The problem is people forget cameras are for taking pictures. Think outcomes and it all falls into place. Everything before is propaganda. And jewellery.
The problem is people forget cameras are for taking pictures. Think outcomes and it all falls into place. Everything before is propaganda. And jewellery.Some people are not happy unless there is a problem
The problem is people forget cameras are for taking pictures. Think outcomes and it all falls into place. Everything before is propaganda. And jewellery.
Thank you for stating that so accurately and eloquently.For me it's all about comprehensibility and agency. Call me old-fashioned, but I like to be aware of what's going on and how things work. I am most comfortable with mechanical things and traditional tools and methods, but when I must use electronic devices I want to be in the loop as much as possible.
The appeal of mechanical film cameras is the same as that of any other type of machinery because I know that with enough study I could come to know how and why the entire mechanism works, and with some effort repair it or even fabricate new parts. Of course, this isn't necessarily a practical consideration, only philosophical.
Likewise with electronics, older devices with discrete components and wiring are entirely understandable if you know the nature of electrons and spend enough time tracing circuits. With microelectronics the direct connection between understanding and operation is effectively broken because the encapsulated circuitry is too small to see and too abstract and complex for any one person to easily comprehend.
Contemporary electronics designers and programmers understand their creations in a modular way whereby the basic hardware and software components are treated as indivisible building blocks or subroutines that can be linked together to work as parts of larger systems. The collective mind can know everything about a particular technology, but individuals are limited in their complete knowledge to their particular specialties.
In the field, a service technician or hobbyist operates at the user interface or sub-assembly level. There is no possibility of home-brew, handcrafted microchips, image sensors or disk drives because these are necessarily the products of a complex industrial supply chain and clean-room fabrication process. How it's made or how it works is considered to be none of your business. If it breaks, replace it with a new one.
The average end-user of a high-tech device is strictly limited to the capabilities built into the operating system, constrained to follow rigid instructions to get a range of pre-determined outputs, be they image captures, information displays or physical actions. Every person who owns a smart phone, digital camera or laptop computer swipes, taps or clicks in the same ways because if it's not in the program, it's not going to happen.
The next steps go down the path of machine learning and artificial intelligence. Already, the phone app can tell you what to buy, what to see, what to hear, where to eat and where to go, based on your previous inputs. The GPS can show you how to get there. Alexa and her friends can tell you what you should be wearing when you arrive. Soon the car will drive itself and the camera will learn what you are interested in and take pictures for you along the way.
Speaking strictly for myself, I'm not too eager to go down that road.
+1Thank you for stating that so accurately and eloquently.
The irony is people bemoaning the intrusive digital future while sitting at a computer screen. It's like those YouTube rants about the purity of film that are videoed from a GH4 with digital sound. Let's hope tongues are firmly in cheeks.
The Internet is a different thing from a camera, and is an exclusively digital thing. No analog and/or "old school" method exists of accessing the Internet. Therefore the use of internet-specific technology does not apply to this discussion.
The biology of our perception, the biology of our thinking, is closer to digital than it is to film. Biology is 3 dimensional, film is 2 dimensional.
Exactly how is the biology of our perception 'digital'? Or the biology of thinking?The biology of our perception, the biology of our thinking, is closer to digital than it is to film. Biology is 3 dimensional, film is 2 dimensional.
Exactly how is the biology of our perception 'digital'? Or the biology of thinking?
How is digital not two-dimensional?
... No analog and/or "old school" method exists of accessing the Internet. ...
Which are still digital, not analog. Radio transmissions are analog, for instance.No "old school", eh? Young grasshopper, let me tell you about USENET, uucp protocols, and newsgroups like rec.photo.misc ...
The problem is people forget cameras are for taking pictures. Think outcomes and it all falls into place. Everything before is propaganda. And jewellery.
... You can place a ... camera in manual exposure mode, focus by hand and shoot ... and your control of the process is no different to someone shooting a Barnack ...
The continuous use of an old hand tool... well worn, much loved, and handed down from generation to generation... has a very basic emotional appeal. This applies to cameras as much as it does to hammers, screwdrivers and saws. ...
Perception (I am assuming physical perception, since you are invoking dimensionality) by humans (and all life) is analogue.
You are confusing "dimension" with "analog"..
Here I am talking about our five senses and there is nothing digital about it. Even the synaptic transmission of these sensations are analogue.
You're repetitively stating your personal absolute belief, not a fact.
Now regarding film being two dimensional, this is also hooey when the chemistry and physics of image formation are considered. It is thin, I'll grant you that film is thin, but the layers and dimensionality of the film is important to its function. I have no idea where you were going with 2d vs 3d, vis a vis film and digital.
Read again.
You seem to be suggesting that all things digital are three dimensional, while all things analogue are two dimensional.
"Things" are never digital NOR analog. Those words refer to a measurement system, not to things.
This is demonstratively false. Do sound wave exist only in a plane? No, of course not.
Waves are hypothetical measured phenomena, we don't hear waves...we hear
Perhaps to your larger point, which is that brains function like microprocessors. Well, this idea has been tried by neuroscientists and computer scientists working together. Conclusion: it doesn't work like a microprocessor - at least at our current understanding.
I didn't say "brains function like microprocessors" but we all know microprocessors are increasingly functioning like brains.
Now can a microprocessor be made to interface directly with our brain? Yes. But this does not mean humans are anything other than analogue.
Weird that your microprocessors think that humans are analog. Is that biblical?
What any of this has to do with film rests entirely with you.
-.-- . ... / .. - / .. ... / .- .-.. .-.. / -.. .. --. .. - .- .-.. / ..- -. - .. .-.. / -.-- --- ..- / --. . - / - --- / -- --- .-. . ... . / -.-. --- -.. .Which are still digital, not analog. Radio transmissions are analog, for instance.
How does using your grandfather's camera make your images any better?
Which are still digital, not analog....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?