment capability you've now got cameras that can recognise and track subjects, sufficent technology that in a lot of circumstances you don't need supplimental lighting to take a resonable photograph, there's a screen that will enable a preview of what your exposure settings will be, firmware that allows you to tweek the in camera settings to make using the camera more suitable to the subject, technology so you can see your photographs out in the field and adjust your technique to get the shot you want. Even with lenses we are getting zooms that are as sharp as the primes of yesteryear, 4-5 stop image stabilisation to lessen the need for a tripod among other things I've probably forgotten. I doubt anyone in the 30's would have imagined how we shoot and process images now and at a price where the average person can afford. 

I'm not sure where you think we should be, but I'd say it's progressing pretty well!


----------



## Jeff15 (Nov 29, 2019)

I think it is fair to say that the latest tech in cameras is a fantastic help...


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Nov 29, 2019)

In terms of *we* I disagree, it is a trait mainly found on photo forums. It happens because many photographers on some forums look to technology to solve problems, create the images. And so they think that it is the camera and the technology that defines the image, (because it's where they look to understand it).

And without thinking or questioning you make the same assumption by linking photographic progress with the development of the camera. You also hint that your lens choice is dictated by dust, it is by looking at and understanding the camera that you choose the lenses and not looking at and understanding the subject or resulting picture.

But photography is defined by the human definition and appreciation of beauty, not by the MTF graphs of your lens or the programmed auto functions of your camera.

Believing that taking the lens off an ILC camera outside ruins it an abstract assumption unsupported by observation, isn't there more dust inside a house? It never seems to collect on the outside windowsill. . I've been changing lenses in the field for decades and all my cameras continue to work fine.

I think your posts would read better if you substituted *we* for *I*. You might see that you post is really a personal opinion and an observation of your own assumptions.


----------



## Designer (Nov 29, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> In terms of equipment capability.  We haven't really progressed much throughout the ages.


I disagree.


----------



## Soocom1 (Nov 29, 2019)

Technology: defined as:

the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.
"advances in computer technology"

The prose of the op tells me that there is an observation similar in nature to the adage spoken in Star Trek "Space Seed" where Kahn says that man's technology has advanced, but man himself has not changed. 

From my observation, and perhaps it is different else ware, it is not technology that has not advanced, it is man who has actually recessed.  When we replace our freedom with security, knowledge with fear, advancement with prejudice and the inane ability to surrender thought for convenience, we are not advancing, we are retarding.  
A camera is simply a tool. Format size, lens type, media type, matters not. The ability to learn the complexities of the form, grab attention, adjust for light, and a whole host of aspects now in large part relegated to iPhone zombie apps, we have digressed. 

As pointed out in another thread, photographs have been relegated a 30 second aww and ooohhhh moment, then forgotten. How many billions of photos are out there? And 99.95% of them forgotten. 
Where a high end photo from times past were looked upon as fine art, and treasured.  We have reached a point of instant gratification and instantly changing desires. Thus, the issue of technology is rendered moot because it itself does so.  There is little desire to learn these complexities. Only the latest post on Fakebook.


----------



## Overread (Nov 29, 2019)

You seem to be mixing up people into a single userblock which is a mistake. Confusing casual happy snappers more interested in the content of the subject in a subjective rather than artistic manner; and who are more out to "preserve a memory" are a totally different kettle of fish to those aiming toward artistic creativity.

Furthermore when it comes to the whole subject area of "art" new technology doesn't invalidate the old. It might speed up, improve quality, extend the possibilities; but the older equipment still works. Same as how digital drawing pads have not replaced the pencil and paper. You can use either and create wonderful art; sure the digital has the undo-button; no issues with rubbing out mistakes; can instantly hide construction lines etc... 

Cameras are the same, you can still get get great shots off older gear, that doesn't mean the technology "hasn't gone anywhere." Indeed talk to people who shooting challenging conditions. Heck I've shot indoor showjumping and can say that for certain the kind of shot you can get certainly changes with the technology. When you can't go past ISO 800 that limits your practical shots unless you can use supplemental lighting or only take the static award shots; or "creative blurry" jumping shots. When you can get to ISOs into the high thousands then you can keep shooting those fast, crisp sharp jumping shots well into darker conditions.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 29, 2019)

You wrote in terms of equipment capability we haven't progressed much Through the Ages. As a longtime shooter with 45 years in the hobby / field /craft.... I remember back to my first quote good camera, a 1953 Kodak Pony 135 B. It had a 51 mm f / 4.5 lens, knob wind and rewind, non-coupled shutter which required manual tensioning before each shot, and shutter speeds of 25, 50, 100, 200, and B. Focus was by estimation, with what is called front cell focusing.I bought this camera in 1975 as a twelve-year-old kid. I paid $16.95 for it. It would probably be the equivalent of today's Nikon d5600, an amateur's camera.

I think your conclusion is wildly mistaken. If I compare my 1938 baby Speed Graphic with a Nikon d850 it is like comparing a World War I biplane with a modern jet fighter that costs 90 million dollars. One had no autopilot. In fact autopilot was 60 or so years in the future. The other can fly faster than the speed of sound, whereas the other would do perhaps 160 miles per hour in a steep dive at Full Throttle.

In terms of equipment even over the past 30 years there has been tremendous advancement. And yet we still photograph the same things... pets, kids, sunsets and sunrises, travel destinations, birds, nudes, portraits, Sports, news events, Etc,


----------



## Christie Photo (Nov 29, 2019)

Hm.  Gear.  Tools.  Equipment.  SO much stock is put into the equipment we use.  One definition of "equipment" is "the necessary items for a particular purpose."



Soocom1 said:


> Format size, lens type, media type, matters not.



I think it _does _matter depending on the particular purpose.  And...  some tools can make a job easier (even possible) when others do not.

FOR ME, I look back and think it was a maturation process.  When I got my first "real" camera (one that wasn't typically found in most households), I was so very proud of everything about it; the brand, the maximum aperture, the fastest shutter speed and so on.  Even as I started my business, friends would tell me how their meter was accurate to 1/10 of a stop or they could x-sync their strobes at a faster shutter speed.  At seminars, I would hear how one make of lenses was sharper than another.  At that time, I would put all sorts crap in front of my portrait lens to kill contrast and soften the image...  so what did it matter if my lenses were the sharpest on the market?

It gradually came into focus for me (pun intended) that my gear no longer mattered to me they same way it did in the beginning.  As I cared about was reliability and if I could make it do what I needed to complete the job.  I made certain to keep it clean, safe and in good working order.  It's how I paid the bills.  It had to work and perform they way I wanted...  EVERY time. 

I just didn't care if my exposure was off by 1/10 of a stop (especially when shooting negative film).  I did insist that my tripods were stable and the sync cords didn't fail.  I had to have cases that protected my gear and everything was back in them at the end of the day. 

When I read the title of this thread, "Considering what we are," my interested was piqued.   I sure hope we're not defined by the equipment we use.

-Pete


----------



## Soocom1 (Nov 29, 2019)

Christie Photo said:


> Hm.  Gear.  Tools.  Equipment.  SO much stock is put into the equipment we use.  One definition of "equipment" is "the necessary items for a particular purpose."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not what I meant


----------



## pocketshaver (Nov 29, 2019)

Christie Photo said:


> Hm.  Gear.  Tools.  Equipment.  SO much stock is put into the equipment we use.  One definition of "equipment" is "the necessary items for a particular purpose."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Equipment IS used to define who we are, and what we do. Just look at the whole web cam market. 
 Until a few years ago, all a webcam had to do was hook to a computer and show you on screen. You were good to go.  NOW you aren't considered a "true online video content person" UNLESS you have very specific and very pricy webcams.

The regional differences in equipment is an actual one that I discovered this month.  Its bizaare but the uk and Australian kids believe the superzoom is BETTER in all way, regardless of its sensor and lens limitations. The moderating staff of one forum told me in no uncertain wording that the bridge camera or superzoom camera was BETTER then any camera with removable lenses because the simple switch of changing out a lens would allow air and dust and dirt to get onto the mirror or circuitry and cause damage and shorten the life span of it.
And those same Australian and UK photo kids feel that those who use detachable lens cameras are the toddlers that have to be put up with in order to get coffee at a fast food place.

Here on American forums, the mandatory tool is a detachable lensed camera. And those who use bridge/superzoom one piece cameras are patted on the head as the "toddlers who get in the way".

Pay attention to photographic how to websites and information these days.  Far to many of them confuse aperture or shutter control with MANUAL FOCUS because you control one variable of the exposure triangle puzzle while the camera computer adjusts the other two for ya.  
Looked at a Nikon Coolpix B600 this afternoon, the control dial doesn't even have a spot on it for manual control.

Even the most indepth online articles and instructions with digital cameras are identical to a camera compony manual,  turn on, put selector to Auto Focus, take lens cap off, point at object, depress shutter button half way, watch the lights, fully depress button to take photo.  Then its all right into PHOTO SHOPPING tricks.


----------



## texxter (Nov 29, 2019)

> In terms of equipment capability. We haven't really progressed much throughout the ages. Seriously we haven't.



This must be the falsest statement I have read about photography in the recent past.   I don't know who "we" is in this context, but replacing it with "the imaging industry" I'd say that imaging producing technology has advanced enormously in the last 50 years.   It is the same level of advancement that has moved us from typewriters to modern computers.   There is just no comparison.

Now, I am 60 and I love to shoot film.  It's fun, and I can create good images in the darkroom.  I can even print images manually and make each image unique.    But this doesn't take away the incredible advancements the industry has made in imaging.


----------



## limr (Nov 29, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> Here on American forums, the mandatory tool is a detachable lensed camera. And those who use bridge/superzoom one piece cameras are patted on the head as the "toddlers who get in the way".



Eh?? That's a huge leap. Or you're reading some weird forums.

And there's a difference between a bridge/point-and-shoot and a fixed-lens camera.


----------



## pocketshaver (Nov 29, 2019)

limr said:


> pocketshaver said:
> 
> 
> > Here on American forums, the mandatory tool is a detachable lensed camera. And those who use bridge/superzoom one piece cameras are patted on the head as the "toddlers who get in the way".
> ...



well one American forum I don't use anymore nearly hung me when I asked why buy into a DSLR or mirrorless platform when I can get the big huge zoom on a lot cheaper super zoom Nikon option.. Lots of "those aren't real cameras" came up.


----------



## limr (Nov 29, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > pocketshaver said:
> ...



So on that forum, there were a couple of narrow-minded tools. Not fair to indict all American forums for the sins of one or two.


----------



## pocketshaver (Nov 29, 2019)

texxter said:


> > In terms of equipment capability. We haven't really progressed much throughout the ages. Seriously we haven't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




IF the industry has made HUGE advancements in quality, why has the art of taking photos become the art of photo shop and post production computer work?

If the claim that digital cameras have given use a device that has the ability to take photos without needing to have external lighting, why has that "advancement" simply become one of having to use a computer to adjust the light balance, darkness, lightness, of a photo we took..

When in the "dark ages" we would have either waited for better light, or used a flash or camera on a tripod in order to take a picture in less then ideal lighting?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 29, 2019)

I think you are prone to overgeneralizing and I'm beginning to wonder about your anti- technological rantings and ravings. The art of digital photography has recently become the art of off-camera lighting within the past decade. 30 years ago only people like me, who had real Studio lighting gear, or even umbrellas and speedlights, were the exception rather than the rule, but on November 16th I went to a group photo shoot at a haunted house, and there were loads of people there, even a few 6-month beginners, and they all had their own off-camera lighting setups. In many ways digital photography has "upped the game" of many practitioners today

I think you have tremendously over- emphasized, to the point of ridiculousness, the impact that Photoshop has on image- making. I saw photos from the group shoot from about 20 different people and their images looked remarkably un-Photoshopped to me. I was there.I saw the rooms.I saw the makeup.I saw the models. The finished work that I saw was largely confined to simple global adjustments. The photos had extremely little evidence of NOT having been created in front of the lens. In other words, the photos that I saw were basically as-shot, and were not creations of Photoshop, but were instead basically direct photos made by 20 or so different photographers of varying ages and backgrounds and gender.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 29, 2019)

Adjusting images in the film darkroom was what made the work of Ansel Adams so compelling. I think you should re-evaluate your dismay over adjustment of images. As Adams used to say the " negative is the score, but the print is the performance." I think perhaps you should look at the work of Jerry Uelsman before you start whinging about how Photoshop has ruined photography.

It seems to me that your knowledge of photographic history is rather narrow, and you complaining about things like exposure adjustment is really off the mark because adjusting the print to make it lighter or darker has been done for almost 150 years or more by  people who shot on film negatives and who used enlarging techniques. Back in the years of contact printing, it was much more difficult to adjust exposure in the darkroom, but chemicals and literally etching knives were used to make the photographer's vision come to life on prints which had areas which needed lightening or darkening chemicals such as Farmer's Reducer and intensifier were used for local adjustments in a manner very similar to what we do today in Photoshop or another image processing application.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Nov 29, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> IF the industry has made HUGE *advancements in quality*, why has *the art of taking photos* become the art of photo shop and post production computer work?



Can't you see that you're measuring the value and advancement of the technology by the the aesthetic of the artistic value of the images?

Again you assume that better technical spec means a better camera and therefore a better photo. Or in this case you make a broad assumption that because you think everybody's spending so much time in Photoshop their photos are bad. Therefore the the technical advancement must be nil because better camera must make better picture so we shouldn't be spending so much time in PS...


Not everybody does spend time in Photoshop.
It beats being in the darkroom, and is an obvious progression with digital photography, (_or where you only deriving the history of photography from your limited experience with digital?_).
It's not because the camera is bad or the technology defective.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 29, 2019)

Photoshop killed The Art of Photography as much as the microwave killed the art of fine cooking.


----------



## texxter (Nov 29, 2019)

This can't possibly be a serious discussion.  I am out.


----------



## dxqcanada (Nov 29, 2019)

I hate to say this ... but I do find pocketshaver's discussions "difficult" for some reason.


----------



## pocketshaver (Nov 29, 2019)

Its OK if you find it difficult to talk about.  Seriously its ok.

The voightlander Vitomatic II is considered to have been a 109.00 camera for the common man/poor masses in 1958 when it was introduced.  Thing is, you can go online and find photographs made with them, that are as good as anything your big fancy D7200 can do.

But the thing is, the photographers didn't say a damned thing about doing any editing to the photo after they hit the shutter button. But SO many folks cant release a photo made with a D7200 WITHOUT adjusting something.  Even though they may have taken 30 photos to get that "1 good photo that was worthy of being photoshopped".

How is that technological advancement?


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Nov 29, 2019)

The fact that you can override all the automatic controls and operate a high tech DSLR  as though it was a vintage camera, should tell you that technology provides time saving convenience and a reduction in errors.

When you add the multitude of quality improvements over the years, modern gear wins hands down.

I love shooting film and holding a vintage camera, knowing that was built with pride by some long dead skilled craftsman; or resurrecting the twin lens of my high school years.  But that is just nostalgia, a pleasant pastimes for sure, but simply nostalgia.

Also I have swapped my lenses dozens of time. I have never had a dust or dirt issue. If I do, that is why they make sensor cleaning kits.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Nov 30, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> Its OK if you find it difficult to talk about.  Seriously its ok.
> 
> The voightlander Vitomatic II is considered to have been a 109.00 camera for the common man/poor masses in 1958 when it was introduced.  Thing is, you can go online and find photographs made with them, that are as good as anything your big fancy D7200 can do.
> 
> ...



Once again, you've noticed that artistic achievement hasn't advanced in line with megapixel count or lens sharpness. But instead of making the more obvious conclusion that human artistic achievement can't be measured in megapixels or seen on an MTF chart you use it to prove that camera technology hasn't advanced.

You make broad unsupported assumptions, create generalizations from the top of your head and use word association to create abstract links between ideas, _a better camera = a better photo = a better artistic talent_ shortened to _a better camera = a better artistic talent_.

A thought which, funnily enough, is derived from believing exactly the same marketing idea you railed against in your opening post. (_Owning the technology makes you creative and therefore you need to keep buying..._). You seem to be arguing about the contradictions in your own ideas, arguing against the idea that technology makes you creative while still making the broad assumption that _a better camera = a better artistic talent,_ and hence the conclusion that cameras haven't advanced...



More people take more photos with more diversity, greater success and needing less technical knowledge that ever before. That's progress...


----------



## Overread (Nov 30, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> But the thing is, the photographers didn't say a damned thing about doing any editing to the photo after they hit the shutter button. But SO many folks cant release a photo made with a D7200 WITHOUT adjusting something.  Even though they may have taken 30 photos to get that "1 good photo that was worthy of being photoshopped".



Um back then the internet didn't exist. The only way to display photos was in a gallery, a book or at a club. Most galleries won't note how a photo was edited (no matter the format); most artistic coffeebook books of photography won't list how they were made and even at the photo club unless its someone teaching and not just showing their photos, they might also not mention any details of how a photo was made. 
That has nothing to do with the medium, its the presentation. You can bet that in clubs people would talk about the best chemical brands to use for developing; that schools would have taught a range of editing skills. Heck most of the names of processes in Photoshop are lifted directly from dark-room editing methods. Stalin famously had multiple people edited out of photos with himself as those people fell out of his favour and that was all film work. 


Also don't forget a large generation of film photographers grew up with the photolab doing all the processing. They'd snap away and then take the film to the chemist and the chemist would do all the processing required. Of course those who sent them to higher end labs might have had more corrective work done and low to high end labs might well have done requests and editing adjustments if asked/part of the service.

All digital editing has done is make it easier for the photographer and also increased the range of options possible. Heck sometimes things like the reduced dynamic range of digital compared to film (esp in the earlier days of digital - its less big a gap now) meant that photos possible with a single film exposure required some editing (HDR/Tonemapping) to digital photos to achieve. Meanwhile the ability to blend photos made some process more practical. That you can automatically stack a bunch of photos together makes things like depth of field stacking and astronomy photography a LOT easier and extends the realms of what's possible.



Honestly you're just sounding ignorant of the whole process in both film and digital. You're also making a big assumption that "everyone is editing" which is blatantly not the case. There are many shooting in straight JPEG and the most they might edit is to crop the photo.


----------



## pocketshaver (Nov 30, 2019)

my vitomatic is a camera, its made to take pictures. Its sooooo stupid technologically it merely needs someone to set aperture, shutter speed, and adjust the focus.  It doesn't NEED to have special modes for taking photographs of my happy meal. Or a special mode for taking a portrait, it just does what the user says.

So should it be a question of, if photographic equipment is soo much more sophisticated, why haven't camera users adapted faster?


----------



## Overread (Nov 30, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> my vitomatic is a camera, its made to take pictures. Its sooooo stupid technologically it merely needs someone to set aperture, shutter speed, and adjust the focus.  It doesn't NEED to have special modes for taking photographs of my happy meal. Or a special mode for taking a portrait, it just does what the user says.
> 
> So should it be a question of, if photographic equipment is soo much more sophisticated, why haven't camera users adapted faster?



That doesn't even make any sense. Camera users HAVE adapted. 
Those who only want to take a portrait of their friend or family without learning anything kick their phone/camera into portrait mode and shoot away happily. 
Those who know more and want to take a very specific photo a specific way set the manual settings on their camera to the settings they need - they might even use modern technology like histograms to aid them in their choices. 
Those who know more and who are just out and around taking happy snaps - yeah - they might well use auto or portrait mode. 

You realise that a huge amount of using a camera has nothing to do with art right? And that for many people using a camera they don't want to learn all the ins an outs. Heck can YOU program your own Operating System? Or your own software? You're using some form of computer yet you're likely using standard software options rather than making your own. Sure you could learn, nothing is stopping you, but for most peoples needs they don't need to spend 10 years learning to code to surf the internet and check their emails.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 30, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> In terms of equipment capability. We haven't really progressed much throughout the ages. Seriously we haven't.





pocketshaver said:


> my vitomatic is a camera, its made to take pictures. Its sooooo stupid technologically it merely needs someone to set aperture, shutter speed, and adjust the focus.  It doesn't NEED to have special modes for taking photographs of my happy meal. Or a special mode for taking a portrait, it just does what the user says.
> 
> So should it be a question of, if photographic equipment is so much more sophisticated, why haven't camera users adapted faster?



I think that you and I live in different worlds. Making a good image and editing it either in a darkroom or in a computer are actually technical feats that were obstacles to many/most people. When I started in photography in the late 60's, my work was limited by my technical abilities, the access to equipment and facilities and finally by my talent and vision. The vast proportion of people clicked a P&S and sent it out to be processed. I worked away in the lab to produce in hours what would take me no time now.

The sophisticated equipment has removed most of the technological obstacles and the number of people taking photography more seriously has expanded as the obstacles to getting the image they want have been lowered. 
If you are content to work as people did in the 60's, go right ahead if that satisfies you.

Yes, equipment has outstripped the capability of most photographers simply because it is much easier to include all the features in a limited range of cameras even if many or most photographers don't use them.  My camera has a much more complete feature set than I use but it does have included the features I want and use.

I am free to work at making art (even mediocre art) without having to worry about pouring emulsion on glass plates.


----------



## waday (Nov 30, 2019)

limr said:


> And there's a difference between a bridge/point-and-shoot and a fixed-lens camera.


