It's quite strange. It's still consumerism - primarily about ownership display, not use - but trying to pretend it isn't.
But smartphone cameras are not progress on all fronts. They are small and seem to be optimized to take pictures that look impressive.
I sometimes have a slideshow with family pictures running on a large monitor. Sometimes I stop and look at a picture that somehow just look much nicer that the rest when you spend some time looking at it. If I then check the metadata, it almost always turns out to be one of few pictures I took with my old DSLR camera or a newer compact camera.
Of course those cameras are much bigger and has bigger lenses and should be able to make better pictures. But the best camera is the one you brought with you. Which is why so few of the pictures are made with a smartphone.
But it seems to me that all the computational power of smartphones does not quite compensate for the smaller optics. Or that they are trying too hard to make the pictures look spectacular.
It seems like if you have the latest top tier phone: iphone, pixel, samsung s, etc., you get decent photos, if you have any of the 2nd tier phones, they all continue to suck no matter how many mp they claim to have or whatever optics they claim to have.
Seriously, even on a modern Pixel (mine) and iPhone (gf's), I'm often disappointed in the level of detail you find once you want to crop an image or zoom in on something distant/small.
The software has come a long way and does incredible things within the limitations of such tiny lenses and sensors. But I've got much lower resolution images from point and shoot cameras in the mid/late 2000's that show more detail and none of the weird software sharpening artifacts of a 20-40+ megapixel phone pic.
They can only simulate the physical properties of optics. Eventually we’ll get to the point where they’re far from “photos” and more AI generations that look like photos.
The only difference with compact cameras is not having zoom lenses. But the telephoto and wide cameras on some models help make up for it.
There is a big jump to interchangeable lens cameras. But those aren’t what is popular as vintage.
They loved them. They liked writing notes on the border. The photos aren't nearly as good as even the most basic smartphone camera, but there was something genuine about them.
For all the advances we've made in technology over the years, people are still thoroughly analog. And while digicams are not analog in any way, there is something about them that scratches that itch. Maybe it's as simple as hitting an actual button to make it go.
For all the amazing high-tech in today's smartphones, you still feel like a monkey at the monolith as you paw at it.
One's pure joy, the other's a damn to-do item.
For a long time, that was by having sharper, higher-quality pictures. Your friend had some Kodak Instamatic and you had a Hasselblad and you could assert your dominance over them.
But nowadays, the phones in everyone's pocket take such outstandingly sharp pictures that there isn't really meaningful room for improvement. So, people now differentiate themselves by getting vintage digital cameras which are hard to find, cost extra money, break frequently, etc., so that they can demonstrate their uniqueness.
A: Which iPhone do you have? Mine is an iPhone 13.
B: I have got the 2019 iPhone 11.
A: Wow. Respect! You’re better than me.
God y'all need to have some hobbies.
Then after I got my next phone I looked back and saw that the pictures had terrible artifacts that weren't hard to find. Now I'm on a Pixel N after having a handful of earlier Pixels and I can see the shortcomings of the photos it takes (and all its predecessors have taken) without much difficulty. Just zoom into the picture a little.
There's something to be said for analog.
I don’t think it has much to do with ‘ethics’ at all — at least not for me.
If you're creating art and easy route to differentiate and not feel like everything else in the timeline is to use an entirely different "grain" and you'll stand out from the mass.
It's not as simple as "old stuff better" it's more "other stuff feels different".
Film cameras have grain. Literally, there are tiny physical grains of photo-sensitive material on the film. Those grains, which are distributed semi-randomly in a film across the medium determine the limit of film's resolution and give it part of its organic, non-digital feel.
Digital cameras have noise. That's the term for randomness injected in a signal from the effect of physics: Brownian motion, heat, quantum effects on photons, etc. Noise means that while each pixel on the sensor is in principle quantizing a measurement of the real world, that measurement has some random error that can never be fully eliminated.
