Latest revision as of 02:57, 19 February 2015

Thesis Outline

Abstract

Cameras influence the possibilities of their result, a result that influences us on a daily basis. Changes, additions and new inventions have changed the camera over time, thereby its result, and therefore how it influences us.

Those changes are put in place by whoever has the control over the development and production of cameras, influenced by various inputs and desires that might contribute to why such changes were made, whether this is in the interest of consumers or not. This means that, to some degree, changes in our perception are dependent on those that have the control over the means of production.

If changes in the technology alter our perception, does it logically follow that by removing, reverting or creating alternatives to such changes, we can also get rid or limit its influence? However, said alternatives and the like are dependent on the understanding of the technology that surrounds them. Understanding which becomes increasingly difficult as technology evolves.

How is it possible to subvert the design choices made by manufacturers of photo cameras?

The history of choices, which choices and by whom?

In the first section I want to take a critical look at the history of the camera, its players (inventors, manufacturers), how the technology has evolved over time and how these (and other) technologies have been applied to the photo camera. Through a few specific case studies I want to show some cameras or trends in the photo camera that influence us, how and why they came to be.

For example, smile detection in current consumer cameras and the move towards implemented 'apps' on cameras (And implemented cameras on other hardware) re-enforce and are re-enforced by the use of social media. Or how the lack of technical know-how pre-1900 in the field of lens-making resulted in the creation of soft-focus lenses, influencing pictorialism and photography as art (W.R. Young).

Why is it important to subvert such choices?

In the second section I want to talk about why one would want to subvert such choices. In the case of any technology, those that control the means of production over the tools hold significant power over how we are able to apply technology and how it shapes us. Said technology is often used to, for instance, keep dominant ideologies in place (Winner). By being able to subvert this power we gain control over how we apply technology and therefore gain power from it.

For example, the simplicity of the analog camera's technology allowed people, who would otherwise not be able to buy or obtain a camera, use the knowledge of its mechanics to build it from scratch, being able to portray their own situation. Good examples of this are cameras such as those made by people in concentration camps during the second world war, or those made by Miroslav Tichy.

How can technologies be subverted?

In the third section, I want to take a look at how the consumer influences both the shaping of the camera and its adaptation (Kittler), studying the way they adapt it to their needs through various ways of tinkering or creation from scratch. What are the possibilities, what are the obstacles? How has this worked in the past, and are the same methods still applicable to modern day situations?

There are endless way of subverting the photo camera. In all of these cases, from firmware and hardware hacking to creating your own device entirely, the intention is to offer alternative applications or different technologies to the mass-produced photo camera that would have otherwise not been there. This can either disrupt the manufacturers or subsequently influence them.

For example, the trend of hacking the infrared filter out of the camera resulted in Sigma producing cameras where the infrared filter could be taken out by any user, without the need for hardware hacking.

Bibliography

Walter Benjamin - Little History of Photography

Langdon Winner - Do Artifacts Have Politics?

