From: lytle@noao.edu (Dyer Lytle  CCS)
Subject: Re: Camera Feature Wars - Photo Getting Like Video
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:05:16 GMT



What fun!  A posting thats not just about equipment!!!  Go Mikko!

(of course its not much about photography either but what the heck...)



In article <1992Nov20.162305.1@cc.helsinki.fi> mlindholm@cc.helsinki.fi writes:

>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
>or even whether it is downright bad for people (or nature).  Engineering is our
>new religion: we have to make progress.  No one knows why, but we just have to.
>And we want all those marvellous new technological advancements.  No one knows
>why, but we just want.

Well, there are some reasons. (IMHO)

I agree that progress can sometimes have negative effects but frequently
it can be for the good.  This is based on my own, personal, definitions
of good and bad, of course.

Progress in the engineering of automobiles has produced cars and trucks
that are more effecient and cause much less pollution than their predecessors.
Cleaning up the environment is good.

I work at a national observatory and we do astronomy here.  New technology
allows us to learn more and more about the universe by looking deeper and
more accurately into the heavens every year.
Learning about how the world works is good.

Progress in camera technology, including auto exposure and auto focus, allows
camera users to photograph fast breaking events more easily than before.
Interesting photographs are good.

On the bad side, technology may well be partially responsible for the
current widespread overpopulation problems in the world today.  These
large populations are causing natural resources to be used up at an
alarming rate.  Paradoxically technology may also be a solution to these
problems if we can use it to educate the world and to build clean energy
sources, etc.

>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.

Humans are quite adaptable, I think.  Machines do things and this gives me
more leasure time that I can spend out in the backcountry contemplating the
serenity of a clear blue mountain lake if I so choose.  Some things, like
driving in rush hour traffic, can indeed be stressful.  But you don't have
to do it, you have an option.  For instance, I ride my bicycle to work
every day and I find it relaxing.

>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. 
Well, no.  None of my photographs are "perfect", there is no such thing.
I try to make a photograph that expresses what I want to express about a
subject.  If a technological feature of a camera helps me reach that end
I think it's great.  If I wanted to gamble, I would set my camera on one
second delay and toss it into the air when I wanted to take a picture and
gamble that the lens would be pointing in the direction I wanted when the
shutter went off.  Not a good path to self expression, I don't think.
(sounds kind of fun though, now that I think of it.....)

>To appreciate the successful photos, one must also experience failures.

I agree with this, sort of.  One should try to learn from one's mistakes.

>
>Mikko Lindholm
>mlindholm@cc.helsinki.fi


 -Dyer Lytle


-- 
Dyer Lytle, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, 602-323-4136
Internet: lytle@noao.edu        SPAN: NOAO::LYTLE (NOAO=5355) 
Newsgroups: rec.photo