1. Welcome to the new Styleforum!

    We hope you’re as excited as we are to hang out in the new place. There are more new features that we’ll announce in the near future, but for now we hope you’ll enjoy the new site.

    We are currently fine-tuning the forum for your browsing pleasure, so bear with any lingering dust as we work to make Styleforum even more awesome than it was.

    Oh, and don’t forget to head over to the Styleforum Journal, because we’re giving away two pairs of Carmina shoes to celebrate our move!

    Please address any questions about using the new forum to support@styleforum.net

    Cheers,

    The Styleforum Team

    Dismiss Notice

Technology Climax.

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by LabelKing, Jun 25, 2007.

  1. caelte

    caelte Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    746
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Location:
    out on the docks behind the Blue Parrot Cafe
    Some consider the best photographic process to be the daguerreotype. The surface is solid silver so there is no grain. To see the evidence of of the image requires an electron microscope. To look into one is the closest thing to looking into reality. It is becoming popular again among art photographers. This is a company that makes equipment. http://www.blackshadowyachts.com/centurydarkroom.html
     
  2. LabelKing

    LabelKing Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,745
    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Location:
    Constantinople
    Your sentimentality for something you never even lived through in the first place is weird. Did you just roll a die to figure out which affectations you'd develop to make yourself stand out, or is there some sort of sinister abuse story behind it all?

    Your misinformed opinions on digital photography are laughable. Bringing up the 2MP cameras of 8 years ago is like bringing up 16mm film. The current batch of digital cameras will be useful for a long, long time. Why? because they satisfy the needs of 99.9% of the consumers in the world. Aside from hobbyists, 35mm film photography is dead. Unless you are blowing images up to wall size an 8-10MP camera is indistinguishable from film at any standard size print.

    Mixing your own chemicals for a darkroom is initially about 10x as expensive as taking it to the photomat, its messy, you need a place to store everything, and you need to take drastic measures to make sure your solutions don't go bad. Most photographers are never going to do it. Over the long run it is cheaper than taking your film to Costco or One Hour Film or whatever, but still isn't as cost effective as printing out your own on the computer. And it CERTAINLY isn't as time effective. You also have that wasted money problem, having to develop negatives of pictures you are never going to use.

    My main problem in the last paragraph is that you think technology "peaks". It doesn't.


    I simply do not feel that certain aspects of modern technology offers any distinct advantage over what was considered technology in the past.

    16mm film is primarily cine-film so I don't know why you are bringing that up in a discussion about photography. If at all, a more apt comparison would be 127 which is a 4x4 medium format film that is difficult to source nowadays. Besides, 16mm film is still used today for cinema purposes.

    Perhaps surprising to you and some others, is that there are more of "us" out there than you may realize. We're like the insidious mice that the marketing departments never manage to catch.

    Did your hate for Mac somehow verge into this animosity towards film? Why don't you aim at the pretentious Lomo-philes or Polaroid freaks?
     
  3. LabelKing

    LabelKing Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,745
    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Location:
    Constantinople
    Some consider the best photographic process to be the daguerreotype. The surface is solid silver so there is no grain. To see the evidence of of the image requires an electron microscope. To look into one is the closest thing to looking into reality. It is becoming popular again among art photographers. This is a company that makes equipment. http://www.blackshadowyachts.com/centurydarkroom.html
    Also platinum prints which are especially striking when viewed in person. In print, they may appear to be the same as any silver halide item. http://www.dickarentz.com/ I've yet to see anything digital offer up that esthetic advantage.
     
  4. caelte

    caelte Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    746
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Location:
    out on the docks behind the Blue Parrot Cafe
    Perhaps surprising to you and some others, is that there are more of "us" out there than you may realize. We're like the insidious mice that the marketing departments never manage to catch.
    ...and I hope it stays that way.[​IMG]
     
  5. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
    I simply do not feel that certain aspects of modern technology offers any distinct advantage over what was considered technology in the past.

    16mm film is primarily cine-film so I don't know why you are bringing that up in a discussion about photography. If at all, a more apt comparison would be 127 which is a 4x4 medium format film that is difficult to source nowadays. Besides, 16mm film is still used today for cinema purposes.

    Did your hate for Mac somehow verge into this animosity towards film? Why don't you aim at the pretentious Lomo-philes or Polaroid freaks?


    I understand that you appreciate the CHARACTER of 50's and 60's film, and the artists who used it, but to say that the technology itself peaked in the 60's is absurd. Basically that would imply that there have not been any worthwhile or useful advances in film technology since then, which is patently false. We all know you yearn to have been born in a different era, we can assure you that you've made that VERY clear to all of us. But if 1960's technology was better than that of today, why is it that people who earn their living in the field no longer use it?

    The 16mm analogy was a cinema one, I'm sorry that it wasn't more clear. There are dedicated artists who work with 16mm because of the character that it imparts, but it is restrictive and is a dead technology. Digital imaging of any kind is much more streamlined, easier to use and edit, cheaper, more versatile, and can produce equally as good a picture as any analog format. Its the use, not the media that determines the final quality of any art. Indeed digital filmmaking can emulate 16mm film, 35mm film, and possibly 70mm/IMAX film. Moving to a format with the broadest possible potential makes sense to everyone except a handful of people who in some way or another, are either too stubborn to learn something new or like you and the unibomber, just rail against the modern era on principal.

