Hacker News Reader

Comment by myNXTact | Hacker News Reader

This is the exact opposite of the "rich getting richer!" Whenever we start discussing income and wealth trends in the United States we always neglect how we as a society have gotten richer through technological progress. Even the poorest houses in the USA have computers and tv's that would blow the minds of people from the 1990's and be incomprehensible to people from the 1950's.

Cameras have gotten better and better while getting cheaper. Twenty years ago the only people taking photos of this quality were professional photographers. Now we have college students who can work really hard over a school break and be able to afford a great camera setup.

View on HN

I think he was referring to the fact that his parents were able to pay for travel to dozens of political events, simply to promote their kids hobby. That's great, but I doubt that's an expense must people's parents would be able to incur.

Even with that in mind, your claim that even the poorest households in the US have access to computers at home is simply not true. The digital divide is still a very real issue within the U.S.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/share/heres-what-digital-divide-l...

> I think he was referring to the fact that his parents were able to pay for travel to dozens of political events, simply to promote their kids hobby. That's great, but I doubt that's an expense must people's parents would be able to incur.

That is true... but I also don't understand how that is "the rich get richer"?

On the cost of cameras, if anything, they have gotten much more expensive. It used to be possible to buy a pro-quality film camera and prime lens for less than $1,000 -- so, let's say $1500 in today's dollars. More money might get you features like better auto-exposure, auto-focus or high-speed film winders, but a lot of pros didn't use any of those features, and back in the day when I was shooting sports events at my college, I often had a more modern camera rig than the pros sitting next to me. Digital cameras that give similar image quality as those film cameras start at $2,500 today, and go up from there. It feels like the divide between pro and amateur equipment in photography has shot through the roof over the past decade, with the blanket adoption of digital.

What has gotten cheaper / more accessible is the ability to publicize, duplicate and distribute one's work. Twenty years ago, short of dropping off prints at the local newspaper, there would be no way for an amateur photographer to get her photos under the nose of photo editors at major news outlets. Today, that's as simple as uploading to Flickr.

I generally agree with you with respect to equipment cost although, to be fair, a lot of that difference is offset by consumables. A Nikon F4 may only have been modestly more expensive than a more consumer-oriented SLR but the pro probably shot thousands of dollars more film during a year.

So in addition to distribution, just using the camera has also gotten a lot cheaper.

You don't need brand new gear though: A used Nikon D2x or D300 on a good lens will produce results as good as most pros would get with film back in the day. Those bodies even drive all the old (cheap) Nikkor AF lenses. Total cost for a body and a couple of high quality AF zooms will run you less than $500 on eBay.

If you want to get really cheap, pick up a D1 for $35, a refurbished 55-200 VR for $100, and maybe a 2x teleconverter for $20.

>Twenty years ago the only people taking photos of this quality were professional photographers. Now we have college students who can work really hard over a school break and be able to afford a great camera setup.

Eh. Plenty of amateurs using SLRs were taking good, solid photos 20 or 30 years ago. How do you think the pros got their jobs if not by becoming good photographers first?

It is far easier these days is to take photos that are technically proficient especially in difficult light. (My brain probably still holds way too much arcane and now useless information about B&W film processing chemistry.) And, of course, it's far easier for amateurs to get their photos seen.

How many pictures do you think the average newbie needs to take to become a "proficient" photographer? 10,000? How much would it have cost to develop all that film twenty years ago? A modern user doesn't just have a better camera than those twenty years ago, they also have a built in dark room with unlimited "prints" (digital viewing).

10,000 is probably high for "proficient"--whatever that means exactly. I was probably shooting a few 36-exposure rolls of B&W film a week when I was in school. A roll of Tri-X is about $5 today and was probably something similar in adjusted dollars then. (We did generally load our own film but that's in the noise.) Chemicals and paper adds a bit more.

So, I don't know. $7 x 150 rolls or whatever. So maybe $1000 plus gear. The gear might actually be a bit cheaper than today assuming access to a darkroom. Color would be significantly more but you probably wouldn't do your own processing.

To your basic point though. Yes, it's much easier today. The instant feedback, much improved ability to work in low light, no-cost experimentation, easier to use equipment, etc. As a result, I think it's much easier for people to get to the "good enough" stage today even if becoming really accomplished isn't necessarily all that much easier.

>Cameras have gotten better and better while getting cheaper. >Twenty years ago the only people taking photos of this quality were professional photographers. >Now we have college students who can work really hard over a school break and be able to afford a great camera setup.

I couldnt agree less.

This is not photography that he is doing, its just some sort of expensive and glorified social media thing. Good on him for having an interesting hobby, but please stop confusing this with "Photography" ... it is not.

Modern Cameras (just like smartphones) are getting bigger, heavier, more useless, and more expensive than ever. Please stop thinking that this is some kind of "progress".

I totally agree with your comment about the quality matching that of "Professional Photographers". The "quality" of these photos is just crap. Soulless, 2 dimensional crap. Its right up there with "Wedding Photography".

He may as well just leave all that DSLR garbage at home and take his happy snaps on an iPhone.

Real photography is actually more accessible than ever. There is no shortage of stupid in this day and age, and so you will find plenty of excellent kit being sold for pennies, because stupid people think that : - "It cant upload photos to instagram" (Canon 700d .. makes for a great neg scanner) - "Its only 5 megapixels" (Leica Digilux 2) - "You cant buy film anymore" (Canon AE-1, in mint condition, with a whole box full of filters and lenses) - "Wont recharge, and cant get batteries anymore" (Leica M3) - "Not sure how to use it" (Olympus OM-2n, with accessories including a gorgeous 50/1.4 Zuiko)

A college student need not work hard to afford a real camera, they need not work at all in fact.