Jonathan Crary - Techniques of the observer

Friedrich Kittler - Gramaphone, Film, Typewriter

Matthew Fuller, Andrew Goffey - Towards an Evil Media Studies

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
        background-color: white;
 '>
 == <H1 class="header" style='width: 90;
 font-family: serif; font-style: italic;
      margin-left: 20%;
-     font-size: 27px;'>Why is it important to subvert such choices?</H1> ==
+     font-size: 27px;'>Abstract</H1> ==
@@ Line 50: / Line 48: @@
      margin-bottom: 10px;
      clear: both;'>
-A logical consequence of how a tool influences us is that of its process or result. The way one uses a brush determines to a certain extend the size of the stroke and various other factors of the painting. This may seem like something that is easily taken for granted or insignificant, since one has the power to choose which brush one uses, but is not that straight forward. While one might choose which brush to use, it is still limited to the choice of brushes are available. Thus, this places part of that control over the stroke with the manufacturer of the brush.
-The same holds true for the camera, but with a higher significance due to the role photographs play in society and perceived authority. It has changed our perception of our surroundings and ourselves and continues to do so. The role of the photographer is dominant in choices regarding the photograph, but his or her decisions are, in turn, influenced or limited by that of the camera. What can be seen through the viewfinder or what fits the frame decides what we put in the frame or in older cameras with waist level finders, the height we have to hold the camera to even see the image deciding our viewpoint. In more modern cameras, the addition of digital operating systems allows for even more influence on us and our photographs, whether it is such methods of aiding the user as smile detection or that of facial recognition, often with a heavy social or racial bias, such as in the case of HP's facial detection algorithms not recognizing people with a dark skintone. In another case it was Nikon's smile detection, which would pop up the message "Did someone blink?" as it was trying to time the right photograph for the user.
+Cameras influence the possibilities of their result, a result that influences us on a daily basis.
+Changes, additions and new inventions have changed the camera over time, thereby its result, and therefore how it influences us.
+Those changes are put in place by whoever has the control over the development and production of cameras, influenced by various inputs and desires that might contribute to why such changes were made, whether this is in the interest of consumers or not.
+This means that, to some degree, changes in our perception are dependent on those that have the control over the means of production.
+If changes in the technology alter our perception, does it logically follow that by removing, reverting or creating alternatives to such changes, we can also get rid or limit its influence?
+However, said alternatives and the like are dependent on the understanding of the technology that surrounds them. Understanding which becomes increasingly difficult as technology evolves.
+How is it possible to subvert the design choices made by manufacturers of photo cameras?
 </div>
-[[File:1smile.jpg|thumbnail|left]][[File:Hasselblad_waist-level_viewfinder.jpg|thumbnail|right]]
+== <H1 class="header" style='width: 90;
+font-family: serif; font-style: italic;
+    margin-left: 20%;
+    font-size: 27px;'>The history of choices, which choices and by whom?</H1> ==
 <div class="block" style='background-color: whitesmoke;
@@ Line 64: / Line 78: @@
      margin-bottom: 10px;
      clear: both;'>
-Furthermore, photography as a technology is not only significant for cultural use, but the camera is and has been used as a scientific instrument since it's invention, early on often seen as a tool that exemplifies "how observation leads to truthful inferences about the world" (Crary, 1988, p.3). Where in a pre-photographic era scientists would illustrate what they saw through the microscope on paper via a camera obscura, leaving out "irrelevant details" (Daston and Galison, 2010, p.?) leading to biased registration, the camera could do this differently.
-It could capture that what was being witnessed through the microscope in such detail that no such thing had to be left out, setting in an era of mechanical objectivity: "The insistent drive to repress the willful intervention of the artist-author, and to put in its stead a set of procedures that would, as it were move nature to the page through a strict protocol, if not automatically." (Daston and Galison, 2010, p.121). They note that this strive for objectivity is in fact heavily influenced by how the scientist sets up the scene, chooses what to register and how said results are used (The human role in the protocol). They ignore, however, the human role of the creator of the machine; the camera.
+In the first section I want to take a critical look at the history of the camera, its players (inventors, manufacturers), how the technology has evolved over time and how these (and other) technologies have been applied to the photo camera. Through a few specific case studies I want to show some cameras or trends in the photo camera that influence us, how and why they came to be.
