Digital camera -toy or tool?

Bjoernar Pedersen · Sep 11, 2003

Remember when the first calculators were introduced? People with no interest in math bought advanced calculators, and never learned how to use them properly. Then we got digital watches. Suddenly lots of people HAD to know exactly on the second what the time was, and HAD to be remained by beeps for each hour passing... Then cameras got autofocus and advanced exposure programs, and people who had not shown any interest in photos starting buying cameras without bothering to study even basic photographic technics. Then the PC came, and all those who had be playing with calculators, digital watches and cameras had found a new and more interesting toy. For a while cameras were mostly bought by people with genuine interest in good pictures, but then came the digital cameras... Suddenly lots of tecno-freeks became interested in cameras. Pixels, megabytes, memory cards and photoshop was much more interesting than films and darkrooms from the old days. Photography had become the new boy in town. When reading postings in forums like this, it's quite clear that many have more interest in technology than pictures. People are discussing resolution, colors and speed like this is what photography is all about, but very few seem to be interested in things that has been the main interest for photographers since the first cameras were created about 150 years ago; what kind of tool do I need to be able to take the kind of pictures I like, and what to I need to know to be able to use the tool to its full potential? Who cares which word processor a famous writer are using? Let's keep the perspective of what photography is all about. The camera is a tool, an assistant which can help us saving memories and sometimes creating pieces of art. Let us not argue which camera is the best, but let us share experiences and respect other people's opinions and needs, helping everybody to be able to to find the true joy of taking good pictures.

Bjoernar

Patrick T. Kelly · Sep 11, 2003

Oh, I agree in principle although the number of people who followed the path you laid out was infintessimal. Same folks who shop at The Sharper Image. I never owned a calculator that would do anything but basic math and I switched to digital watches when seeing the really large numbers was nice. I didn't get a computer until they had word processing and could connect to the mainframe at my office.

Some seem to have been seduced by Photoshop and what they produce may or may not be photographs. But, I remember when I was considering switching from a twin-lens reflex to a single-lens reflex. The discussions I had with friends about format size and resolution would have done this forum proud.

Digital photography has been inferior in print quality and dynamic range. As the gap closes people are interested in squeezing every last bit of quality out of the image. It's been a long time but I seem to remember chemicals changing frequently to get just a tad better quality from 35mm Tri-X film. It gets overdone perhaps but it's normal.

In time, I suspect digital will be accepted much as 35mm is accepted now with film still being used as medium- and large-format film is still used.

Sam Berry · Sep 11, 2003

Why are you suprised that the forums of a digital phototography are home to many technology discussions? You don't go to a mechanical engineering forum to learn to drive, you go to learn about the technology to drive. Why would people go to a digital photography website to discuss non-technical aspects? It's both off-topic and out of earshot of film-photographers. If you want to forget about the equipment why are you at a digital-specific site's forum? There are plenty of forums for the more artistic aspects of photography, and people use them.

Bjoernar Pedersen said:
Remember when the first calculators were introduced? People with no
interest in math bought advanced calculators, and never learned how
to use them properly. Then we got digital watches. Suddenly lots of
people HAD to know exactly on the second what the time was, and HAD
to be remained by beeps for each hour passing... Then cameras got
autofocus and advanced exposure programs, and people who had not
shown any interest in photos starting buying cameras without
bothering to study even basic photographic technics. Then the PC
came, and all those who had be playing with calculators, digital
watches and cameras had found a new and more interesting toy. For a
while cameras were mostly bought by people with genuine interest in
good pictures, but then came the digital cameras... Suddenly lots
of tecno-freeks became interested in cameras. Pixels, megabytes,
memory cards and photoshop was much more interesting than films and
darkrooms from the old days. Photography had become the new boy in
town. When reading postings in forums like this, it's quite clear
that many have more interest in technology than pictures. People
are discussing resolution, colors and speed like this is what
photography is all about, but very few seem to be interested in
things that has been the main interest for photographers since the
first cameras were created about 150 years ago; what kind of tool
do I need to be able to take the kind of pictures I like, and what
to I need to know to be able to use the tool to its full potential?
Who cares which word processor a famous writer are using? Let's
keep the perspective of what photography is all about. The camera
is a tool, an assistant which can help us saving memories and
sometimes creating pieces of art. Let us not argue which camera is
the best, but let us share experiences and respect other people's
opinions and needs, helping everybody to be able to to find the
true joy of taking good pictures.

Bjoernar

Bjoernar Pedersen · Sep 11, 2003

I'm not surprised that the forums of a digital phototography are

home to many technology discussions, and I enjoy them many of them like I guess you do. What I don't like is people being too focused on the "my camera is better than your camera"- type of discussions. All cameras are compromizes. Lets share our experiences instead of proving who's "right". If I go to a mechanical engineering forum, I want to learn about MY car, not beeing told I should have bought a different one...

Bjoernar

Sam Berry said:
Why are you suprised that the forums of a digital phototography are
home to many technology discussions? You don't go to a mechanical
engineering forum to learn to drive, you go to learn about the
technology to drive. Why would people go to a digital photography
website to discuss non-technical aspects? It's both off-topic and
out of earshot of film-photographers. If you want to forget about
the equipment why are you at a digital-specific site's forum? There
are plenty of forums for the more artistic aspects of photography,
and people use them.

Dan Neufeld · Sep 11, 2003

It's a toy. Plain and simple.

I just can't take a digital photo seriously.

But you have to remember, there was just as much technical disscussions about chemicals, film, and paper. You just couldn't see them, because the Internet wasn't that big until a couple of years ago. It was all hidden in magazines and photo clubs only.

--
Dan

Take some pics.

Joseph S Wisniewski · Sep 11, 2003

Bjoernar Pedersen said:
If I go to a mechanical engineering forum,
I want to learn about MY car, not beeing told I should have bought
a different one...

I take it you've never been to any sort of automotive forum, USENET group, etc...

When someone puts a cutout of a mischeviuos boy urinating on the back of his Ford pickup, the "target" of his attentions is the Chevy logo, not the Canon logo.

Camera users don't have sayings like:
Ford stands for "Found on road dead"
I'd rather push a Ford than drive a Chevy

And have you ever heard a Leica owner call a Canon owner "Rice Boy"?

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Bjoernar Pedersen · Sep 11, 2003

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:
Bjoernar Pedersen said:

If I go to a mechanical engineering forum,
I want to learn about MY car, not beeing told I should have bought
a different one...

Click to expand...

I take it you've never been to any sort of automotive forum, USENET
group, etc...

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
When someone puts a cutout of a mischeviuos boy urinating on the
back of his Ford pickup, the "target" of his attentions is the
Chevy logo, not the Canon logo.

Camera users don't have sayings like:
Ford stands for "Found on road dead"
I'd rather push a Ford than drive a Chevy

And have you ever heard a Leica owner call a Canon owner "Rice Boy"?

--
Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

You're right, I haven't visited a automobile forum. From your description of one, I don't feel very tempted to visit one in the future either...

--
Bjoernar

Maury Cohen · Sep 11, 2003

Dear Dan,

I can tell you that my digital camera is an incredible tool for the use I put it to here at work.

If a customer reqests an image describing a feature on one of our products I can e-mail them results within minutes. This kind of customer service wins people over immediately.

Dan Neufeld said:
It's a toy. Plain and simple.

Dan Neufeld · Sep 11, 2003

Maybe I generalize a bit to much.

80% of all digicams are sold to people to who it doesn't beifit. THese are the general consumer who is wowed by the "neat" technology.

To them it's just a toy. To the photojournalist, it's a valuable tool.

The quality of photography overall has not been increased with the digital "revolution". The pictures looked just as good 20 years ago as they do now. Cost is also not an issue for the pro photographer, as they don't pay for anything. It's their customers that do.

For the most part, they're toys. Trust me, I sell them everyday, and almost every single person that buys one doesn't need it. It's just their new toy.

--
Dan

Take some pics.

Maury Cohen said:
Dan Neufeld said:

It's a toy. Plain and simple.

Click to expand...

Llarian · Sep 11, 2003

As with many other valuable discussion forums on the internet now, the ones with the best information are locked and require an approval/voucher system to get onto it.

The necessity sucks, but its a fact of life if you want any decent S/N ratio.

