Dpreview wants to cater to the simple people

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:10:25 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Boo hoo hoo! The interfaces on the DSLRs and current P&S's confuse
them. They long for the simplicity of their iphones. Figures an
Apple fan would be crying about not understanding technology.

http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2...ase-for-a.html


Photography is art. Art isn't supposed to be all about geeky
technology. If you're more happy with all the techno-frills, then
just get the most complicated camera you can find and be happy with
it.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:07:04 -0500, Stephen Bishop
wrote in
:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:10:25 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Boo hoo hoo! The interfaces on the DSLRs and current P&S's confuse
them. They long for the simplicity of their iphones. Figures an
Apple fan would be crying about not understanding technology.

http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2...ase-for-a.html

Photography is art. Art isn't supposed to be all about geeky
technology. If you're more happy with all the techno-frills, then
just get the most complicated camera you can find and be happy with
it.

That's like saying: "The sun gives off light. Feathers are light.
Therefore the sun gives off features." In other words, that doesn't
make sense -- using a camera isn't art any more than using a car isn't
art.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/]

"Stephen Bishop" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:10:25 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Boo hoo hoo! The interfaces on the DSLRs and current P&S's confuse
them. They long for the simplicity of their iphones. Figures an
Apple fan would be crying about not understanding technology.

http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2...ase-for-a.html


Photography is art. Art isn't supposed to be all about geeky
technology. If you're more happy with all the techno-frills, then
just get the most complicated camera you can find and be happy with
it.

Please, tell me a time when cameras aimed at enthusiasts where made with an
shutter button and nothing else? Take a look at a Sinar view camera some
day.
Even artists fret over what kind of materials to use, the venue they use it
in, the conditions of the venue, etc.

But if people are simply too LAZY to learn, then to Hell with them, instant
gratification is not guaranteed by a complex DSLR, it's the domain of the
$100 P&S, but as with everything else designed to gratify instantly, the
payoff is often sub-standard. Polaroid was the same thing in the 1970s and
80s.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:24:44 -0500, "RichA"
wrote:


"Stephen Bishop" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:10:25 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Boo hoo hoo! The interfaces on the DSLRs and current P&S's confuse
them. They long for the simplicity of their iphones. Figures an
Apple fan would be crying about not understanding technology.

http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2...ase-for-a.html


Photography is art. Art isn't supposed to be all about geeky
technology. If you're more happy with all the techno-frills, then
just get the most complicated camera you can find and be happy with
it.

Please, tell me a time when cameras aimed at enthusiasts where made with an
shutter button and nothing else? Take a look at a Sinar view camera some
day.

Actually, the very first "enthusiast" cameras were exactly like that.
That's what launched Kodak over a century ago. Their marketing
slogan was "You push the button and we'll do the rest." Things have
evolved quite a bit since then.



Even artists fret over what kind of materials to use, the venue they use it
in, the conditions of the venue, etc.

By artists, I assume you mean "painters." Yes, they are concerned
with materials, but never to the level of detail that camera
enthusiasts are. You won't find any usenet forums where they argue
endlessly about what brand of brush is better or how many bristles
are needed to get a sharp painting.



But if people are simply too LAZY to learn, then to Hell with them, instant
gratification is not guaranteed by a complex DSLR, it's the domain of the
$100 P&S, but as with everything else designed to gratify instantly, the
payoff is often sub-standard. Polaroid was the same thing in the 1970s and
80s.

Photography has the unique position among the other arts in that it is
divided into two fairly well-defined camps: 1) The enthusiasts who
are obsessed with the gear and the process, and 2) The artists who
choose the gear that suits them best and then get on with creating
images.

Why be so concerned with how lazy other people may or may not be in
your eyes? Just choose the camera you like best, learn to use it,
and then do so to the fullest.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:10:25 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Boo hoo hoo! The interfaces on the DSLRs and current P&S's confuse
them. They long for the simplicity of their iphones. Figures an
Apple fan would be crying about not understanding technology.

http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2...ase-for-a.html

Photography is art. Art isn't supposed to be all about geeky
technology.

Where does that "supposed" come from? Sounds to me as though it comes
from a teacher in one of those defective educational systems which
specialise children early into either art or science, Snow's famous
cultural divide.