+For example, smile detection in current consumer cameras and the move towards implemented 'apps' on cameras (And implemented cameras on other hardware) re-enforce and are re-enforced by the use of social media. Or how the lack of technical know-how pre-1900 in the field of lens-making resulted in the creation of soft-focus lenses, influencing pictorialism and photography as art (W.R. Young).
 </div>
-[[File:Lifeprimeplateholdersm.jpg|thumbnail|center]]
-<div class="block" style='background-color: whitesmoke;
-margin-top: 10px;
- margin-bottom: 10px;
-    font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Helvetica, sans-serif;
-    font-size: 13px;
-width: 100%;
-    margin-bottom: 10px;
-    clear: both;'>
-It is undoubtedly so that the camera changes our perception, so it follows from that changes within the camera in both significant cases in history as well as minor changes throughout variations of consumer products do lead to changes in how we both perceive and ultimately consume photographs. Since the user of the camera is not the creator or often even in the position of control to alter it, that power is taken out of our hands and held by the companies that produce cameras. Companies are quite logically pleased with this manner of control, although the influence of their choices are only guided by a singular goal: Financial gain. Being dependent on their company for the production of cameras is what keeps their business going, which is the deciding feature for many choices made within the company.
+== <H1 class="header" style='width: 90;
-Different companies design in different ways, whether its done by design teams or singular designers aided by engineers, but the market viability is of great concern, often leading to changes in the original design plans. In one such famous case, Maitani, one of Olympus' most famous designers in the past, was asked to design a new SLR system. This was 1970, and Olympus wanted to compete with the other big brands such as Canon and Nikon. Maitani, working on his own and free from the problem that haunts most team-based designs (That of creating the most agreed upon, thereby the most average), created a revolutionary system of blocks with each their own function. One could assemble their own camera exactly to one's need, whether you required an optical viewfinder, SLR viewing, waist level finder, 35mm film back, Polaroid back and so forth. The financial and marketing department of the company were less pleased, asking for "development of the same camera as the other maker's best seller." (Maitani & Akagi, 1999).
+font-family: serif; font-style: italic;
-</div>
+    margin-left: 20%;
+    font-size: 27px;'>Why is it important to subvert such choices?</H1> ==
-[[File:Early_M_system_diagram_s.jpg|thumbnail|left]][[File:Olympus_OM-1.jpg|thumbnail|right]]
 <div class="block" style='background-color: whitesmoke;
@@ Line 93: / Line 101: @@
      margin-bottom: 10px;
      clear: both;'>
+In the second section I want to talk about why one would want to subvert such choices. In the case of any technology, those that control the means of production over the tools hold significant power over how we are able to apply technology and how it shapes us. Said technology is often used to, for instance, keep dominant ideologies in place (Winner). By being able to subvert this power we gain control over how we apply technology and therefore gain power from it.
-A similar issue could be noted in a recently developed camera by Ricoh, who proudly presented their prototypes of the new Ricoh GXR at the CP+ Camera and Imaging Show in 2010. The idea was simple, sensors continuously get better, but there's nothing wrong with the physical body, buttons and processor of the camera once already purchased. By allowing users to change the sensor, one could not only upgrade at a later stage to a newer and better sensor, but also to different lens mounts. Prototypes with a Leica mount and even one where the camera functions as a back for a Hasselblad were presented. Rumor has it that later in production, it was thought of as not commercially viable. Due to the camera relying on other brands' lenses and with no need to re-buy the body when it got better, the margins for profit were low. The camera did still reach the market, but instead of having interchangeable sensors, each sensor was paired with a different lens. Instead of having the option to upgrade your sensor, you now needed to have a different sensor for each lens: A camera planned to become the counter to planned obsolescence became one of the most prominent examples of it.
+For example, the simplicity of the analog camera's technology allowed people, who would otherwise not be able to buy or obtain a camera, use the knowledge of its mechanics to build it from scratch, being able to portray their own situation. Good examples of this are cameras such as those made by people in concentration camps during the second world war, or those made by Miroslav Tichy.
 </div>
-[[File:Ricoh-gxr-hasselblad-mount.jpg|thumbnail|left]][[File:Ricoh-gxr-leica-m-mount.jpg|thumbnail|right]]
-<div class="block" style='background-color: whitesmoke;
-margin-top: 10px;
- margin-bottom: 10px;
-    font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Helvetica, sans-serif;
-    font-size: 13px;
-width: 100%;
-    margin-bottom: 10px;
-    clear: both;'>