A digital image recorded from a digital sensor has no grain. There was no film, and no grains of photosensitive media involved. (It might have simulated grain from some "film effect" look applied to the image.)
The distinction matters because they look different. It's one of the key reasons film looks like film and digital looks digital.
In the sense that the iPhone sensor > internal AI process > Apple Camera app post-processing choices imbue an iPhone Camera Image "grain" to what you shoot.
I'm no photographer but I feel there's something similar going on here.
Especially for anything that needs harmonic distortion. I get the impression they use regular random number generators for some of the random variance, rather than trying to emulate the physicality of a valve. They just don’t quite have the mojo. For some things it doesn’t matter, but often music production is about a 1% improvement here, a 1% improvement there, which sums up to a lot. It’s still easier to get those wins with hardware. Like ‘mojo’ is the default setting.
A really good example is the Chandler Curve Bender [2]. I have the real hardware. A new one will cost you £6,700 - so it would be insane to buy one when UAD have a plugin version for £179. I have the plugin too. The plugin is my favourite digital EQ. It sounds great. But the hardware does things that the plugin just doesn't touch. The hardware is all discrete circuits (with massive transistors). I think the slight latency shift between the left and right channels gives a 3D-ness to the sound that the plugin doesn't even attempt. Anyway, this demo [3] really shows what it can do and why hardware is still in the game.
In many areas plugins are good enough, I tend to use the plugins for more precision and to have similar curves to the hardware, but there’s still a ways to go to until there’s parity with the hardware.
That doesn’t mean you need the hardware, plenty of successful artists use digital alone. Just it’s still easier to get ‘the good stuff’ with hardware.
[1] https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9swzlgk3wszeq6jfjxmw1/IMG_141...
[2] https://www.thomann.co.uk/chandler_limited_emi_tg12345_curve...
Brain wasn’t engaged, I meant capacitors
Audiophiles are ridiculous, frankly. I'm on the ATC group on Facebook. ATC make pro speakers used in many top studios, but they also make home 'audiophile' speakers. The speakers are amazing, but I often see them talking utter nonsense about how X sounds great or whatever, when they have pictures of their setup in an untreated room. Like they could even tell if the speakers are good in a room like that. They're hearing the room.
Audiophiles are like astrologers, it's all in the wind with them. But they shouldn't be confused with people into pro-audio for music or film production. The name of the game is to get the best sounding room you can, so that it's easier to make your art, there is a motivation to get it right and not be hoodwinked by the things you state.
Not that pro-studio people don't have their blind-spots too (especially around things like cabling), but they're not the same.
My X100 still has better photos than my iPhone 12. I have an iPhone 16 Pro and I think it’s better as a camera than the X100 but I still prefer the X100 when I want a shot and I will put the time into it. That is 13 years old. I also have a canon S95 and it was still more useful for photos than my iPhone 12 was.
The fact that manuals were produced with such care when it was really hard to do so is insight into how much thought was given to the entire product. It's not necessarily that the products are technically superior. It's that honest hard work was put into the products. You walked into a store and purchased it from a person. It couldn't be easier to produce product manuals these days with modern software, and yet it's never done. Today's consumer landscape is about disposability and scale. You have companies like Apple that intentionally remove features so that they can sell you them separately, like the dongle mess. Apple lied to their customers for the reasons they were removed and now sell them parts that costs sub-cents for dozens and hundreds of dollars.
There is something real about all of this that modern people yearn for. I remember having to buy technology as a kid. You talked to people, asked them questions, and they new things about the product. It wasn't about just pushing a virtual button.
A few aspects of shooting film appeal to me... the imperfection (memories aren't perfect, the photos shouldn't be either - but I'm also a huge Impressionism fan, so maybe that's it). The delayed gratification - in a world where most things are "instant", waiting a few weeks+ to get results changes the way I mentally process the images and associated memories. And the higher cost per shot forces me to be a bit more planful about shots.
Of course, that said, I get the photos scanned (not prints), and view them in the same apps as pure digitals. So maybe I'm just weird or a hipster.
I did ask for a Polaroid for Christmas - full analog baby! The Go model is dirt cheap (for a camera), maybe it'll be great, maybe I'll use it a few times and stick it in a drawer.
I'd love an Instax wide or square, but the camera bodies are just too bulky (at least as big as my rangefinders or micro-4/3+prime). Same for vintage Polaroids, plus the need to use the older battery-included (and more expensive) film packs.
And I'm aware of the limitations inherent in the current Polaroid chemistry and small size. It's a toy and I'm ok with that.
Reality is strange. Like how Apple owners somehow think they own a product that expresses individualism and artistic freedom where it really is a mass-produced product that looks the same as everybody else's, and more so than any other brand with less choice, while almost every aspect of customization is heavily controlled by the company ...
I understand that was Apple's marketing a decade ago, but it doesn't really seem to be their pitch anymore.
Hard to feel artistic and like an individual when everything is a piece of black plastic, metal and glass.
If someone eventually makes a non-broken computer that's in no way cool, I'll switch to that.
[EDIT] Though nb a mostly-just-works ecosystem of devices and integrations is basically table stakes for a competitor now. Just a better computer is almost useless to me, it needs to take just a couple clicks or taps (if any at all) to have it integrated with the rest of my shit. That's where the time savings and utility comes in, and fiddling-with-electronic-crap becomes computers actually doing things useful for me in my life, making paying any money at all for the damn things worth it.
Plenty of reasons why the new ways are worse.
I would argue that these types of designs made an anti-consumerist statement which is why you don't see them anymore. An appliance that tries to look like furniture doesn't need to do that, it is a non-essential feature of the appliance that the manufacturer chooses to include. And it makes a statement: "I'm part of your home. Care for me. Display me. Treasure me. Enjoy me ... and don't throw me out because I'm not disposable plastic."
The dedicated camera vs smartphone topic doesn't necessarily align with the concept of appliances as furniture, but it does strike me as being the difference between a specialized tool and a multi-tool.
Everyone owns a smartphone. There's nothing special about that. And while taking a good photo arguably requires some degree of skill regardless of your tool, smartphones represent the average consumer; the lowest common denominator. Anyone can, and does, snap pictures with a smartphone.
A dedicated camera, on the other hand, represents a conscious decision to take photography more seriously. To want to focus only on that, free of other distractions. To climb whatever learning curve stands in the way.
Then, consider, that there are people who appreciate history and have no illusions about whether or not a particular historical time period was "better" or not. I follow a historic costumer on YouTube, from whom I learned how to sew by hand and how many historic clothing was constructed. Do I think that living in the Victorian era would be better on the whole? No. I value modern medicine and social advancements that have been made since that time. But do I love the Victorian aesthetic and value the knowledge of how to do things without modern machinery? You betcha. I feel like a more rounded person and, despite coming from a hobby, I have life skills that I didn't have before, like being able to fit, hem, repair and even produce some of my own clothing.
Trends and fashion changes, and the phenomenon of "older is better" is human nature that has always existed. It is easy to find artefacts of the past that are less common, or gone entirely, that you consider to be better than the trends of the present.
This doesn't mean things are worse on the whole now, nor does it mean that those artefacts aren't valid examples of things of value that are no longer produced. I guess it's part and parcel of change.
Plastic looking finish is the one that was luxurious at the time. And wood was just a way to get a good-looking finish for cheap... Like shiny black plastic is today.
There's a reason brand new tech isn't favoured for safety-critical systems.
I'd love a nice mp3 player set up, but it's sometimes harder to get those legally for music compared to a CD or even an old tape now! streaming has a lot of downsides in comparison and I think that's fueling the desire to own a full album in some form.
but ofc at that point you can use a flash drive and it's way easier
This, I knew a guy 20ish years ago that was super into vinyl right as the rest of us were getting into MP3, and it was a whole experience of dusting off the records and cleaning them with a soft brush and waiting for the electronics to warm up and such. It's like the modern equivalent of those Asian tea ceremonies.