The only arts free of geeky technology are those where the geeky
artists have already done all the hard work and provided the market
with simple easy to use stuff. Even drawing was pretty geeky when you
had to make your own pencils and paper.

--
Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:24:44 -0500, "RichA"
wrote:

"Stephen Bishop" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:10:25 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Boo hoo hoo! The interfaces on the DSLRs and current P&S's confuse
them. They long for the simplicity of their iphones. Figures an
Apple fan would be crying about not understanding technology.

http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2...ase-for-a.html


Photography is art. Art isn't supposed to be all about geeky
technology. If you're more happy with all the techno-frills, then
just get the most complicated camera you can find and be happy with
it.

Please, tell me a time when cameras aimed at enthusiasts where made with an
shutter button and nothing else? Take a look at a Sinar view camera some
day.

Actually, the very first "enthusiast" cameras were exactly like that.
That's what launched Kodak over a century ago. Their marketing
slogan was "You push the button and we'll do the rest." Things have
evolved quite a bit since then.

Even artists fret over what kind of materials to use, the venue they use it
in, the conditions of the venue, etc.

By artists, I assume you mean "painters." Yes, they are concerned
with materials, but never to the level of detail that camera
enthusiasts are. You won't find any usenet forums where they argue
endlessly about what brand of brush is better or how many bristles
are needed to get a sharp painting.

Your ignorance of the history of painting is showing. The Renaissance
painters were very concerned about the best ways of making pigments,
paints, and varnishes for different kinds of painting, because you had
to make your own to get the best quality results.

But if people are simply too LAZY to learn, then to Hell with them, instant
gratification is not guaranteed by a complex DSLR, it's the domain of the
$100 P&S, but as with everything else designed to gratify instantly, the
payoff is often sub-standard. Polaroid was the same thing in the 1970s and
80s.

Photography has the unique position among the other arts in that it is
divided into two fairly well-defined camps: 1) The enthusiasts who
are obsessed with the gear and the process, and 2) The artists who
choose the gear that suits them best and then get on with creating
images.

Today's mass production consumer industries have made the techology
needed for most mass arts easily available to the non-technical
artist, but at the high end of any art it's not hard to find creative
technical people, some of them top ranking artists, pushing the
technology and helping its development.

For example I know musicians who take an extreme technical interest in
their instruments, sometimes to the extent of making them or having
them specially made, and others who simply buy a good brand and get on
with making music. The same spectrum between being mostly concerned
with the technology and mostly concerned with the art goes for pretty
much any art I've dipped a toe into.

--
Chris Malcolm

Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:24:44 -0500, "RichA"
wrote:

"Stephen Bishop" wrote in message
news On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:10:25 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Boo hoo hoo! The interfaces on the DSLRs and current P&S's confuse
them. They long for the simplicity of their iphones. Figures an
Apple fan would be crying about not understanding technology.

http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2...ase-for-a.html

Photography is art. Art isn't supposed to be all about geeky
technology. If you're more happy with all the techno-frills, then
just get the most complicated camera you can find and be happy with
it.
Please, tell me a time when cameras aimed at enthusiasts where made with an
shutter button and nothing else? Take a look at a Sinar view camera some
day.

Actually, the very first "enthusiast" cameras were exactly like that.
That's what launched Kodak over a century ago. Their marketing
slogan was "You push the button and we'll do the rest." Things have
evolved quite a bit since then.

Even artists fret over what kind of materials to use, the venue they use it
in, the conditions of the venue, etc.

By artists, I assume you mean "painters." Yes, they are concerned
with materials, but never to the level of detail that camera
enthusiasts are. You won't find any usenet forums where they argue
endlessly about what brand of brush is better or how many bristles
are needed to get a sharp painting.

Your ignorance of the history of painting is showing. The Renaissance
painters were very concerned about the best ways of making pigments,
paints, and varnishes for different kinds of painting, because you had
to make your own to get the best quality results.

C'mon, Chris, you're not *that* old!

Could we not all agree that skilled painters and photographers take an
interest in the how and why (the materials and how bests to use them),
but don't go on about them; that the end product is what counts?

Being usenet, the answer will be no.....

--
john mcwilliams
--
john mcwilliams

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 05:46:40 -0500, Stephen Bishop
wrote in
:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:24:44 -0500, "RichA"
wrote:

Even artists fret over what kind of materials to use, the venue they use it
in, the conditions of the venue, etc.