    My hate for apple has nothing to do with this.
     
  6. LabelKing

    LabelKing Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,745
    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Location:
    Constantinople
    I understand that you appreciate the CHARACTER of 50's and 60's film, and the artists who used it, but to say that the technology itself peaked in the 60's is absurd. Basically that would imply that there have not been any worthwhile or useful advances in film technology since then, which is patently false. We all know you yearn to have been born in a different era, we can assure you that you've made that VERY clear to all of us. But if 1960's technology was better than that of today, why is it that people who earn their living in the field no longer use it? The 16mm analogy was a cinema one, I'm sorry that it wasn't more clear. There are dedicated artists who work with 16mm because of the character that it imparts, but it is restrictive and is a dead technology. Digital imaging of any kind is much more streamlined, easier to use and edit, cheaper, more versatile, and can produce equally as good a picture as any analog format. Its the use, not the media that determines the final quality of any art. Indeed digital filmmaking can emulate 16mm film, 35mm film, and possibly 70mm/IMAX film. Moving to a format with the broadest possible potential makes sense to everyone except a handful of people who in some way or another, are either too stubborn to learn something new or like you and the unibomber, just rail against the modern era on principal. My hate for apple has nothing to do with this.
    Like the CE forum, I think we'll have to settle on that we're not going to convince each other. As for the final quality of the art, there are some that maintain that the process itself is emblematic of the final quality, and that it can neither be subtracted or added to. I'm reminded of Sofia Coppola and her movie, Lost In Translation, and which her father persuaded her to use a digital medium. Apparently she chose the analog version because of the emotive effect. I like that poignancy and bittersweetness that analog imparts--the same reasons why I like lonely luxury hotel corridors and the shuddering glow of a '50s car interior at night.
     
  7. Nick M

    Nick M Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,491
    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2002
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    The way I see it, the inherent nature of digital is that it has diminishing returns in the sense of how much money you invest into it; it absolutely outdates itself in a few years whereas say, a Leica will not necessarily be rendered almost useless by new and improved technological advances.

    There's the expensive Leica M8 but I wouldn't pay $4000+ for a camera that outdates itself when something new comes up.

    In terms of features, functionality and ease-of-use, a vintage Leica is almost useless when compared to a digital.

    I don't understand your assertion that a new model of digital camera "outdates" the previous model - it's still a perfectly good camera. It doesn't stop working all of a sudden.

    Perhaps surprising to you and some others, is that there are more of "us" out there than you may realize. We're like the insidious mice that the marketing departments never manage to catch.

    You're not insidious mice, you just happen to like the aesthetic of an old camera, and the process of developing. People who buy digital cameras aren't being tricked by marketing departments - they enjoy taking pictures without having to deal with what is, to them, the incovenience of changing film and time-consuming processing. They like being able to take a few pictures until they get it absolutely right. Why is your preference better than their preference?

    Who is still using those 2.0 megapixel digital cameras that came out 8 years ago?

    Probably thousands of people, because the camera they bought suits their needs?

    I think your dislike of digital comes from two sources: One, you don't like the idea that a technology that was formerly the province of artists and the jetset is now available to "common people"; and two, you've got some notion that if you don't have the absolute pinnacle of technology, the snobs are going to start whispering. Buy a Rolleiflex, problem solved.
     
  8. caelte

    caelte Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    746
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Location:
    out on the docks behind the Blue Parrot Cafe
    Its the use, not the media that determines the final quality of any art. .
    I have a high regard for your opinion, TS. Is this idea about media your own opinion or is it one you find to be commonly held true?
     
  9. Manton

    Manton Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    41,568
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    In Hiding
    James, Nick: really, both of you know better. That's all I'm going to say.
     
  10. LabelKing

    LabelKing Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,745
    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Location:
    Constantinople
    I'm a member of the Rollei Club and have a Rolleiflex poster specially shipped from Germany.
     
  11. LabelKing

    LabelKing Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,745
    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Location:
    Constantinople
    I don't understand your assertion that a new model of digital camera "outdates" the previous model - it's still a perfectly good camera. It doesn't stop working all of a sudden.
    No, it doesn't but the moment the digital item becomes outdated, most people just throw it out and buy something newer. I doubt most people buy a digital camera to keep for 10 years or something.
    You're not insidious mice, you just happen to like the aesthetic of an old camera, and the process of developing. People who buy digital cameras aren't being tricked by marketing departments - they enjoy taking pictures without having to deal with what is, to them, the incovenience of changing film and time-consuming processing. They like being able to take a few pictures until they get it absolutely right. Why is your preference better than their preference?
    I'm the person who, with some other people, wrote letters to the governor requesting that they change the YOM law which is a law for old cars and using old license plates. The cut-off date for YOM in California is 1962: http://reviews.ebay.com/DMV-clear-Ca...:-1:LISTINGS:4
    I think your dislike of digital comes from two sources: One, you don't like the idea that a technology that was formerly the province of artists and the jetset is now available to "common people"; and two, you've got some notion that if you don't have the absolute pinnacle of technology, the snobs are going to start whispering. Buy a Rolleiflex, problem solved.
    Perhaps.
     
  12. Nick M

    Nick M Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,491
    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2002
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    James, Nick: really, both of you know better. That's all I'm going to say.

    Yeah, you're right, I'm going to stop now. Forget I said anything.

    No, it doesn't but

    LA LA LA LA NOT LISTENING
     
  13. LabelKing

    LabelKing Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,745
    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Location:
    Constantinople
    I'm the sort of person who becomes excited at seeing things like this: [​IMG]
     
  14. Manton

    Manton Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    41,568
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    In Hiding
    I'm the sort of person who becomes really excited at seeing things like this:

    [​IMG]


    It's good to have enthusiams, even frivilous ones, but it's best not to let said enthusiams cloud your mind to the extent that you think something is best because you like it.

    I love ocean liners (and I came to love them when I was younger than you were when you started posting on this forum) but I have to admit that as technology they are inferior to modern transportation, and there is a reason why they are gone.
     
  15. LabelKing

    LabelKing Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,745
    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Location:
    Constantinople
    It's good to have enthusiams, even frivilous ones, but it's best not to let said enthusiams cloud your mind to the extent that you think something is best because you like it. I love ocean liners (and I came to love them when I was younger than you were when you started posting on this forum) but I have to admit that as technology they are inferior to modern transportation, and there is a reason why they are gone.
    I used to like ocean liners--especially the inter-war ones such as the ones made by Cunard, White Star, Hamburg Amerika, and also especially the ornate steamboats of the South. I spent thousands of dollars on books. I loved the opulent interiors of those ships many of which were unfortunately stripped for commission during war. Decrepit steamboats lying in bogs also excited me, with their tattered opulence intact.
     
  16. Manton

    Manton Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    41,568
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    In Hiding
    I used to like ocean liners--especially the inter-war ones such as the ones made by Cunard, White Star, Hamburg Amerika, and especially steam-boats of the South. I spent thousands of dollars on books.

    OK, once again, you demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about.

    Very few liners were built during the interwar period. Cunard and White Star built none -- until they merged and built the Queen Mary. Hamburg Amerika built none. Its competitor North-German Lloyd built Bremen and Europa in 1929, and later the two companies merged. "Steam-boats of the South" means ... what? Mississippi riverboats? Not ocean liners. Your "thousands of dollars" was apparently ill spent.

    Honestly, I believe that you know the things that you know. Why do you insist on pretending to know things that you don't know?
     
  17. LabelKing

    LabelKing Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,745
    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Location:
    Constantinople
    OK, once again, you demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. Very few liners were built during the interwar period. Cunard and White Star built none -- until they merged and built the Queen Mary. Hamburg Amerika built none. Its competitor North-German Lloyd built Bremen and Europa in 1929, and later the two companies merged. "Steam-boats of the South" means ... what? Mississippi riverboats? Not ocean liners. Your "thousands of dollars" was apparently ill spent. Honestly, I believe that you know the things that you know. Why do you insist on pretending to know things that you don't know?
    I meant commissioned as they were built by various shipyards like the Titanic was built by Harland & Wolff. As for steam-boats, yes paddle steam riverboats of the Mississippi. Many of the famous liners were built during the inter-war period. What of the Normandie? As for my "pretending", I hardly pretend. For certain things which I'm not especially authoritative on, I have the tendency to muddle various facts and such, which should be a natural human tendency.
     
  18. Manton

    Manton Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    41,568
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    In Hiding
    I meant commissioned as they were built by various shipyards like the Titanic was built by Harland & Wolff.

    In 1910. That was not an inter-war year.
     
  19. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
    I have a high regard for your opinion, TS. Is this idea about media your own opinion or is it one you find to be commonly held true?
    As far as I can tell, its one of those universal truths that pretty much everyone can agree on. The camera is only as good as the eye behind it. Just because you spent 20k on a digital back medium format camera doesn't mean you are capable of taking good pictures with it. Personally I can't polaroid worth a damn. Its a weakness in my game, I know. Whether the image captured is worth capturing is more important IMO than whether its recorded digitally or with analog equipment. Its just that digital equipment gives the user the ease of use, editing, and eliminates many of the hazards of working with filmstock.
     
  20. Manton

    Manton Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    41,568
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    In Hiding
    As far as I can tell, its one of those universal truths that pretty much everyone can agree on. The camera is only as good as the eye behind it. Just because you spent 20k on a digital back medium format camera doesn't mean you are capable of taking good pictures with it. Personally I can't polaroid worth a damn. Its a weakness in my game, I know.

    Whether the image captured is worth capturing is more important IMO than whether its recorded digitally or with analog equipment. Its just that digital equipment gives the user the ease of use, editing, and eliminates many of the hazards of working with filmstock.


    +1,000
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by