We as a race of people in the first world are obsessed.
Many do not even realise it, some even complain, but we are driving a need for constant change, for improvement, for redundancy of the old.
Ten years seems like a long time in the world of tech.
Once, the needs of a human extended to survival only. This evolved to become “quality of life”, the curse of intellectual awareness, until now when for those of us lucky enough to be a part of it, so the minority in the first world, quality of life seems centred around “constant upgrading of the quality of things”.
Quality in turn has diverged into several branches.
On one hand old fashioned qualities like consistency, build quality and longevity are still desired, but on the other, a quick turn-over, newer is best best tech regime seems to be dominating.
Ironically, thanks to turbulent recent times and cultural imperatives, the Japanese, responsible for a large amount if this tech, often live in a world devoid of overt technological incursion.
As photographers, and to no lesser extent videographers, we are slaves to tech, its limits and enabling power in balance (the recent Optus outage maybe a warning we are not there yet).
This inevitably creates a newer is better dynamic, one which ironically seems to be meeting some resistance from the “old school look” chasers.
Apart from the true retro hold-outs, intolerance of older gear with its less capable noise reduction, imperfect AF and less than bullet train performance seems all pervading to someone who has lived their photographic life through many stages.
Photography has always been a case of technical limit mitigation, often leading to creative signatures. Perfection seems to be the signature we are heading towards. Like the car industry, the trick seems to be providing what everyone else is providing, which preserving some way of standing out.
When I look at this image I do not see “tiny lens on a small format EM5 Mk1”. I see the image for what it is, not what made it and this is usually the case unless there are obvious signs. Images taken on film and last century are still my place of inspiration, the work of masters such as Sam Abel, Saul Leiter etc reigning supreme.
Film grain was a constant and something that although not ideal, did add a character to images we were all accepting of. The more technically minded would spend excessive time on remedies, often only gaining the slightest advantage. Generally grain was avoided, limiting photographic options, or embraced, allowing creative interpretation to come into play.
Sebastiao Salgado is one of many examples of a photographer who created beautiful work using his very real quality envelope as a tool, not a deterrent. Is his work any less relevant because of technical limitations, does it need to be consigned to the “this was ok, but…” junk pile?
It has power through a relevance of subject, time and place. The technical look is all a part of that, something we often only appreciate in retrospect.
Some things just work, relatively unchanged for generations and are used until they stop.
What will happen when an image only has a perfectly rendered subject, without any other signature look, a time stamp, a point of difference? We have become good at faking that look through software, but something is always lost in the process.
I am deeply engrossed in the camera “A” vs “B” quagmire at the moment, something that has highlighted to me yet again how focussed we are now on seeking perfection and hair splitting comparisons. Things need to be the best, not just good enough.
A few months ago, my S5 Mk1 was fine as my premium video option. Limited to LongGOP, realistically manual focus and non-fan assisted recording times, I felt it had more than I needed presently, especially as my fully six year old G9 Mk1’s, stills-centric hybrids are doing the bulk of my video work anyway.
I have the jitters over which of a full frame or M43 super camera to pick from, when only months ago, neither camera was even an option.
We all know better is always possible, but have we lost the art of making the most of what we have? Our pioneering forbearers knew how to adapt, to modify and improve within very limited envelopes. We can be accused of just waiting for the next big thing to make everything better than before.
The reality is, better is only slightly better. These things are incremental, but perceptions can exaggerate improvements. Maybe our need for more is fuelling both this need and it’s false perception.
The much talked about video AF improvement in Panasonic cameras is a perfect example. Yes it is better, but the old system was not unusable, was certainly not always the best or only answer and the much improved sysem is still not perfect (no system is). We have shifted not from completely useless to completely perfect, but more like a shift from 85% efficiency with some awareness applied to relatively effortless 95% success. Skill, awareness and practice all come into play here.
The thing we risk loosing if we keep chasing automatic perfection is the ability to “drive the car” ourselves. Automation in all things is usually fine, but as an option, never the only option.
Recently my wife told me a story of a think tank group formed to refine and define the thoughts of other sub-groups.
They stuck the various submissions into an AI system to generate an overview.
People matter.
The point of the whole exercise was to allow people an opportunity to express themselves. The AI did a fine job of defining the text and succinctly reducing it all down to a few lines, but did it understand the hidden meaning, the nuance, or have the ability to adjust or re-define some of those thoughts in context of the place or person or ultimately understand the end use?
Not the AI’s fault, it was just working within the limits of what it knew. It did a fine job of clarifying the materiel within the remit it was given, but the people involved learned little and the AI felt nothing.
Anyway back on point.
Our world is far from perfect, but to this weathered eye, we in the lucky part of the world seem to be diverging more and more between the things that are genuinely important and an obsessive need for technical advancement.
Anyway, back to my hair splitting.