By artists, I assume you mean "painters." Yes, they are concerned
with materials, but never to the level of detail that camera
enthusiasts are. You won't find any usenet forums where they argue
endlessly about what brand of brush is better or how many bristles
are needed to get a sharp painting.

They're aren't geeks, by and large, so it won't be on Usenet, but I know
quite a few artists passionate about their tools and materials.

But if people are simply too LAZY to learn, then to Hell with them, instant
gratification is not guaranteed by a complex DSLR, it's the domain of the
$100 P&S, but as with everything else designed to gratify instantly, the
payoff is often sub-standard. Polaroid was the same thing in the 1970s and
80s.

Photography has the unique position among the other arts in that it is
divided into two fairly well-defined camps: 1) The enthusiasts who
are obsessed with the gear and the process, and 2) The artists who
choose the gear that suits them best and then get on with creating
images.

I personally don't think it's all that well defined -- I know photo
artists concerned about tools, and many tool geeks that are good
artists.

Why be so concerned with how lazy other people may or may not be in
your eyes? Just choose the camera you like best, learn to use it,
and then do so to the fullest.

Good advice. But it would be better if cameras were easier to learn,
the point of this thread.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/]

On 15 Dec 2008 13:21:16 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote
in :

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:10:25 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Boo hoo hoo! The interfaces on the DSLRs and current P&S's confuse
them. They long for the simplicity of their iphones. Figures an
Apple fan would be crying about not understanding technology.

http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2...ase-for-a.html

Photography is art. Art isn't supposed to be all about geeky
technology.

Where does that "supposed" come from? Sounds to me as though it comes
from a teacher in one of those defective educational systems which
specialise children early into either art or science, Snow's famous
cultural divide.

Nonetheless it is true that art can be done with any tool -- tools are
important only to (a) make the job easier and/or (b) get a desired
effect that can't be done any other way. Your musical analogy (another
post) is flawed in the sense that it always takes a Strad to produce
Strad quality sound, whereas fantastic pictures can and have been taken
with modest cameras. And even in the case of a Strad, it will only
sound great if the musician is great -- what matters most is the artist,
not the tools.

The only arts free of geeky technology are those where the geeky
artists have already done all the hard work and provided the market
with simple easy to use stuff. Even drawing was pretty geeky when you
had to make your own pencils and paper.

Sure, just as in the case of cameras.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/]

John McWilliams wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Stephen Bishop
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:24:44 -0500, "RichA"
wrote:

"Stephen Bishop" wrote in message
news On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:10:25 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Boo hoo hoo! The interfaces on the DSLRs and current P&S's confuse
them. They long for the simplicity of their iphones. Figures an
Apple fan would be crying about not understanding technology.

http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2...ase-for-a.html

Photography is art. Art isn't supposed to be all about geeky
technology. If you're more happy with all the techno-frills, then
just get the most complicated camera you can find and be happy with
it.
Please, tell me a time when cameras aimed at enthusiasts where made
with an shutter button and nothing else? Take a look at a Sinar
view camera some day.

Actually, the very first "enthusiast" cameras were exactly like that.
That's what launched Kodak over a century ago. Their marketing
slogan was "You push the button and we'll do the rest." Things have
evolved quite a bit since then.

Even artists fret over what kind of materials to use, the venue they
use it in, the conditions of the venue, etc.

By artists, I assume you mean "painters." Yes, they are concerned
with materials, but never to the level of detail that camera
enthusiasts are. You won't find any usenet forums where they argue
endlessly about what brand of brush is better or how many bristles
are needed to get a sharp painting.

Your ignorance of the history of painting is showing. The Renaissance
painters were very concerned about the best ways of making pigments,
paints, and varnishes for different kinds of painting, because you had
to make your own to get the best quality results.

C'mon, Chris, you're not *that* old!

Could we not all agree that skilled painters and photographers take an
interest in the how and why (the materials and how bests to use them),
but don't go on about them; that the end product is what counts?

The only reason to talk about your art is to write an artist's statement
to sell it to galleries. I agree artists are generally gear-heads about
their technical tools and that includes musicians, painters, sculptors,
cinematographers, etc. I'm sure dancers can go on & on about shoes.


Being usenet, the answer will be no.....



--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam