Not Real Photography

When iPhones first came out, I remember listening to a radio program where I lived near Chicago at the time about advances in technology, which was the focus of the show. The moderator was talking to a tech rep about the new item from Apple, and the discussion eventually came to the numerous apps the iPhone had. The moderator said at the time about how he wanted just a phone the way his flip phone was, being merely a calling and receiving instrument. And the tech rep went on to say why he wanted his phone to do everything.

That conversation has stayed on my mind all these years. I also tend not to forget the computers we had years ago and how far we’ve come since, what we have now in the ways technology has taken us. We can do a lot of things just with our mobile devices.

Of course, not everything we can do with them is first rate as far as some things go. One of the things I have an issue with is the camera. To be sure, the lens on these devices is good, especially for being such a tiny lens. Kodak would’ve loved to have such quality with their Brownie when it was introduced back in February of 1900, believe it or not: 118 years ago, Eastman Kodak came out with a consumer camera, making it the first mass-marketed picture-taking machine.

That camera, finished in what they then referred to as “leatherette”—a texture heat-pressed into the cardboard body and painted black—cost buyers $1. Of course it merely took pictures, called “snapshots”, also a new word. But it did pretty well as a camera.

Thing is, nobody thought of it as something to replace real photography. The same thing about Polaroid cameras when they were introduced in the late 1940s. Snapshots.

And now we have mobile phones that have cameras. Ditto.

I think what the public does is gravitate to equipment that can 1) do multiple tasks, and 2) have instant results. That’s just what these miracle mobile devices can do: supply us with almost anything we need to have and do it all in a matter of seconds. That kind of value is under appreciated, in my mind. Once we have it, there’s almost not enough time to appreciate and use everything the phones can do before the next version comes out. Every year. There’s almost no end to the competition from manufacturers like Apple, Samsung, Google, LG, etc., to bring out the newest and most versatile.

But make no mistake: they are not first-rate photographic machines. They are merely snapshot taking gadgets. Yes, they process the photo right now. Yes, you can send it to your family and friends, right now. You can print it and enlarge it (somewhat) and frame it if you want. But can you enlarge the image to what is referred to as poster-size? No.

They will not ever displace a full-fledged camera, such as a Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Sony, or Olympus. Not a Hasselblad or Leica, for certain. Those cameras, in conjunction with such fine tuning things like light meters and remote triggers, strobes, and items like scrims and light diffusion boxes, all make art. It is still an art to make photographs. Directly making the lighting just right, the angles, the shadows in studio photography.

Even outdoor nature and landscape photography, without all the peripherals I just mentioned, is still art. Waiting for the light to be just right for the kind of shot you want, the wind against the leaves in that tree, the birds overhead, the deer in the glen.

You might be able to do it once in a great while—to a small degree—with that iPhone. But you can’t control it. And you can’t repeat it.

Don’t get me wrong: Apple and the other tech companies have nifty phones that can indeed take decent pictures. But please don’t say that these mobile phones take outstanding ones. TV commercials to that effect are very misleading.

Selfies. Huh.

Please follow and like us:

New Men’s Belts

     

Ever notice the new “technology” with regard to the way men’s belts are cinched? The old way is the peg/hole standard (actually prong/frame in the belt industry). The new way is more of a ratchet method with a track of indents on the reverse side of the belt with a spring-catch mechanism on the backside of the buckle.

This new way makes cinching the belt both easier and also much more adjustable, given that the tracks have increments at around ¼-inch apart.

That’s a good thing. In the old way, the holes in the leather are roughly an inch apart, with maybe five holes to choose from to make that belt fit an ever-widening waistline. So with the increments much closer in the new “tracked” belts, adjusting the belt to how bloated you feel any given day becomes much more accommodating.

There are two manufacturers in the forefront here. Mission Belt offers a fairly sleek design to their buckle, which has a release latch on the back. Comfort Click’s belts look more traditional and have a different mechanism with the way the buckle operates. The Mission Belt comes in a variety of styles. The Comfort Click comes in just the one traditional style, pictured above.

I’d heard about the Mission Belt a few years ago. The Comfort Click, I believe, is more recent. The thing is, the Mission Belt gets an A in appearance, an A- in the way it releases. The Comfort Click get a A in the way it releases, but a D in its appearance.

New-fangled belts are drawing on old tech in the way they operate. Military belts have a plain shield-like buckle that the strap goes through, and the friction bar behind it locks the strap into position. The similarity here is that the buckle hides the cinching. The new belts have taken this as a jump-off point to rethink just how to make the belts work better and still hide the cinch.

The Mission Belt’s appearance is sleek and takes a more fashion approach with different models to choose from. Its release mechanism is OK, but could be a little smaller. The Comfort Click’s release is pretty smooth, but the design of the belt’s appearance was left on the cutting room floor.

Which made me wonder just why a company—which obviously prides itself on innovation—would market a retro-style belt, its only model. Seems to me that you’d want to have your new belt work and look like no other. But here the buckle, with its traditional frame and prong appearance, is fake.

That’s like a car company introducing a new 2018 model with a revolutionary drivetrain, yet on the outside it looks like one from 1965. It’s backward thinking.

Please follow and like us: