Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site tekig1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!tektronix!tekig1!briand
From: briand@tekig1.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: Japanese and Marketing
Message-ID: <1560@tekig1.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-Feb-84 14:58:45 EST
Article-I.D.: tekig1.1560
Posted: Fri Feb 24 14:58:45 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 26-Feb-84 01:02:25 EST
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 109


     Jon Mauney questions why all the bitching about the "current situation  in
photography", and Jon I'm not flaming, but maybe all those people aren't wrong.

     First, my biases.  My primary interest is B&W "landscape" in the most tra-
ditional form.  I use large format (4x5) and am very much concerned  with "art"
whatever  that  may be.  I am not too interested in equipment.  I prefer tradi-
tional methods because I find that they get me closer to the process of what  I
am  doing,  and thereby closer to my ability to control the expressive process.
THIS IS AN APPROACH OF ATTITUDE, I freely admit.  I do not claim it is the only
approach or even the desirable approach for anyone but me.  On the other  hand,
when  I travel, for purposes of convenience I haul an old match-needle Minolta,
a cheap zoom and an abysmal wide angle, and use 200 ASA Ektachrome.   For  this
kind  of  photography  this  is all I need and I am satisfied with the results.
I don't have a more gee-whiz camera is because 1) I'm not taken with gadgetry -
that may be a personal failing and 2) I can't afford  enough  trips  abroad  to
justify a new set of equipment.  Also if it gets stolen, I'm not out much.

     In  the (shudder) "good old days", there were pros and amateurs, and there
was a set of equipment for each.  Amateur cameras were cheap,  flimsy,  limited
in quality, and they satisfied Mom & Pop pretty well.  Pro equipement was state
of  the  art  and produced, in the hands of pros, a wealth of images that Mom &
Pop couldn't match.  However, Life magazine and better cinemetography  and  the
early  work  of  some  "amateur" masters made the snapshooters aware of another
realm, and they wanted better.  I'm the LAST one to fault that.

     Enter the Japanese.  They began by imitation, and gradually utilized inno-
vation to advance the state of the art while decreasing prices.  I'm  also  the
LAST  one  to  fault that.  Meanwhile, the home companies didn't keep up - they
thought their market had "matured".  I'm the FIRST one to fault that  and  they
got  what  they  deserved.   Japanese innovation brought about the professional
quality small-format camera, the 35mm SLR.  Until this time all photojournalism
was done on medium format or 4x5 press.  Suddenly, small cameras were respected
by profesionals who understood their applications and limitations.

     A small format, cheap camera that was respected as  a  professional  tool!
Translation:  something to sell to Mom & Pop to satisfy their desire for better
pictures!   Never mind that the small format was appropriate to only one select
segment of the professional world - photojournalists.  Never mind  that  it  is
ideal  only in certain ways and that in many situations it is a compromise that
are willing to make.  Never mind that it is a professional  tool  only  in  the
hands  of  those  who  are willing to study, work, think, feel, react, and work
even more.  Never mind all that, sell it to Mom & Pop anyway - "See,  the  pros
use it and just look at their pictures!"

     Of  course  this  is less than ethical.  Do Mom & Pop, expecting wonderful
pictures, actually GET anything better than they had before?  Does the salesman
actually tell them that this requires some thought and effort?   Do  they  even
get  a  HINT  of  what all is required to get a real National Geographic image?
In point of actual fact, do Mom & Pop get  anything  that's  measurably  better
than what they got from their roll-film brownie?  I contend not much, given the
processing  available to them.  Do the Japanese know this?  You bet.  Do Modern
Photo or Pop Photo know this?  You bet.  Does Kodak, with their "Times of  Your
Life"  ads  showing some of the worlds best retouched large-format dye-transfer
images know this?  You bet.  And they know it translates into $$$.  Be  assured
the  equipment orientation of the photo business is that way for a reason.  The
really strange part is that Mom & Pop know it too - they just want to believe.

     Well, what of the advanced amateur, that fellow who caught on and  is  now
"into"  photography?  This is the guy who didn't exist before the Japanese "de-
veloped" the market.  He typically sports a couple of lenses, a new body  every
couple  of  years, and several pieces of "accessory" equipment: filter sets and
flash attachments.  Yes, we're dealing in stereotypes here, but  remember  that
STEREOTYPES ARE A STATISTICALLY VALID WAY OF UNDERSTANDING A POPULATION - it is
just  that  people  think  statistics  can  be used to characterize individuals
within a population, which is not true.  So don't flame me if you "sport a  few
lenses,  a  different  body every couple of years, and. . .", because I have no
way of telling whether YOU individually take meaningful pictures or not.  Mean-
ingful to your, or meaningful to the world, I don't care.  We're  talking  here
about  the "ugly photographyer" - the guy who uses all this stuff for anything,
everything, and nothing at all.  I've met such people who are  totally  unaware
that  the  object of all this equipment is an image.  You've met him, I'm sure.
You may even BE him - statistics not  charactierizing  individuals  works  both
ways :-).

     The  trouble is that as long as this guy's on the manufacturer's merry-go-
round,  he'll  never  discover that there even IS such a thing as contemplative
photography, or that there IS an art form to explore, or that there IS a  means
of  getting in touch with one's inner self.  Now, as I said when I started this
tome I don't claim that's for all.  I claim that the present hyped  environment
will  prevent  people  from ever discovering that this possibility exists - and
that is a tragedy resulting from less than ethical behavior on the part of  all
who have created the environment.

     So  who does this hurt, you say?  You and me, brother.  Nowdays, we get RC
paper in the stores, and no fiber based papers at  all.   Now,  RC  is  getting
better  but  it's still a far cry from real photobraphic paper.  So yes, you've
caught me in an inconsistency when I say don't buy Seagull because they in fact
DO deserve our business for putting out a fine product.  It's just that I worry
that if they sew up that business, then they'll  suddenly  "discover"  RC,  and
THEN  watch  the  ruthless elimination of quality papers.  It would exactly fit
their past business methods.  The paper business is only an example.

     There is another side of the coin, as you point out.  Auto exposure is not
inherently bad, it's just an automatic way of matching needles.  Plastic  -  so
what,  as long as it works and holds up.  Lens design has been improved contin-
ually (but only so that more 35mm stuff can be sold).  Advances are being made,
and many who complain about them are not looking at them objectively.  However,
perhaps they recognize the disease but are only aware of the symptoms.  I  hope
that this explains better the general nervousness - "sure as Ex-Lax".

     A couple of years ago for a very short time, Nikon had an ad campaign that
showed a hulk of a guy saying "I may not be able to paint, but  with  my  Nikon
I'm a hell of an artist."  Yes, in those words.

     If anyone recongizes himself in the above be aware there are alternatives!

Brian Diehm
Tektronix