NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/photo/20326

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-23 | 6.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!warwick!uknet!edcastle!spider!raft.spider.co.uk!mikec
From: [e-mail] (Mike Coren)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Camera Feature Wars - Photo Getting Like Video
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:38:57 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.
Lines: 112

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>(This message is not to anyone personally, just thoughts which have risen
>lately, so don't flame.  Otherwise, comments are welcomed.)
>
>Our whole technological culture is based on the idea that everything must be
>made to work ever more perfect.  If a machine can be built, that is enough a
>justification to build it.  No concern is given to whether it is needed at all

I disagree.  In capitalist societies, at least, the market dictates whether it
is needed at all.  As the cost of technology (parts cost, that is) comes down,
companies face demands from their customers for more of it.  The proliferation
of low-cost high technology has made product development an ever more complex,
risky, and costly business, causing companies to be even more judicious in how
they spend their scarce development money.

>or even whether it is downright bad for people (or nature).

Fortunately, this situation is changing, albeit too slowly.  As consumers are
becoming more consciencous about the environment, they (we) are also learning
that individual choices can have an effect--i.e. whether you buy the soap that
comes in a paper wrapper, or the fancy one in seven layers of plastic, paper,
and cardboard.  Ultimately this "green consumerism" will force companies to
take the environment into consideration.  Otherwise, the buying power of the
world's consumers, more powerful than any legislation, will hit these companies
where it hurts them the most, in the bottom line.  Already, this is beginning
to happen.  In the electronics industry, there is a trend away from solders
containing lead, and printed circuit board manufacturers are gradually moving
away from environmentally harmful washing agents, toward more biodegradeable
ones.  We still have a long way to go, though.

>                                                             Engineering is our
>new religion: we have to make progress.  No one knows why, but we just have to.

At what point does progress become unneccessary?  Millions of years ago, our
ancestors used to climb trees to get fruit.  The system worked, although
occasionally a branch would break from under you, or you would lose your grip,
and fall out of the tree and get hurt.  Then one day, someone hit upon the
idea to use a stick to get the fruit out of the tree without having to climb
it.  The result was the same, you got the fruit.  Only now, you didn't have
the risk of falling out of the tree.  That was progress.  When should you stop?
Family farms?  Large scale intensive agriculture?  1950?  1983?  Or should we
still be climbing trees for our food?  What about diseases, like polio, or
smallpox.  Would you prefer if people had stopped looking for vaccines for
these diseases because they were frightened by "progress"?  Would you prefer
if all the research being conducted towards a treatment or cure for AIDS were
stopped?

>And we want all those marvellous new technological advancements.  No one knows
>why, but we just want.

We want because they will make our lives easier.  It's the same reason we get
up every morning and go to work, or school, because we hope that some day, all
our hard work will pay off, and we'll be able to relax more and enjoy life.
Or we'll be able to give our children the opportunities or advantages we didn't
have.  It's human nature to want.  Even communist countries which tried to
stifle this need found it impossible to do so.  The Berlin Wall wasn't torn
down because of Western political rhetoric.  Those people didn't just want
free elections and "democracy", they wanted Nike's, Levi's, and BMW's.

>And the more technological and the more artificial the world we live in is, the
>more stressing our life becomes, because we are not living in a world for which
>we were meant to.  Our abilities are not needed.  Machines do everything
>better.  And there comes the inevitable frustration.  Not perhaps individually,
>but on a collective level.

This sounds a lot like one of US President-for-not-much-longer Bush's "Family
Values" pitches.  Oh, sorry, you did say not to flame ;-).  Seriously, though,
the frenetic pace of technological advance can easily be overwhelming, but
you need to look at each new technology as a tribute to the intellect of human
beings, not as a forboding of a Terminator-type future.

>
>If we think of a hobby photographer, which I think most of the readers of this
>list are, I see no reason why every shot should be perfect.  Isn't he joy in
>photography in gambling?  That you can never be quite sure what the outcome is.
>To appreciate the successful photos, one must also experience failures.

Two points:
   (1)    The driving force behind the newest fancy high technology cameras is
    not primarily hobby photographers.  It is people who want to take
    pictures of their vacations or family or pets without having to marry
    photography as a hobby.  Modern automatic cameras are first and
    foremost automatic cameras.  Manual controls were added almost as an
    afterthought, to address the rec.photo market.

   (2)    To go back to my ape-man with a stick analogy, using a stick to get
    the fruit from the tree is just one small part of the process.  He/she
    still has to determine, using that primitive human brain, whether or
    not the fruit is actually edible.  Similarly, automatic cameras only
    help to focus, select the exposure, or advence the film.  It has been
    said on this group millions of times that the most important part of
    any camera system is the person whose eye is behind the thing.  An
    experienced photograpic hobbyist can produce better pictures with a
    twenty year old manual camera than a neophyte can with a fully
    automatic camera right out of the box.  I have been involved with
    photography as a hobby for the past 10 or 12 years, and I recently
    took the plunge and bought an EOS to replace my old & faithful AV-1.
    After a few rolls of film with it, I can assure you that an automatic
    camera will never replace the ability of an amateur to completely
    misjudge the composure or lighting of a given situation!

>
>
>Mikko Lindholm
>[e-mail]

Mike Coren

--
Michael D. Coren, Electrical Engineer             [e-mail]
Telecommunications Techniques Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, USA.
Temporarily at Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.