Keeping up with technology

Discussion in 'Photography' started by tony cooper, Jul 31, 2012.

  1. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    Some people seem to have the feeling that what is new,
    technologically, must be adopted. It doesn't seem to make a
    difference to them that there might not be a discernable advantage to
    others in the new technology, just that if it's new it must be better.

    We frequently see this in photography. You must use the latest
    version of Photoshop or Lightroom, you must add geotags, you must add
    plugs-ins like Topaz or Nik, you must try HDR...or you're a fossil, a
    Luddite, stuck in your ways. Worse, there's often an implication that
    not using what is new indicates ignorance of what it can do.

    Why is that some people feel that what they do is what all should do,
    and they only reason to reject what they do is ignorance?

    Some people still use film cameras, some process their images in tanks
    in a darkroom, some people shoot nothing but .jpgs in digital, some
    people never edit an image. Are these people staying at those levels
    because they are ignorant, or because they are perfectly content doing
    what they're doing? Is that wrong?

    Someone asked me earlier today about my Facebook page. I told them I
    don't have one. I might as well of told them I shaved with a
    clamshell and wrote notes with a sharpened goose feather quill.

    The person went to great lengths to tell me how Facebook would allow
    me to keep up with my friends. I keep up with all the people I want
    to keep up with as it is. The person told me that it would allow old
    friends, who I have lost contact with, to contact me. There are some
    people that I really don't want to get back in touch with.

    The person concluded that "You really don't understand what it can do
    for you". I understand. I just don't want to. Is that so hard to
    comprehend?
     
    tony cooper, Jul 31, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. tony cooper

    Savageduck Guest

    Just a perception made by followers of fashion.
    Not necessarily, if all you need is what works for you there is little
    need to move to newer technology. However, there are some useful tools
    available in later versions of Photoshop, and some of the plugins can
    be very helpful to reach creative results, solve some problems, and
    they can be time savers. (they can also be fun to experiment with).

    HDR, is a polarizing subject, and each of us have a different take on
    it. It has been unfortunate that the first examples of HDR have been
    the garish, over saturated (sometimes desaturated), over contrasted
    examples. I think that was created the initial divide.
    Used with discretion HDR can be just another useful creative tool,
    without overcooking the final result. I believe I had posted this
    comparison in another HDR discussion.
    Insecurity and the herd mentality.
    Facebook! I don't need no stinking Facebook!
    What really annoys me are the growing number of corporate entities who
    inst of communicating with the World via Facebook or Twitter. (I don't
    have a Twitter or Facebook account.)
    I admit to having a G+ account, which I find to be very much like
    Usenet on steroids.
    My friends and family know exactly how to contact me. I can think of a
    whole bunch of assholes from my past I wouldn't be happy reconnecting
    with.
    I am sure that person has an email account if they have a Facebook
    account. Like you I fully understand that I don't need Facebook, or
    Twitter.
     
    Savageduck, Jul 31, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I think you've said it all there. I've played a role in innovative design
    and did the subject to death over a decade ago so we're on the same page
    even if we're looking at the issue from different angles. We're different
    people with different experiences so this is to be expected.

    Personally, I'm looking at Facebook and thinking some of the design and
    ownership issues have problems. I can't see how Facebook could or should be
    allowed a monopoly like that and the data privacy issues are worrying. In
    that respect what bugs me isn't that Facebook is "new" but it isn't new
    enough, and both laws, technology, and society have some way to go before
    those questions are properly asked let alone addressed. I'm not sure
    Facebook as a corporate entity can survive that so long term they're dead in
    the water. This kind of enterprise doesn't appeal to me at all because it
    bores me in every way I can be bored. Plus, Zuckerberg is a dick.

    I've actually swung the other way. Projects that involve more tactile
    involvement and people offline are grabbing my interest now. Some of that
    involves integrating and polishing established technologies and meeting new
    and varied people. How retro is that?

    I'll have to scrabble to find any but some Japanese artists operate at the
    cutting edge of art and make use of old material, and a lot of their work is
    highly personal. It's crazy but it works, if you like that sort of thing.
     
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Aug 1, 2012
    #3
  4. Facebook <> new techonlogy.
    It is a teenie-oriented way of modern privacy mass-destruction.
    I am so glad to see their shares plumetting miserably...
     
    Laszlo Lebrun, Aug 1, 2012
    #4
  5. tony cooper

    Noons Guest

    tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 1/08/2012 6:40 AM:
    What makes you think that is what they are doing?

    IMHO, most are simply trolling to get you to feel "inferior" and peer force you
    to waste money in their wares. Mostly online traders disguised as "normal
    people". Sometimes real traders, trying to "exploit" the internet.

    IOWs: peddlers, canvassers.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peddler
    (with apologies to the "gypsies" insinuation in that page: I have a profound
    respect for them, they are some of the most genuine and honest people one can meet)

    Many years ago we used to get rid of peddlers with tar and feathers. Nowadays
    the internet "anonimity" saves them from such destiny. Apparently it's called
    "freedom of speech"...
     
    Noons, Aug 2, 2012
    #5
  6. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest


    Do you think all peddlers are so unscrupulous, as to deserve being
    tarred and feathered?
    Were only peddlers tarred and feathered?

    Did you participate in that ritual?

    If is wasn't for some peddlers, somewhere, you couldn't have posted your
    message.
     
    PeterN, Aug 2, 2012
    #6
  7. tony cooper

    Noons Guest

    No. Con-artists were as well.
    No. But I'd welcome it if at all possible.
    Prove it.
     
    Noons, Aug 3, 2012
    #7
  8. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    And the factual grounds for your statement are?
    Reasonable assumption:
    Somewhere, somebody sold at least one component of whatever device you
    use to communicate in the Internet, and/or at least one tool used in its
    fabrication.
     
    PeterN, Aug 4, 2012
    #8
  9. tony cooper

    Noons Guest

    PeterN wrote,on my timestamp of 4/08/2012 12:30 PM:
    I say so. This is not a court of law, you can pick your "factual grounds" and
    shove them.

    Ah yes, of course: selling is a synonym for peddling.
    I'm so glad I couldn't be bothered with "factual grounds"...
     
    Noons, Aug 4, 2012
    #9
  10. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    Good to see your rational, well reasoned argument.
     
    PeterN, Aug 4, 2012
    #10
  11. tony cooper

    Noons Guest

    PeterN wrote,on my timestamp of 4/08/2012 10:24 PM:
    Fair is fair!
     
    Noons, Aug 5, 2012
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.