-Dylan

Bjoernar Pedersen said:
You're right, I haven't visited a automobile forum. From your
description of one, I don't feel very tempted to visit one in the
future either...

--
Bjoernar

noisebeam · Sep 11, 2003

This response confuses me...

Dan Neufeld said:
Maybe I generalize a bit to much.

80% of all digicams are sold to people to who it doesn't beifit.
THese are the general consumer who is wowed by the "neat"
technology.

What do you mean 'to who it doesn't benefit?' I'd say most consumers email pics to friends/family - a great benefit in communication and sharing life moments. Many others upload pics to online printing/viewing sites (like ofoto) and share the link and friends can look at pictures & select ones they want to order prints from. Better than making doubles when developing at mall and mailing the ones you think your friend wants.

Dan Neufeld said:
To them it's just a toy. To the photojournalist, it's a valuable tool.

To many consumers making a photo journal of snapshots of everyday events has great value. Just like I used to watch slideshows with my family when I was growing up.

Dan Neufeld said:
The quality of photography overall has not been increased with the
digital "revolution". The pictures looked just as good 20 years ago
as they do now. Cost is also not an issue for the pro photographer,
as they don't pay for anything. It's their customers that do.

For the most part, they're toys. Trust me, I sell them everyday,
and almost every single person that buys one doesn't need it. It's
just their new toy.

I guess you could say that most everything anyone purchases outside of food, clothing and shelter and items needed to work primary job is a toy - the garden hose, cookware, computer, etc. You can hire a professional to do all your cooking, gardening, finances, etc.

Of course digital cameras are tools. And just like most great tools* it can provide a great deal of entertainment value as well.

like a pencil, a computer, a lathe, a car, etc.

Al

Dan Neufeld said:
--
Dan

Take some pics.

Maury Cohen said:

Dan Neufeld said:

It's a toy. Plain and simple.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Paul Grupp · Sep 13, 2003

As someone who has been involved with photography for decades, I can assure you that the phenomenon you describe is no different today than it was in the 60s and 70s. Back then I watched lots of people buy expensive Nikon and Leica systems, who could barely take a picture of their cat. They loved photography for the technology, not because they were all that interested in taking pictures.

Some things never change.

Regards,
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/pgrupp

Bjoernar Pedersen said:
Remember when the first calculators were introduced? People with no
interest in math bought advanced calculators, and never learned how
to use them properly. Then we got digital watches. Suddenly lots of
people HAD to know exactly on the second what the time was, and HAD
to be remained by beeps for each hour passing... Then cameras got
autofocus and advanced exposure programs, and people who had not
shown any interest in photos starting buying cameras without
bothering to study even basic photographic technics. Then the PC
came, and all those who had be playing with calculators, digital
watches and cameras had found a new and more interesting toy. For a
while cameras were mostly bought by people with genuine interest in
good pictures, but then came the digital cameras... Suddenly lots
of tecno-freeks became interested in cameras. Pixels, megabytes,
memory cards and photoshop was much more interesting than films and
darkrooms from the old days. Photography had become the new boy in
town. When reading postings in forums like this, it's quite clear
that many have more interest in technology than pictures. People
are discussing resolution, colors and speed like this is what
photography is all about, but very few seem to be interested in
things that has been the main interest for photographers since the
first cameras were created about 150 years ago; what kind of tool
do I need to be able to take the kind of pictures I like, and what
to I need to know to be able to use the tool to its full potential?
Who cares which word processor a famous writer are using? Let's
keep the perspective of what photography is all about. The camera
is a tool, an assistant which can help us saving memories and
sometimes creating pieces of art. Let us not argue which camera is
the best, but let us share experiences and respect other people's
opinions and needs, helping everybody to be able to to find the
true joy of taking good pictures.

Bjoernar

Peter Herth · Sep 13, 2003

Of course there is a crowd of technology-enthusiasts which searches for new fields of "toys" every few years. One could add cellular phones and hifi rigs and many other things to your list. But with every new technology, it is probably the case that there is an early stage, in which only technology savy people will use it. For one because they are more easy to gain as customers and because technology may not be mature enough for every days users talents. But lets look at PCs. Up to a very few years ago, technical development was very interesting, since it directly converted into additional use and getting the maximum out of your PC was worth a lot of toying around with it. Nowadays hardware is not really a limit so toying around with it has lost the appeal to most but the very fanatic enthusiasts. So the PC became a tool.

So perhaps all this movement of interest has also to do with technologies maturing to a point where the toying is no longer required...
Peter

win39 · Sep 13, 2003

This split between toy and tool seems to me to be kind of arrogant and wrong headed. It essentially says, "I know what photography is all about and I am serious. They are just frivolous toys for other people." Sorry.

If you read about most creative people you will find that they love toys. The whole creative process is based on play and trying new things. Just because someone tries something out to see whether it will add something to their life does not mean they are to be denigrated. If they are still trying new things it means they have not ossified into something that will never change or grow. If you are "serious about photography", the spark is gone and you are repeating yourself and maybe you should try a new toy yourself.

Fred Klaiss · Sep 13, 2003

Amen to that. Remember when there was only one Nikon SLR (the F, with or without the Photomic finder), and the lesser Nikkormat (Nikkomat)? The saying went that only photojournalists and doctors could afford the F. If the camera showed considerable dings and brassing, and was nekked on a ratty-looking neckstrap, the user was a photojournalist. If the F was in pristine condition, stored in a “never-ready” case, the owner was a doctor on holiday. The rest of us bought Nikkormats. Actually I was a Spotmatic fanatic at the time. Still have one, used only for the 17mm full-frame Takumar fisheye lens.

Bjoernar Pedersen · Sep 13, 2003

There is a big difference between being creative and playfull and being hooked on technical details which takes the attention away from the creative process of photography.

win39 said:
This split between toy and tool seems to me to be kind of arrogant
and wrong headed. It essentially says, "I know what photography is
all about and I am serious. They are just frivolous toys for other
people." Sorry.

If you read about most creative people you will find that they love
toys. The whole creative process is based on play and trying new
things. Just because someone tries something out to see whether it
will add something to their life does not mean they are to be
denigrated. If they are still trying new things it means they have
not ossified into something that will never change or grow. If you
are "serious about photography", the spark is gone and you are
repeating yourself and maybe you should try a new toy yourself.

--
Bjoernar

Sam Berry · Sep 13, 2003

I still think he has a point. So what if somebody is into photography from a technical point of view? They're not harming anyone. They might even get to enjoy the artistic side eventually, but if they don't, it's their own disposable income their 'wasting'. Hobbies are pretty pointless, largely by definiton, so who cares if their doing it for art, science or witchcraft.

Bjoernar Pedersen said:
win39 said:

This split between toy and tool seems to me to be kind of arrogant
and wrong headed. It essentially says, "I know what photography is
all about and I am serious. They are just frivolous toys for other
people." Sorry.

If you read about most creative people you will find that they love
toys. The whole creative process is based on play and trying new
things. Just because someone tries something out to see whether it
will add something to their life does not mean they are to be
denigrated. If they are still trying new things it means they have
not ossified into something that will never change or grow. If you
are "serious about photography", the spark is gone and you are
repeating yourself and maybe you should try a new toy yourself.

Click to expand...

--
Bjoernar

Wannes · Sep 13, 2003

Your right ... but ...
The man who dies with the most toys ... wins!

Bjoernar Pedersen said:
Remember when the first calculators were introduced? People with no
interest in math bought advanced calculators, and never learned how
to use them properly. Then we got digital watches. Suddenly lots of
people HAD to know exactly on the second what the time was, and HAD
to be remained by beeps for each hour passing... Then cameras got
autofocus and advanced exposure programs, and people who had not
shown any interest in photos starting buying cameras without
bothering to study even basic photographic technics. Then the PC
came, and all those who had be playing with calculators, digital
watches and cameras had found a new and more interesting toy. For a
while cameras were mostly bought by people with genuine interest in
good pictures, but then came the digital cameras... Suddenly lots
of tecno-freeks became interested in cameras. Pixels, megabytes,
memory cards and photoshop was much more interesting than films and
darkrooms from the old days. Photography had become the new boy in
town. When reading postings in forums like this, it's quite clear
that many have more interest in technology than pictures. People
are discussing resolution, colors and speed like this is what
photography is all about, but very few seem to be interested in
things that has been the main interest for photographers since the
first cameras were created about 150 years ago; what kind of tool
do I need to be able to take the kind of pictures I like, and what
to I need to know to be able to use the tool to its full potential?
Who cares which word processor a famous writer are using? Let's
keep the perspective of what photography is all about. The camera
is a tool, an assistant which can help us saving memories and
sometimes creating pieces of art. Let us not argue which camera is
the best, but let us share experiences and respect other people's
opinions and needs, helping everybody to be able to to find the
true joy of taking good pictures.

Bjoernar

Paul Grupp · Sep 13, 2003

The more people buy something, the less expensive it is. If only the "serious" photographers bought digital cameras, there would be very few different models, and they would be hideously expensive.

Regards,
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/pgrupp

Bjoernar Pedersen said:
Remember when the first calculators were introduced? People with no
interest in math bought advanced calculators, and never learned how
to use them properly. Then we got digital watches. Suddenly lots of
people HAD to know exactly on the second what the time was, and HAD
to be remained by beeps for each hour passing... Then cameras got
autofocus and advanced exposure programs, and people who had not
shown any interest in photos starting buying cameras without
bothering to study even basic photographic technics. Then the PC
came, and all those who had be playing with calculators, digital
watches and cameras had found a new and more interesting toy. For a
while cameras were mostly bought by people with genuine interest in
good pictures, but then came the digital cameras... Suddenly lots
of tecno-freeks became interested in cameras. Pixels, megabytes,
memory cards and photoshop was much more interesting than films and
darkrooms from the old days. Photography had become the new boy in
town. When reading postings in forums like this, it's quite clear
that many have more interest in technology than pictures. People
are discussing resolution, colors and speed like this is what
photography is all about, but very few seem to be interested in
things that has been the main interest for photographers since the
first cameras were created about 150 years ago; what kind of tool
do I need to be able to take the kind of pictures I like, and what
to I need to know to be able to use the tool to its full potential?
Who cares which word processor a famous writer are using? Let's
keep the perspective of what photography is all about. The camera
is a tool, an assistant which can help us saving memories and
sometimes creating pieces of art. Let us not argue which camera is
the best, but let us share experiences and respect other people's
opinions and needs, helping everybody to be able to to find the
true joy of taking good pictures.

Bjoernar

JWP · Sep 13, 2003

Bottom line is that the blizzard of technological evolution going on now spurred by the rabid techno freaks is making wonderful new tools for the serious photographer.

Bjoernar Pedersen said:
Remember when the first calculators were introduced? People with no
interest in math bought advanced calculators, and never learned how
to use them properly. Then we got digital watches. Suddenly lots of
people HAD to know exactly on the second what the time was, and HAD
to be remained by beeps for each hour passing... Then cameras got
autofocus and advanced exposure programs, and people who had not
shown any interest in photos starting buying cameras without
bothering to study even basic photographic technics. Then the PC
came, and all those who had be playing with calculators, digital
watches and cameras had found a new and more interesting toy. For a
while cameras were mostly bought by people with genuine interest in
good pictures, but then came the digital cameras... Suddenly lots
of tecno-freeks became interested in cameras. Pixels, megabytes,
memory cards and photoshop was much more interesting than films and
darkrooms from the old days. Photography had become the new boy in
town. When reading postings in forums like this, it's quite clear
that many have more interest in technology than pictures. People
are discussing resolution, colors and speed like this is what
photography is all about, but very few seem to be interested in
things that has been the main interest for photographers since the
first cameras were created about 150 years ago; what kind of tool
do I need to be able to take the kind of pictures I like, and what
to I need to know to be able to use the tool to its full potential?
Who cares which word processor a famous writer are using? Let's
keep the perspective of what photography is all about. The camera
is a tool, an assistant which can help us saving memories and
sometimes creating pieces of art. Let us not argue which camera is
the best, but let us share experiences and respect other people's
opinions and needs, helping everybody to be able to to find the
true joy of taking good pictures.

Bjoernar

--
JWP

Digital camera -toy or tool?

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

New member

Veteran Member

JWP

Guest

Keyboard shortcuts