User:Mathijs van Oosterhoudt/chapter

Why is it important to subvert such choices?

The camera has a larger impact than most tools due to it's end-result: Photographs. Since photographs influence immensely, it becomes important to understand the relation of the camera to the photograph. We can control how to use the camera, but now how the camera functions or is designed. I will use WR Young's text on the link between pictorialism and the soft focus lens as an example of how technical changes and advances in the camera influence photographers in how and what they photograph.

I will write about the physical being of the camera and how its shape, mechanics and results lead to how photographs influence us. This will be kept somewhat short, quoting Crary's text on how the observer and the perception of the human subject is altered due to changes in technological observation. Referencing Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison's Objectivity I will talk about a similar thing happening within the scientific approach to the camera and the early perceived notion that a universal truth can be achieved through a mechanical device, attempting to eliminate the human role within said process, but ignoring the human role of the creator of the camera.

After shortly summarizing and linking the references together to make the claim that the technological changes and developments within the camera influence our perception, I want to write about the physical act of creating the camera. There are multiple parties that end up contributing to the production of a single camera, in contradiction to the early days of photography where many cameras were designed (Albeit not build) by individuals. Both were driven mostly with interest in financial gain, though this increased majorly with the onset of commercial production (Referencing Walter Benjamin's Little history of Photography and quoting some of the texts he references). I want to talk about the relation between the different parties involved in design choices, often limiting the possibilities, due to other developers (The most agreed upon design might also be the most average), market research, financial possibilities and so forth, making a case that these limit the possibilities and end up creating 'safe' cameras, in some cases against the original concepts for final releases of cameras (In for example the case of Olympus vs Maitani or Ricoh), where the development is often only driven by the advance of the medium it captures it's images on. The same hindrance impacts consumers, as the choices made within the structure of the company first and foremost favor financial gain and viability of the product, rather than the interests of the consumer or society. Referencing Langdon Winner's "Do objects have politics" I will talk about how the perception of the designer and / or company is often interwoven within it's design philosophy and end product, thereby influencing its users.

I will shortly write about the influence of the commercial product to the DIY-er and tinkerer. The technological working of the camera is often hard to create from scratch, making people who build their own solutions reliant on re-using existing cameras and parts or altering them to their needs. Often this is in the disinterest of companies, who aim to prevent or make it harder for people to gain access or control of the camera (For example, firmware blocks). I will write about the specific case of Canon cameras and their capabilities for RAW video recording, which was only available on the most expensive Canon cine cameras. Designers had claimed that it was impossible for the processor of the consumer cameras to handle this. When the firmware of these cameras was hacked and modified, it turns out that even Canon cameras that did not have any video capabilities, were capable of doing so. I will also bring up the older case of Asahi Pentax cameras, which had released multiple similar cameras, but with differing top shutter speeds. Rather quickly people found out that, when one disassembles the shutter dial, there is simply a metal pin stopping the shutter dial from moving to a higher speed on the cheaper cameras: Removing the pin made it identical to the more expensive variant, albeit without the printed shutter speeds on the dial. Large-scale tinkering within the user-base is often picked up by large scale companies to please the consumer, but can also be seen as a method of removing the need to tinker.

In the end of the chapter I want to propose the possibility of subverting the control that these companies have, by creating our own technologies and thus having the possibility of creating our own cameras without reliance on the existing markets, thereby giving power to people who are able to create cameras for their own needs, regardless of financial viability and the likes.