Topic: The problem with easy technology

[hookstrapped]

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/02/the-problem-with-easy-technology.html

I really liked this. Couldn't help thinking about digital photography, especially this bit: "We have become plagued by a tyranny of tiny tasks, individually simple but collectively oppressive."

[Francois]

It's been proven by now that people who extensively use smartphones suffer from memory loss at a younger age...
That's why I have a dumb phone. Besides it is cheaper to buy and run.

It's also the case with people who film concerts with their phones... science has proven that they have less fun at the show and thus fewer memories of the event (which isn't as much an event as for others). Lets just say that when you spend over 100$ to see a show and get as much out of it as eating a Big Mac while listening to the iPod, there's something to think about right there.

[zapsnaps]

As my interest in photography has grown, I have used progressively 'more difficult' technology. Like many, I bought an auto EOS camera as my first long-haul holiday camera and I was hooked. I changed the auto EOS for a manual Leica R8. I've kept the R8, but added a Blad 501cm to get still more involved. And my most recent major purchase was a 100+ year-old 4x5 tailboard camera.

Hi-fi buffs would say that I spend more on my toys than I do on music. Which I do. I spend more time choosing and playing with cameras than I do using them. But the pictures I have a resonance with tend to be the ones I put more into taking. Mastering difficult technology while my poor model shivers and freezes in the European winter. But what's interesting is the models I get on with and understand what I am trying to do, also appreciate the photos taken with thought & concentration more than the snaps. And it is often the difficult ones which make it into the models portfolio. They too are bored with the digital reality - they are looking for something beyond that. Has anyone coined the phrase diff-tech?

[Late Developer]

When I take photos using my DSLR, I can see what I've taken almost instantly and, if I don't like the end result, I can re-take almost instantly as well.  When I get home, I can plug the DSLR into my iMac and, within seconds, I can be processing the RAW files via cutting-edge technology to the point where I can either print (if I had a printer) or upload the photos to any one of a zillion websites that I have at my disposal.  What more could I ask?

Well, I find the above a pretty boring process.  The photos can be very good ideed - arguably as accurate a rendition of the scene they represent as is possible.  But is that what I want?  Not really.  I want to be able to recognise - often in great detail - what I'm photographibng.  However, I actually like the process of having to select a film (mono or colour, slide or print) in what I regard as the best format for the job - and then spend the time composing, metering and getting the film processed - before scanning, correcting and printing or posting.

In reality, aside from the instant camera afficionados, my guess is that all FWs prefer to avoid easy technology.  Sometimes easy is just too easy.

[Francois]

The thing with hard to master technologies is that there comes a point where you know what you're going to get without "cheating". But that takes practice.
With easy technologies, you tend to just learn how the device works and that's it.

[imagesfrugales]

Toy or pinhole cams are extremely simple, the process is extremely simple compared to complex digital electronics and postprocessing. I guess the unavailabilty of instant results if you waste film is the biggest difference that forces you to use your brain even with a simple toy camera. You have to pre-visualize before you push the button to get good results. It's a conscious and creative work from the beginning. Of course you could do that also with digital technology, but we are a lazy species. And of course it's very easy to shoot boring pics on film. Hm..... Lost in space......