Gosh, this is so true. The other day, I was using my Ricoh GRIII next to someone that had an early model Nikon D3xxx with kit lens. I tried to talk to them photographer to photographer, but they acted as though my camera was bupkis because to them it was a “point and shoot”. I left it as is without saying anything. Little did they know, it just showed how shallow and uninformed they were.

also, to add, I’m not saying that the Ricoh is a godsend of a camera nor is it “better than theirs”, but it is several years newer with same size (and newer) sensor, built in IS, etc...


----------



## waday (Nov 30, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Photoshop killed The Art of Photography as much as the microwave killed the art of fine cooking.


That’s “science oven” to you!


----------



## Derrel (Nov 30, 2019)

waday said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > And there's a difference between a bridge/point-and-shoot and a fixed-lens camera.
> ...



Ricoh designed the camera to look like a point-and-shoot to make it less threatening. It's less obvious in social photography situations than a traditionally-styled camera.


----------



## beagle100 (Nov 30, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> In terms of equipment capability.  We haven't really progressed much throughout the ages.  Seriously we haven't.
> 
> When the first microscope lens was created by Voightlander/Pexal, the standard for high grade work was created.  When Kodak took the low cost market over with fixed power, fixed aperture meniscus lens cameras, that "pocket camera" "point and shoot" market segment was concreted for eternity.
> 
> ...



I suppose it depends on how serious ...


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Nov 30, 2019)

Worrying or even paying attention to what another photographer thinks of your gear is the height of folly. Other have no idea why you chose to use that particular piece of gear.

You could be a vintage camera aficionado pushing the limits of film photography or you might be using a $79.00 digital wonder from Wal-Mart be cause you work in salt spray, dusty or other harsh environments; or you could just be a cheapskate.

Post processing, be it dark room or digital, is also a matter of opinion. I prefer "as shot" with minimal processing, usually cropping and exposure adjustments. I like to show what saw. Others, craft beautiful photos, extracting what they saw in the same scene.

It has always been this way. Modern post processing just make it easier. Just because you own a Stradivarius, it does not make you a great violinist.

Much to-do about the opinions of others.


----------



## otherprof (Nov 30, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> Christie Photo said:
> 
> 
> > Hm.  Gear.  Tools.  Equipment.  SO much stock is put into the equipment we use.  One definition of "equipment" is "the necessary items for a particular purpose."
> ...


Zoom lenses suck in air and dust every time they are zoomed. This was explained to me by a technician when I couldn’t understand how dusty got on the sensor of a camera that had never had the kit zoom off the body.


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 30, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> texxter said:
> 
> 
> > > In terms of equipment capability. We haven't really progressed much throughout the ages. Seriously we haven't.
> ...



When I see people make these sorts or arguments about photography "not being photography anymore", my first conclusion is that the people making these claims simply are not good photographers. By the way, have you ever shared your work here, or is it always just discussions that you gear in a way to where you KNOW they will cause arguments?


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 30, 2019)

dxqcanada said:


> I hate to say this ... but I do find pocketshaver's discussions "difficult" for some reason.


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.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Dec 1, 2019)

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.


----------



## pendennis (Dec 3, 2019)

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.


----------



## ACS64 (Dec 3, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> When the first microscope lens was created by Voightlander/Pexal, the standard for high grade work was created.



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


----------



## MVPernula (Dec 3, 2019)

ACS64 said:


> pocketshaver said:
> 
> 
> > When the first microscope lens was created by Voightlander/Pexal, the standard for high grade work was created.
> ...


I also can't find anything about that.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 3, 2019)

Voigtlander, Petzval,perhaps?


----------



## dxqcanada (Dec 3, 2019)

Hmm ... This Month in Physics History


----------



## Soocom1 (Dec 3, 2019)

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.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Dec 3, 2019)

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



pocketshaver said:


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



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.


----------



## pendennis (Dec 3, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


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


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 (Dec 4, 2019)

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 (Dec 5, 2019)

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 (Dec 5, 2019)

In before this thread gets locked down. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MVPernula (Dec 5, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> 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.

Can I get a link related to the Petzcal and Voigtländer microscope thing you mentioned? Very curious.
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." 
This claim is just ridiculous.


----------



## Overread (Dec 5, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Dec 5, 2019)

pocketshaver said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2019)

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 (Dec 5, 2019)

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...



pocketshaver said:


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



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



pocketshaver said:


> 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...



pocketshaver said:


> 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...



pocketshaver said:


> 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!"



pocketshaver said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2019)

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.


----------