-This is different from the first 30 to 40 years of the camera, where both its development and that of photography raised hand in hand. "In this early period subject and technique were as exactly congruent as they become incongruent in the period of decline that immediately followed" (Benjamin, 1931, p.517). Technology was often developed to the needs of the photographer, or by the photographer itself. The latter was possible due to the simplicity of the camera at this stage. It is not illogical that this first period of inventions were the most original; not only did these photographers and inventors have no preconceived notion of what a camera should look like, rather were driven by what it had to do, but they were also driven less by the need for sales. If round daguerreotypes needed to be made, a round camera was made. This changed with the onset of mass production of cameras and their commercialization.
-What is surprising, however, is that most cameras produced since that period are based on those first few ideas. Even the cameras we use today are very reminiscent of the first few inventions. The Kodak Brownie is almost identical to the first commercial camera ever made, simply smaller. The principle of the SLR system is even based on that of the mirror in the camera obscura. The major changes in camera history appear when the medium changes, the method to capture the photograph, rather than by actual change within the camera. This can be attributed to need for 'commercial viability': A camera made to serve a large market needs to appeal to as many people at the same time. That doesn't mean it serves the mass amount of people using cameras equally well, but a camera that serves a niche amount of users extremely well is less viable than that of serving the mass 'acceptably' well. Changes can be found when daguerreotypes went to printable glass plates (Gelatin), to flexible roll film (120), to smaller roll film (35mm) and the advent of the digital sensor.
-</div>
-[[File:Voigtlander.jpg|thumbnail|left]][[File:Mousetrap.jpg|thumbnail|right]]
+== <H1 class="header" style='width: 90;
+font-family: serif; font-style: italic;
+    margin-left: 20%;
+    font-size: 27px;'>How can technologies be subverted?</H1> ==
 <div class="block" style='background-color: whitesmoke;
@@ Line 121: / Line 122: @@
      margin-bottom: 10px;
      clear: both;'>
+In the third section, I want to take a look at how the consumer influences both the shaping of the camera and its adaptation (Kittler), studying the way they adapt it to their needs through various ways of tinkering or creation from scratch. What are the possibilities, what are the obstacles? How has this worked in the past, and are the same methods still applicable to modern day situations?
-Furthermore, whilst the influence on the user might be that of financial gain at the expense of the consumer, it also inherently possesses the ideologies present within these large scale companies. Winner describes how, while often overlooked or ignored, in the social shaping of technology, the ideologies of its creator do transfer to the 'thing' of creation, whether inherently visible in some cases or less so, in others. "first are instances  in which  the invention, design, or arrangement of a specific technical  device  or system becomes a way of settling an issue in a  particular community. Seen  in the proper  light, examples of this kind are fairly straightforward and easily understood. Second are cases of what  can be called inherently  political  technologies, man-made systems that appear to require, or to be strongly  compatible with, particular kinds of political  relationships." (Winner, 1980 p.123). The former instance applies to the use of camera in modern society and photojournalism, where there seems to be a commonly accepted thought that those privileged to own a camera or photograph as their living have the right to photograph those who cannot easily represent themselves in photographs. The latter instance however is of larger interest, as the way the camera is currently constructed and distributed fits within a neoliberalist view of the economy the market works in. However, the technology itself does not have to be, if applied differently.
+There are endless way of subverting the photo camera. In all of these cases, from firmware and hardware hacking to creating your own device entirely, the intention is to offer alternative applications or different technologies to the mass-produced photo camera that would have otherwise not been there. This can either disrupt the manufacturers or subsequently influence them.
-</div>
-<div class="block" style='background-color: whitesmoke;
+For example, the trend of hacking the infrared filter out of the camera resulted in Sigma producing cameras where the infrared filter could be taken out by any user, without the need for hardware hacking.
-margin-top: 10px;
- margin-bottom: 10px;
-    font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Helvetica, sans-serif;
-    font-size: 13px;
-width: 100%;
-    margin-bottom: 10px;
-    clear: both;'>
-This control is one that can be subverted in various ways. It's a market that has, through the years, build itself as an impenetrable fortress for most inventors after the advent of electronic and eventually digital cameras. That does not mean we should stop trying, but possibly take a step back and continue where the market has left the individual creator of the camera off. Continuing from where we still understand the camera, we can find ways of creating them, subverting the existing ones and open up the possibility of the self-made camera once more, thus giving the power of the camera's influence to that of its user.
 </div>