Paradigm Shift
PDP
The challenge facing film photography is that the definition of
'photography' has been 'dumbed-down' by those eager marketers of digital
equipment, who are desirous of selling their product.
The consumer's expectation levels have shifted en-masse -- downward.
Consumers truly believe that the less photographic detail delivered by the
digital systems' smaller image capture area is -- and appears -- 'just as
good' as 35 MM, or even medium format photography.
Why is film superior to digital? Probably for the same reasons a canvas
painting of a subject is superior to film capture. After devoting sufficient
time for comparisons of each, the perceptive abilities of your brain will
communicate the difference to you. But who is willing to devote time or
patience to such an endeavor these days?
Extending the 'digital-is-better-than-film' argument, in the future,
brick-and-mortar art galleries will be cordoned off and reserved for the
'idle rich' ... while the 'great unwashed masses' are relegatated and
isolated to 'Doonesbury'-style work cubicles, gazing at 19 inch split-screen
monitors of the Paris Art Gallery, the kids and wife (... you haven't seen
in 8 days; gotta make that sales quota, you know), Buffy the Cat, and your
stock portfolio; all the while snorting and snuffing to yourselves how, well
... 'advanced' you are, and that you really have it 'made'.
... it's called a paradigm shift, people.
Luigi de Guzman
>
> The consumer's expectation levels have shifted en-masse -- downward.
> Consumers truly believe that the less photographic detail delivered by the
> digital systems' smaller image capture area is -- and appears -- 'just as
> good' as 35 MM, or even medium format photography.
To tell the truth, very few consumers have very high expectations of camera
film &c. They want a reasonably clear recognizabe image of their friends
making fools of themselves, or of that charming bit of something they saw on
holiday.
real photogs are just a lunatic fringe.
-Luigi
revelling in his lunacy
Chris Kelly
this stuff. But when I get a really good image, I literally hear people
say "Holy Shit". It is those "Holy Shit"s that make it all worth while.
Chris
"Luigi de Guzman" <tl...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8u6nca$8uc$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
OneThumb
>
> Is every tech advancement an 'improvement'?
>
> The challenge facing film photography is that the definition of
> 'photography' has been 'dumbed-down' by those eager marketers of digital
> equipment, who are desirous of selling their product.
>
> Consumers truly believe that the less photographic detail delivered by the
> digital systems' smaller image capture area is -- and appears -- 'just as
> good' as 35 MM, or even medium format photography.
>
> painting of a subject is superior to film capture. After devoting sufficient
> time for comparisons of each, the perceptive abilities of your brain will
> communicate the difference to you. But who is willing to devote time or
> patience to such an endeavor these days?
>
> Extending the 'digital-is-better-than-film' argument, in the future,
> brick-and-mortar art galleries will be cordoned off and reserved for the
> 'idle rich' ... while the 'great unwashed masses' are relegatated and
> isolated to 'Doonesbury'-style work cubicles, gazing at 19 inch split-screen
> monitors of the Paris Art Gallery, the kids and wife (... you haven't seen
> in 8 days; gotta make that sales quota, you know), Buffy the Cat, and your
> stock portfolio; all the while snorting and snuffing to yourselves how, well
> ... 'advanced' you are, and that you really have it 'made'.
>
> ... it's called a paradigm shift, people.
Ok, I'll bite.
On second thought, nah.
LoveThePenguin
uninformed or unintelligent. Not everyone who purhcases a camera
knows, or even needs to know, everything about photography. Can you
rebuild an automobile engine? Maybe, but likely not. Yet you still
own a car. Is it the technically best car around? You probably don't
care. I don't either. My car is meant to reliably get me around.
The same goes for cameras -- people want toys and pictures --
nothing more.
For the artist and commercial photographer, it's a different story.
Impressions are often captured better with brush and palette.
Details are grabbed with film.
jmho,
Collin
In article <uszN5.2749$5v6....@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
--
***
Life's Priorities:
#1 When you are willing to stand up and say "I believe..." then you
begin to understand freedom.
#2 Alcohol and math don't mix. Don't drink & derive.
#3 A polar bear is a rectangular bear after a coordinate transform.
***
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Heavysteam
uninformed or unintelligent.>>
Sounds more like common sense to me. A few hours on the internet should
convince anyone that refering to the "masses" as uninformed or unintelligent is
a compliment.
Bob Hickey
of the american public. Can't fault that logic. Bob Hickey
David Gay
Chances are, you (and I) meet that definition for appropriately chosen
subjects. That was the poster's point.
--
David Gay - Yet Another Starving Grad Student
dg...@cs.berkeley.edu
Alan Browne
PDP wrote:
>
> Is every tech advancement an 'improvement'?
or, an evolution (big or small) ABS Brakes
or, a revolution, Automobile
or, a cause for layoffs Ind. revolution
or, a cause for hiring, Silicon Valley
or, an ability to save lives Airbags
or, the ability to kill more selectively, "Smart bombs"
or, an ability to pollute less, Catalytic converter, electric car
or, an enabling technology GPS (See Smart Bombs)
or, a channel to irritate with drivel PDP on USENET
... etc.
>
> The challenge facing film photography is that the definition of
> 'photography' has been 'dumbed-down' by those eager marketers of digital
> equipment, who are desirous of selling their product.
Other 'dumb downs' include Point-and-shoot cameras which can take great
photos, but are bought by those who merely want a simple memory. Same
film. Same mediocre results as digital.
>
> The consumer's expectation levels have shifted en-masse -- downward.
> Consumers truly believe that the less photographic detail delivered by the
> digital systems' smaller image capture area is -- and appears -- 'just as
> good' as 35 MM, or even medium format photography.
You get what you (want to) pay for. Unless you are teribly interested
in something, you can barely evaluate what you are getting for your
money. Same applies to cars (does everyone need/want a Porche or
'benz?). Quality points per dollar: todays consumer is far better off
than in the 80's/70's/ etc.
>
> Why is film superior to digital? Probably for the same reasons a canvas
> painting of a subject is superior to film capture. After devoting sufficient
> time for comparisons of each, the perceptive abilities of your brain will
> communicate the difference to you. But who is willing to devote time or
> patience to such an endeavor these days?
Huh? There aren't as many competent portrait painters as there are
cheap cameras that can catch a better image.
Within a few years, digital cameras will approach the best film in
detail, depth, color and contrast. These will be the cameras that we
lucid phototypes will want, along with our lenses and other
paraphenelia. Advantages: exposure will no longer depend on the loaded
film or the variations of developing. A bad shot can be erased and
resused at no cost. Be patient.
>
> Extending the 'digital-is-better-than-film' argument, in the future,
> brick-and-mortar art galleries will be cordoned off and reserved for the
> 'idle rich' ... while the 'great unwashed masses' are relegatated and
> isolated to 'Doonesbury'-style work cubicles, gazing at 19 inch split-screen
> monitors of the Paris Art Gallery, the kids and wife (... you haven't seen
> in 8 days; gotta make that sales quota, you know), Buffy the Cat, and your
> stock portfolio; all the while snorting and snuffing to yourselves how, well
> ... 'advanced' you are, and that you really have it 'made'.
Bleak, huh? Commit suicide now before you're forced to do something
about it or live it.
Take a bath, then you'll be a "great mass" instead.
Get real. If you are bitter with any technology, I suspect you will be
bitter without it.
>
> ... it's called a paradigm shift, people.
It's called flawed reasoning and low self esteem, people.
>
> by PDP
>
by Alan.
Alan Browne
to H. L. Mencken (Whoever he s).
Kirk
ph...@clark.net says...
> Is every tech advancement an 'improvement'?
>
> 'photography' has been 'dumbed-down' by those eager marketers of digital
> equipment, who are desirous of selling their product.
>
> Consumers truly believe that the less photographic detail delivered by the
> digital systems' smaller image capture area is -- and appears -- 'just as
> good' as 35 MM, or even medium format photography.
>
I don't think there has been a shift downward. The expectation of the
"average" consumer for quality images has never been very high.
People have been quite happy with their Brownie Hawkeyes, Instamatics,
disc cameras, and now, point and shoot cameras. They've never cared
much about Kodachrome or tripods or rare-element lenses. A Coolpix
950 is in no way dumber than an Instamatic with a flash cube.
They are where they've always been. There was a blip in the late 60s
into the 70s where photographers in general and photojournalists in
particular were near unto rock stars, but that was just a blip. It's
gone now.
> Why is film superior to digital? Probably for the same reasons a canvas
> painting of a subject is superior to film capture. After devoting sufficient
> time for comparisons of each, the perceptive abilities of your brain will
> communicate the difference to you. But who is willing to devote time or
> patience to such an endeavor these days?
>
Is film superior to digital? Doesn't that depend on the purpose of
the photographer?
> Extending the 'digital-is-better-than-film' argument, in the future,
> brick-and-mortar art galleries will be cordoned off and reserved for the
> 'idle rich' ... while the 'great unwashed masses' are relegatated and
> isolated to 'Doonesbury'-style work cubicles, gazing at 19 inch split-screen
> monitors of the Paris Art Gallery, the kids and wife (... you haven't seen
> in 8 days; gotta make that sales quota, you know), Buffy the Cat, and your
> stock portfolio; all the while snorting and snuffing to yourselves how, well
> ... 'advanced' you are, and that you really have it 'made'.
Pardon me, but that is the way it *is* and always has been.
What percentage of the world do you think has visited the Louvre?
What percentage has seen an image of the Mona Lisa through some other
means, but will *never* have an opportunity to visit the Louvre?
>
> ... it's called a paradigm shift, people.
>
It's called "back to reality." Where you think we've fallen from is
where we've never actually been.
--
Kirk
"Contrary to popular opinion, evolution is *not* teleological" KRD
Bob Hickey
is we both drank in the same bar decades apart. I guess I got some on
me. BobHickey
Tony Spadaro
There is a refirgerator with an internet connection being marketed.
Does that answer your question?
>
> The challenge facing film photography is that the definition of
> 'photography' has been 'dumbed-down' by those eager marketers of
digital
> equipment, who are desirous of selling their product.
I don't find digital point and shoots any more dumbed-down than film
point and shoots.
>
> The consumer's expectation levels have shifted en-masse -- downward.
> Consumers truly believe that the less photographic detail delivered
by the
> digital systems' smaller image capture area is -- and appears --
'just as
> good' as 35 MM, or even medium format photography.
Consumers don't really give a damn about photographic detail. Look at
this :) or this :( that's all it takes for a human to interpret what
is seen into another human face. That is the main goal of most
photography, to record the human face of a friend, loved one or enemy.
As long as the medium can record enough detail to be able to tell the
difference between Grampa and Joe Stalin the consumer is happy.
Newspapers and TV have long been the standard to which photography is
compared - both look like s**t compared to the negatives produced by
most 50 dollar cameras, and neither looks quite as "good" as the fuzzy
prints that come out of the Wall-Mart machine. Digital hardly looks
worse, and no running to Wally Shop.
>
> Why is film superior to digital? Probably for the same reasons a
canvas
> painting of a subject is superior to film capture. After devoting
sufficient
> time for comparisons of each, the perceptive abilities of your brain
will
> communicate the difference to you. But who is willing to devote time
or
> patience to such an endeavor these days?
If you percieve canvas as being in some way "superior" to film,
perhaps you should find the rec.acrylic.painting newsgroup.
>
> Extending the 'digital-is-better-than-film' argument, in the future,
> brick-and-mortar art galleries will be cordoned off and reserved for
the
> 'idle rich' ... while the 'great unwashed masses' are relegatated and
> isolated to 'Doonesbury'-style work cubicles, gazing at 19 inch split-
screen
> monitors of the Paris Art Gallery, the kids and wife (... you haven't
seen
> in 8 days; gotta make that sales quota, you know), Buffy the Cat, and
your
> stock portfolio; all the while snorting and snuffing to yourselves
how, well
> ... 'advanced' you are, and that you really have it 'made'.
>
> ... it's called a paradigm shift, people.
I think it's called snobbery. It's good to know there are still
people out there who know how to really look down their noses at
others. Perhaps the acrylic forum is too hoi-poli for you too.
Anyone who thinks it's "those people" who are ruining things for "us"
is a bit of an ass really. Those people buy enough film, and get enough
processing done to make photography affordable for the hobbiest. They
buy the portraits and the wedding albums to make it profitable for the
pro. They buy the prints an artist needs to sell in order to buy
supplies They read the magazines and pay the price for the photo-
journalist, the advertising photographer, the fashion shooter, the
documentary photographer.
They are going to make your first digital camera affordable.
>
>
--
Digital photo restoration in autumnal Chapel Hill NC
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
New - A Digital Workflow + Sharpness: Threat or Menace?
And Selecting Your First SLR - Java must be enabled
Jerry Coffin
[ ... ]
> The challenge facing film photography is that the definition of
> 'photography' has been 'dumbed-down' by those eager marketers of digital
> equipment, who are desirous of selling their product.
Hardly -- they came along FAR too late to do anything of the sort.
By the time anybody had more than dreamt of the general notion of
digital photography, Polaroid (for one obvious example) had been
dumbing down photography and pushing horrible quality on the masses
for many years.
Of course, they didn't really need to push very hard though: most of
"the masses" are apparently quite happy treating pictures as simply a
vague reminder of something in their past, neither needing nor
wanting much beyond a blurry, poorly-exposed "picture" with something
that looks vaguely similar to them with their friends (or whatever)
to be happy.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Joshua_Putnam
*Is* film superior to digital? Always? You'd rather have a
cartridge of 110 Gold 200 that's been in the camera from the 4th
of July until Christmas, instead of 3-megapixel digital images?
Consumers don't need digital to have lower standards -- blame it
all on that silly Kodak roll film; everyone knows glass plates
are the way to go.
--
Jo...@WolfeNet.com
"My other bike is a car."
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/
Robert Monaghan
I am constantly surprised at the kinds of resources and tid bits and items
I learn here online. Many times, the real experts are not those
(bored) professionals in the biz, but enthusiastic amateurs (in the sense
of loving their fields of interest).
the real paradigm shift I see is "instant expertise" by which we are
getting online and rapidly learning what we need to know to do what we
want or need to do. This just-in-time learning is making many average
people far more capable than their training might lead one to expect...
finally, expertise is sigmoidal - s shaped curve - you start out slow,
then learn rapidly (linear part of s curve) then it becomes much slower at
the top of the curve.
For example, I learned alot from my first fifty scuba dives, then a good
bit from my next 500, but the next 5,000 only resulted in some modest
improvements in expertise. Similarly with photos and cameras....
--
* Robert Monaghan POB752182 Dallas Tx 75275-2182 rmon...@post.cis.smu.edu *
* Third Party 35mm Lenses: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/index.html *
* Medium Format Cameras: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/index.html megasite*
Tony Spadaro
Yep. That is one of Menckens best, along with
"For every problem there is a solution.
Quick, efficient, and wrong."
Jsn234
all on that silly Kodak roll film; everyone knows glass plates
are the way to go.
--
Jo...@WolfeNet.com >>
Glass plates are for sissies. You 20th century people have it *much* too
easy... Back in my day we had to chisel our own pixels w/ our own pinkies.
There was no glass plates, just plates and glasses, which were usually made out
of bronze or clay or stone.
Signed Fred Flintstone,
Yabba dabba yadda yadda yadda pixel!
Viva!
If you wish to e-mail me just try and disconnect my brain. Have a thought and
go ahead, make my day! "Clifford, on your planet, what color is the sky?"
"Roads? Where we're going we don't need any roads" "1.21 gigawatts! Do they
make that in AA?"
Don
> Why is film superior to digital?
Send a trans to a publisher or see what they say about your digital
files.
Probably for the same reasons a canvas
> painting of a subject is superior to film capture. After devoting sufficient
> time for comparisons of each, the perceptive abilities of your brain will
> communicate the difference to you. But who is willing to devote time or
> patience to such an endeavor these days?
Roland Barthes, you might enjoy his book on the subject.
> Extending the 'digital-is-better-than-film' argument, in the future,
> brick-and-mortar art galleries will be cordoned off and reserved for the
> 'idle rich' ... while the 'great unwashed masses' are relegatated and
> isolated to 'Doonesbury'-style work cubicles, gazing at 19 inch split-screen
> monitors of the Paris Art Gallery, the kids and wife (... you haven't seen
> in 8 days; gotta make that sales quota, you know), Buffy the Cat, and your
> stock portfolio; all the while snorting and snuffing to yourselves how, well
> ... 'advanced' you are, and that you really have it 'made'.
>
> ... it's called a paradigm shift, people.
IMHO the people who use the term "paradigm shift" are simply using $10
words so that they sound as they know what they're talking about. A bit
of consulting here and there, a round of 87 Million funding there, and
then a .com client goes down the drink.
Far too few people willing to tell it like it is IMHO. Paradigm this,
paradigm that... let's see some images and then we'll make up our own
minds.
Don
Avedon to Sturges and Mapplethorpe:
http://www.1world-design.com/book/
Tony Spadaro
spamshop amazon portal.
I did mention that buy.com charges much less for books as they don't
pay these portal site parasites any commissions, didn't I?