Concertinas And Cameras

[petec]

It occurred to me that the invention of the concertina was concurrent with that of the camera. Should concertina players therefore stick with film and not be seduced by digital. The digital camera is something like a keyboard, does an awful lot but has little character. They both come from a great age of invention but have things gone too far now?

Peter.

[JimLucas]

It occurred to me that the invention of the concertina was concurrent with that of the camera. Should concertina players therefore stick with film and not be seduced by digital. The digital camera is something like a keyboard, does an awful lot but has little character. They both come from a great age of invention but have things gone too far now?

Peter, to extrapolate your reasoning, I might conclude that one should use cameras with glass plates and flash powder to photograph concertinas from the 1860's, Kodak Brownies for concertinas from the 1940's, and digital cameras for MIDI concertinas.

But extrapolation is always a dangerous thing to do.

[m3838]

It occurred to me that the invention of the concertina was concurrent with that of the camera. Should concertina players therefore stick with film and not be seduced by digital. The digital camera is something like a keyboard, does an awful lot but has little character. They both come from a great age of invention but have things gone too far now?

Peter.

 

Quite possibly your idea has merits. But perhaps concertina players should stick to glass plates instead of film. Film is equivalent of digital camera, in that it's plastic, holds whole lot of pictures, easy to work with and cheap. But glass plate gives the best picture quality, longevity and that preciousness to the image, deriving from the expense and cumbersome process.

So one likely to cherish the scenery, and not click randomly. The beauty of old cameras is out of contest.

[Robert Booth]

So MIDI's should only be photographed with digital equipment?

 

BTW, Mischa, nice contrast between the Chemnitzer and the bellows-box camera! Handsome machines, both.

[Stephen Chambers]

Coincidentally, whilst in England over the past week I visited an old friend who is very much into both old cameras and concertinas. Perhaps not surprisingly, two of his "newer" cameras were made in London by the late Gandolfi Brothers.

 

[Marien]

The digital camera is something like a keyboard, does an awful lot but has little character.

 

Isn't this about 2 different worlds, music and graphics...

 

Although I also like the looks of an antique camera, I think a that camera (for my purposes) does not need character. To me a camera is for making pictures with character. It is the photographer who puts the character in the picture. As the megapixels grow on it you can make better and better representing images with a digital camera, who is going to deny that?

 

True, a pocket camera invites you to click at random. The small camera's make it easy to make 1000's of snapshots a day, with or without character. But if you take your time (like they did with the glass plate and a tripod) I think that the digital camera offers you more to make the photograph like you want it, not to speak of a huge bulk of software for retouching your photograph, although all this kind of retouching behind a computer monitor may be something you do not really want to do all day. So I think, a good digital camera puts you more in controll for the resulting picture.

 

Unlike keyboards compared to concertina's (or piano). Basically, I like the sound of acoustical instruments (not all of them) better than a keyboard sound (well I still like that sometimes in jazz and blues music, but also theer I still prefer real acoustical instruments). I know there are very good piano samples and lead balls in a keyboard action, to give you the feeling that you are playing a real piano, but it fails to give you this feeling for 100%. To me, on the keyboard I sometimes find it disturbing that I do not really produce the sound myself, and that I am just triggering something to let sound a note, and there you start to miss some controll about how it sounds.

 

Could it be that I am just half old fashioned?

[m3838]

So I think, a good digital camera puts you more in controll for the resulting picture.

 

Could it be that I am just half old fashioned?

 

You are outright progressive!

New technology brings about millions of those "pictures without character". Now we enter the world of self-publishing. It means the idea of "publishing" is out of window. Millions upon millions of bad books, bad movies, bad musicals, bad CDs and DVDs will successfully defeat the purpose. And this populism is what makes the representation more and more vulgar. It's not anything new, of course. As Oh so nauty Josef Brodsky once said:"Only 5 percent of people deserve to learn to read and write". In a sence he's right. The only reason we all are "educated" is for the needs of manufacturing.

I just installed Skape on my computer, to be able to contact with my friends back home.

