I can't get my Kodak Portra 160NC, into the small opening of my new *ist D. Since it is a professional film, I thought it would work, but perhaps the *ist D is not professional? The manual doesn't even explain how to get a film into the camera.
On Mon, 2004-02-16 at 18:58, William Robb wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Boris Liberman" > Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? > > > > > > > I still fail to see something here, don't I? > > Well, yes, but not surprising. > > Sure we join camera clubs, or internet chat groups such as this, but > all we are doing is re-enforcing what we do, and what we know. > > I have had experience in this that most people haven't had. > I have, for the past 2 decades, been on the front lines, so to speak, > of the photo processing industry. > The mini lab took me from my nice factory job to actually having to > deal directly with customers as part of the job. > Most of the people on this list, and I am sure everywhere, > communicate with people who share their interests, and generally > ignore those who do not. > I don't have that luxury. > I get to communicate with people who know what they are doing, or > want to learn on this list and at the various camera clubs and > professional organizations that I take part in, but I also have to > deal with a completely different group of people as part of my > employment. > > You mentioned how easy it is to operate most other consumer devises. > You mentioned cars. > I submit that if you checked to see how many people per day in the > world are killed or maimed by automobiles, you might change your mind > about how easy they are to operate. > For an easy to use product, a lot of damage is caused by operator > incompetance. > I think a good parallel can be drawn from the automobile to the > camera. > > I read somewhere, a while back, I think it was Car and Driver > Magazine, that every time a new safety device has been introduced to > the automobile, the rate of car accidents has increased, and the rate > of injuries has increased as well. > This dates right back to the late 1950's and the introduction of the > seat belt to independant suspension, radial tires, 5 MPH bumbers, > anti lock brakes and air bags. > This seems odd. The car is safer, yet it causes more harm. > > In cameras, I have noted much the same thing. > As they add more features to make them work better, faster, easier, > more bad photographs get churned out. > More of the photographic equivalent of the car wreck, if you like. > > Technology is both a blessing and a curse, you see. > While making it easier to do something by building in a knowledge > base of sorts, the product doesn't require the user to know anything, > or to really pay much attention to what they are doing. > > We see it every day, on the freeways and streets. People talking on > cell phones while drinking coffee, and trying to navigate a couple of > thousand pounds of steel and plastic down the road. Apparently, using > a cell phone while driving causes a person to be impaired, very > similar to driving while drunk. > And we wonder why there are so many car accidents? > I have 2 cars. One is power everything, and sits quite high off the > ground. > The other is a small econobox, with manual everything. > Interestingly, I can use my cell phone while driving my 4x4 truck > easily. > I tried once while driving the Toyota Tercel, and decided quite > quickly that I was begging disaster by doing so. > > Having to think about shifting gears, and having to keep both hands > free to operate the vehicle causes me to have to pay attention to > what I am doing, and forces me to be a better driver. > > Using an auto everthing camera doesn't force the user to think so > much about what they are doing. > > You don't have to spend any time looking through the viewfinder > setting light meter readings or focussing. > You don't even have to look through the viewfinder, in fact. > If you are brave, you can set the self timer, throw the camera in the > air, and get a perfectly exposed and focused picture. > A lot of what I process in a day looks like this is just what the > user has done too. > Obviously no thought has gone into the composition, exposures are all > over the place, and often, the camera has automatically focused on > something other than the subject. > > But it's my fault, the camera is automatic, and they just pushed the > button, therefore someone else must have screwed up. > Since it wasn't the "photographer", it must have been the lab. > > It doesn't occur to the bulk of them to consider that the technology > they bought into and trust so thoroughly has face planted itself, and > they get rather angry and defensive when it is pointed out to them > that we just process the crap, they are the ones that put whatever > junk images they get onto the film. > > Digital is even worse. > We have an entire society now that trusts technology, sees newer > better, faster as a good thing, and is sucking on the digital teat > like greedy kittens. > They are bringing files in that are too small to print, are too over > compressed to print without artifacts, have imbedded profiles that my > machine doesn't recognize, and have been over sharpened, over > saturated and badly exposed. > What do you tell a person that has 128 files on an 8mb card that he > wants prints from? > What do you tell a person who has saved his files as 256 colour gifs? > What do you tell a person who has his camera set to high contrast, > high sharpness and small file size? > They set it up that way because it looks good on their 10 year old > crapovision� monitor, and it fills the screen, there for it should > look good on paper. > > It turns out, you don't even bother to try, they won't believe you, > and will in many cases, get verbally abusive as well. > It's not their fault, they bought this wonderful camera, and they > demand that we give them good results. > > The root of the problem is that they haven't been forced to learn the > basics, and they have no inclination to do it on their own. > > Interestingly, this does not apply just to average users, the "Joe > Sixpack" type. > A lot of the working photographers that I know have never had to do a > light meter calculation, and don't have a clue about aperture or > shutter settings. > They literally put the camera on green mode, throw a flash onto the > hot shoe, and go off calling themselves "reportage type > photographers" which I have come to believe is code for "stupid > incompetant idiots with cameras sucking the public into believing he > knows what he is doing photographers". > > And, like the driver who barely knows how to operate a car, and has > not even a clue about the forces that cause the vehicle to do what it > does, they suffer the carnage of photographic road kill. > Unlike the car driver, who sometimes gets a wake up call from the air > bad in the steering column, the photographer who hasn't taken the > time to learn a few of photography's fundamentals generally blames > the problem on the lab and goes off to to repeat the mistakes, over > and over again. > > I had a customer last week bring me her fifth blank film in a row. > I guess she didn't learn anything from the first 4, and probably > didn't learn anything from the most recent one either. > It's sad, because I know she drives a car. > > William Robb > > > > > > > > -- Frits W�thrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
