No, the *istD is only semi-professional - you need to use Kodak Gold or Shops own brand films only.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Frits W�thrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 17 February 2004 15:12 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? > > > 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]> > >