And last week I found old letters from a friend. With drawings and hand lettering. I remembered what an event it was to recieve a letter with month old news. Now I can't even hand write anymore, there's no "delete" button.

On the other hand, I wanted to point at the two cameras in my earlier post: digital and wooden.

Digital actually looks very nice, but didn't you notice artificial attitude of it? The old is made of wood, glass, leather, cardboard and brass. All materials are clearly noticeable and are not masked. Their natural character is what gives the camera it's "presence". Materials of digital camera are obscured. It's a phantom, has no gravity.

[McIsog]

Hey m3x -

 

The camera is just a tool. Get over it. Here is a digital snap with character that that wooden box never could have captured. It is not technically perfect but it captures the moment and action and the character. (My 5 year old - Then 4, flying through the canopy of Hacienda Baru in Domical, Costa Rica - Nikon D200) And when it comes to cameras - personally I prefer some Mass to Gravity

 

 

Cheers,

Dan

[m3838]

H

ey m3x -

 

The camera is just a tool. Get over it. Here is a digital snap with character that that wooden box never could have captured. It is not technically perfect but it captures the moment and action and the character. (My 5 year old - Then 4, flying through the canopy of Hacienda Baru in Domical, Costa Rica - Nikon D200) And when it comes to cameras - personally I prefer some Mass to Gravity

romantic, wholesome, warm

aggressive, functional, cold

I disagree that tools are only tools. They reflect the state of mind. Would you switch to transluscent plastic round concertina with no bellows and wavy electronic sound? The feel, look and weight are functional. The speed with which a child can unrap a toy doesn't correspond to the quality of toy.

Perhaps the convinience with which we snap pictures of our kids, can lead to the speed with which the kids will leave us, and all we'll have left is the quickily snapped pictures. All is connected.

[JimLucas]

Perhaps the convinience with which we snap pictures of our kids, can lead to the speed with which the kids will leave us, and all we'll have left is the quickily snapped pictures.

Perhaps; perhaps not.

In fact, the word "perhaps" implies "perhaps not".

 

All is connected.

I agree, but I expect we would be in considerable disagreement as to the nature of the connections and any consequences thereof. (I already disagree with your characterizations of the two railroad photos.)

[Woody]

The camera is just a tool.

Of course you're right, unless you're into exploring old technologies.

 

There does however seem to be a misapprehension that these style of cameras are outdated & obsolete. Large format photography is still a popular niche with amateurs and still used in some professional fields - notably in the landscape, fine art, scientific, engineering and architectural fields, and new cameras are still being made - see here or here for some examples. They are also available with digital image capture facilities. With some the level of craftsmanship involved, the waiting lists, and some of the prices involved will seem very familiar to a Concertina player.

 

The reason they survive is that as a tool these cameras have many positives, particularly with regard to image quality for large enlargements, depth of field and the possibility to manipulate perspective in the image before it is taken. One classic exercise when learning to use these cameras is to take a picture directly into a mirror without the image of the photographer & camera appearing in the photograph, achieved with manual controls on the camera which allow the photographer to adjust the appearance of perspective on the mirror's dimensions.

 

As somebody that grew up in a family of large format photographers, and having spent lots of time waiting for them to get the image/light/clouds/shadows/wildlife just right, I personally love pocket sized digital cameras

[Woody]

It occurred to me that the invention of the concertina was concurrent with that of the camera. Should concertina players therefore stick with film and not be seduced by digital. The digital camera is something like a keyboard, does an awful lot but has little character. They both come from a great age of invention but have things gone too far now?

Peter.

It depends on whether the modern improves on, or offers something different to the original IMHO

Edited January 11, 2008 by Woody

[hjcjones]

For me, digital photography has opened up areas of creativity that I shied away from with 35mm. I like taking photos, but it is well down the list of priorities when it comes to my hobbies. I was reluctant to get into the processing side, for lots of reasons: I didn't have the space for a darkroom, or the money for the equipment and materials, or the time to devote to it. But with digital, it has become possible to do all the things that would previously required a darkroom.

 

With music, it's the reverse - I don't feel I have the time, space or money to go digital. However much I might hanker after a midi anglo and a Streb melodeon, unless the Lottery comes up trumps my instrument collection is likely to remain exclusively analogue.

[Marien]

Hi Mischa,

 

Again, to me a camera is a tool to make nice photo's and with modern digital camera's (I think) I can make better pictures than with glass plates on tripods. But I agree that the looks of a digital camera aren't very nostalgic or romantic, compared to the old wooden concertina camera on a tripod. A digital camera may be compared with modern cars of different brands, as they look quite the same. Modern trains are not the same as old ones form 1870. People may love to make a tourist trip in old steam trains.

 

But was it relevant to people in 1900? Your idea about digital cameras remind me off historical comments I have read about those nice locomotives from the 19h century. People described locomotives as "the iron horse", a less human innovation trick with a dirty black smoke, not very weldcomed. They were pictured as devils, making lots of noise and making the world insane, the world would come to a bad end. Why would anyone like to travel with a speed higher than 30 miles an hour amyway? In the mean time history ignores these historical opinions, and I think I am not going to take a walk to Paris if I can take train or plane. How will people write about the Thalys in about 100 year from now???

 

Marien

[McIsog]

Again, to me a camera is a tool to make nice photo's and with modern digital camera's (I think) I can make better pictures than with glass plates on tripods. But I agree that the looks of a digital camera aren't very nostalgic or romantic, compared to the old wooden concertina camera on a tripod. A digital camera may be compared with modern cars of different brands, as they look quite the same. Modern trains are not the same as old ones form 1870. People may love to make a tourist trip in old steam trains.

Marien, M3x, etc.

The tool itself can be a work of art - as Stephen proved with the Gandolfi camera snap. And of course if an instrument can be a musician's tool - the concertina obviously qualifies that way. And I agree the product of a Digital camera can acquire images where the old boxen could not. M3x I agree with you there is art in the old analog process that is different from the current digital technology. But I do not think it is absolutely better. Just different.

Digital:

Dan

[RatFace]

The digital camera is something like a keyboard, does an awful lot but has little character.

 

The "character" that comes from an instrument's quirks is generally shallow and meaningless - one of the skills of a competent musician is overcoming those quirks and replacing (to some great extent, and when desired) this aspect of the instrument - a mere tool - with the character of the musician and the character of the music. The same would be true of a camera/truly skilled photographer, I think. Some people play single row on a two-row melodeon and let the instrument dictate their chords and phrasing. Some people think that putting b&w film in their camera makes it more "arty". The results of both might be pleasant enough, but are unlikely to engage any long-term interest in me...

 

This is a comment on what cameras/instruments are used for in terms of making music/pictures of course. They may still be works of art in themselves - in terms of design and/or construction.

 

As for the keyboard comparison - I assume you mean some specific kind? Many (piano, clavichord, concertina etc) provide excellent mechanisms for musical character... Anyway, I would place my concertina _far_ closer to my clavinova in this respect than I would to my cello.

Edited January 14, 2008 by RatFace

[Guest Peter Laban]

Again, to me a camera is a tool to make nice photo's and with modern digital camera's (I think) I can make better pictures than with glass plates on tripods. But I agree that the looks of a digital camera aren't very nostalgic or romantic, compared to the old wooden concertina camera on a tripod. A digital camera may be compared with modern cars of different brands, as they look quite the same. Modern trains are not the same as old ones form 1870. People may love to make a tourist trip in old steam trains.

 

I'd challenge anyone to compare quality between a modern digital SLR and a 4x5 or 8x10 camera. They each have their uses but large format film still by far out performs digital snapshooters.

[m3838]

Hm, didn't think this will evolve into a serious discussion. I viewed it as a tongue in cheek.

Well, I think people of 1900 were correct when they saw railroad as Devil's invention. It's ugly, dirty, moves at incomprehensible speeds with great calamity, and basically just marrs countryside. Let's those foul burgers litter the pristine beaches and forests with themselves and their priviledged offspring, disseminate book reading and tempt virgin souls of peasantry with vulgar decadance.