As for developing and printing ... coffee grinds, beetroot juice, washing soda, cheap wine ... they all work, and experimenting with them will actually teach the student a whole lot of valuable things across multiple disciplines. After all - that is what they supposedly at college for isnt it ?

You seem to be saying digital cameras aren't "real cameras". Can you define what makes a camera real? How will the difference be visible in the final pictures? Would a high resolution digital camera with a "film filter" applied to the pictures be just as good?

Like the comment in the article, you're not very clear on what "quality" means. What makes a photo soulless or 2 dimensional? This guy's photos certainly had out of focus backgrounds which I think is one way to indicate 3D depth. Would it help it he used an actual 3D camera and presented them for viewing on a 3D monitor?

To be honest, it sounds like you're frustrated that a skill you've perhaps spent a lot of time and money on has become easily available to everyone and thus lost most of its value. That happens in life and it's not the end of the world as long as you keep developing yourself. Just ask a programmer.

Ah .. not quite. Im not a photographer by any stretch. Im a Vexiologist by trade, and Ive invested a tonne of time and money into that. It has provided me with a wonderful lifestyle that I wouldnt swap for anything. That line of work has always been open and accessible to all (just like programming), but the skills are never diluted by progress (just like programming skills are never really diluted)

Not saying that Digital Cameras arent "real cameras" .. an empty packet of smokes with a pinhole in the side makes for an acceptable form of camera as well. Just making the assertion that pretty much ALL digital cameras are garbage. At least the metallic paper in the empty packet of smokes has many interesting uses, and can be crafted into something of lasting value .... no such luck with yesterday's used Digital Camera. They are a future landfill liability, just like all of your iPhones and other battery powered crap.

There are a few notable exceptions in Digital Cameras of course, but we already know that. The Sony Mavica (with the floppy disc in the side) was a work of art, The M9 with the Kodak CCD is justifably sort after in the 2nd hand market at premium prices, and of course the MM. Its even hard to find someone willing to part with a much loved M8. The X-Vario is not only a brilliant digital camera, but there is the added bonus of annoying any "experts" who see it in your camera bag. That is priceless.

No, what I find really annoying in this crappy article goes a little deeper than that.

For example, you can put a Rat in a maze, and measure how long it takes to find its way out. You can repeat the experiment several times over many days, and observe how the cunning little bastard manages to shave seconds, and then minutes off his time. Its only a filthy Rat, and yet the damn thing can reason and think for itself, and optimize a solution to a rather abstract problem. One has to respect the Rat, no matter what diseases the thing might be harboring in its dirty, matted fur.

Now lets take a look at the first photos published by the subject of this article. They look like the work of a noob with a new toy. Fair enough ... he is on an exciting new journey of discovery. Life is good for him, he has all the support in the world, and the doors are wide open to learn anything he wants to learn.

Fast Forward a few hundred photos.

The same.

Fast Forward a few thousand.

The same.

Dammit - Fast Forward 40,000 photos.

Exactly the same.

So you mean to tell me that after publishing his very best set of 40,000 images out of God-only-knows how many happy snaps he has shot ... that he has managed to learn, grow, and develop ... nothing at all. There is zero evidence of any artistic growth in 40,000 images ! NONE ! There is not even a hint of technical development in terms of composition, story telling ... or anything at all related to either photography or journalism.

There is no other word for this other than "Mediocrity"

The 40,000 images that are being thrust into the public eye are nothing more than a tragically monumental celebration of the Mediocre.

As a work of Conceptual Modern Art - A poignant epitaph to a dying culture, in the form of an endless series of the same mediocre images of the same mediocre plutorcats ... brilliant.

And then there is the mindless gushing of the so-called "Media" over this guys so-called "achievements". They are always so hungry to idolize the talent-less and the mediocre, in whatever form they can find it.

Its just horrible to watch.

I appreciate your sentiment. I own an old Nikon film camera that I use every now and then and I'm always impressed with the photos it takes. There is something unique about them that isn't present in my digital camera. That being said, I think you are unfairly bashing journalistic photography. The purpose of his pictures isn't art, but capturing a moment for posterity. Your criticism is akin to complaining about a newspaper article because it lacks the plot and character development of your favorite novels.

I used to agree with you about the reusability of things. It's sad to throw away a powerful computer/camera/phone/etc just because the latest app doesn't work and it's too difficult to repurpose the old components.

Nowdays, I consciously rationalize and think that tiny camera only cost a few cents to make. It's not actually a valuable item worth preserving. Sure it would have been an amazing treasure a few decades ago, but now it's common and worthless. Perhaps quite similar to parts of a human body - very powerful when they're working together but utterly useless when they're removed or broken. Even long lasting parts like bones have very specialized shapes and internal structure that make them hard to re-purpose.

I still don't understand what you mean by quality. What makes this guy's photos mediocre? The one on the Donald Trump website looks exactly like I'd expect a photo of a politician to look. How can it tell a story? Does he need a sequence of photos showing something changing with time? It's just a person, not an event. The guy's just a stock photo photographer taking pictures for people who don't need context around them, not a journalist telling a story about a specific event.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com