Well stuff produced at 1/10000th the number of units sold of, say, a modern iPhone or Android phone is obviously more "individual". I mean: I see a dude driving an AC Cobra vs one driving a mass produced chinese EV... They're both cars but that's about it. That'd be Hank Moody driving an old beaten up Porsche 911 Carrera in Californication. I mean: for one reason or another, Hank Moody is driving an old beaten up Porsche and not a Hyundai. And the series shows him as liking his car and liking to drive his car.
Where's the lack of use in someone daily driving an AC Cobra or an old Porsche? Where's the lack of use in someone using an old camera to take pictures?
> It's still consumerism - primarily about ownership display, not use
Someone takes his old camera, goes out at night, snaps a picture of the sunset, and goes back home. Where's the ownership of display?
I don't post picture or my cars online. I take one out at night and go for a drive on desert roads. Where's the ownership of display? On HN?
Sure, everything is still an object. But then everything is consumerism, unless you make your clothes yourself (funnily enough my mother-in-law knits clothes).
Regarding ethics: I think something can be said about older tech. For example an old "dumb" 1080p projector both gives that "movie theather" feeling (mine had a gigantic diagonal no TV could match) and it's neither listening to everything you say nor sending your data to the motherload nor constantly updating apps for seemingly no reason nor can it be bricked remotely. Nor can it be hacked.
I mean: there's at least something in vintage tech I think.
P.S: I'm currently in the process of buying a "vintage" HP Z series workstation that I'll use a small server but that's because I want shitload of cheap ECC and huge, big, cheap SAS drives... And it's going to get lots of love and use. I may blog about it if I want to display ownership though.
You pick the tool that gives the artistic effect you WANT.
Are you just saying it's bizarre that we live in a consumerist economy? Or are you saying that you think we live in a capitalist economy with people brainwash by capitalists into a consumerist culture? Or are you just acting like a naive purist who thinks that art isn't economically motivated?
I love old tools, both hand tools and power tools.
There are many criteria by which you could judge the older tools, made in the USA, Canada, or UK, and say they are objectively better than even the highest-end tools I could buy today at Home Depot.
Thicker metal, designs which are more repairable with swappable parts, they were obviously designed to be more durable. I have a roofing square I use on the job site which is over 100 years old, and it's better than one I could buy at the store. I use a chop saw which was made in Japan in the 80's and it is going to outlast any equivalent chop saw I could buy at the store today. You can tell immediately by just using the thing that it is more durable and higher quality.
Yes, older tools lack some modern improvements like lasers or safety stops, but when it comes to reliability and durability you can't buy a brand new tool with the same quality of old tools for any price.
I don't know if the same is actually true for digicams or whatever, but things like record players or typewriters have similar qualities to what I'm talking about with tools.
Loopin' Louie? The modern one's lighter and has a weaker motor, even if the original was never exactly greatest-games-of-all-time material, the modern one's just non-functional.
Rock 'em sock 'em robots? Weaker punches, plastic's lighter, new models are often smaller. They suck compared to vintage ones.
Hell even soda bottles are kinda like this. Those things used to be thick and you could re-use them for all kinds of stuff.
It seems like at some point around the late '90s and early '00s we got a ton better at precisely optimizing plastic use in mass manufacturing processes, and all plastic products got somewhere between a little, and a lot, worse, because manufacturers could make them just barely thick enough to not fall apart. Good for waste on the one hand, for disposable things, so that hits "reduce" at the expense of making "re-use" a lot worse. But also makes non-disposable things so shitty they become disposable (often because they suck so bad to begin with that you're gonna toss them out after one use)
Instead of winding a spring, the wind knob turns on an electric motor that takes batteries.
Instead of playing the music with an embedded set of metal tines in the play head, the disk just holds and RFID and the player loads the mp3 file of what the original 1980s toy sounded like.
The thing is an abomination.