Modern Conveniences…August
2007
Modern Conveniences…
We are entering an interesting new world of intelligent devices. Cars
that park themselves, appliances that do everything except insert
the food into our mouths, and computers that give us near-instant
access to nearly all the world’s knowledge. Who
would have thought, even just a few years ago, that we would be
able to capture images from wherever we are and of whatever we
are doing and instantly and effortlessly transmit them to our friends
and family. Well, maybe not entirely effortlessly just yet,
but that time will also soon be here. The path into the next
decade is set for us to be presented with products having ever
more intelligence – devices created to do the thinking for
us.
But should you perhaps not want all this thinking to be done for
you, or if the device is limited in what it can do and you would
like to provide it with some of your own intelligence, that is
often where the “fun” begins.
For example, I have a reasonably sophisticated digital camera
that has all the standard features of automatic focus, automatic
exposure, optical zoom with a close-up option, and flash when the
shutter speed falls below 1/30 second. As with every digital
camera, there are various menu options for changing the standard
settings and for selecting a manual operation mode. Thus,
it seems reasonable to conclude that with all of these features
and choices what more could one possibly want? Who would
want to go back to the days of having to decide on a shutter speed,
select the optimum aperture, and then manually focus on the object
of interest?
Well, here is a real life story that made me wish for a return
to those pre-historic times when cameras had fewer “features” and
virtually all of the “thinking” was left to the user.
My assignment was to photograph electronic products to illustrate
their mechanical construction. Since I would need to transmit
the images electronically to another site, using a manual film
camera in this case was not an option. But then, why
should we need to do that anyway? Shouldn’t the newer
products have more versatility without giving up any of the conveniences
of the older products? Well, at least in my naivete
that is what I was thinking.
So let’s get to work. The first problem I encounter
is that the camera insists on focusing on some other part of the
product than the one that I need to have in focus. Well,
that should be easy to fix -- just switch to a manual focus mode
and use a smaller aperture to increase the depth of field. But
how do I do that with this menu-driven electronic marvel? I
suppose, if all else fails read the instruction manual! After
a thorough study of the manual, I learn that “manual” focus
does not really mean manual focus. To this camera it means
that I can select from five pre-determined areas in the viewfinder
and then by way of the menu options choose one of these where the
camera will then focus. Well, no wonder that up to now I
haven’t been able to get the desired objects in focus. I
wasn’t pointing the camera where the focus region had been
pre-selected for me. As I begin to realize, my camera has
the ultimate decision making authority and will do what it wants
to do, not what I would like it to do.
Ha! But there must be another way to outsmart this stubborn
little electronic dervish. I know, I’ll go into the
manual mode and stop down to a smaller aperture to increase the
depth of field. That way the focal point won’t be as
critical and I will have more options for how I compose my shots. Back
to the instruction book. I learn that the camera has only
two options for f-stops, an f2.8 and an f7.8. To my surprise,
there is a small footnote at the bottom of the page that states
that depth of field “may not” increase if the smaller
f-stop is selected because this “smaller” aperture
is simulated using an electronic filter. What do they mean “may
not”? If the aperture doesn’t change size, it
can’t improve the depth of field. In fact, it turns
out that there is no real aperture in this camera at all. To
simulate the smaller aperture, it simply lowers the gain of the
sensor array.
The little electronic dervish wins again. I give in and
compose my photos to accommodate what the camera is going to do
and not what I really would like it to do. The final
insult is that the flash goes off even when I don’t want
it to because I forget to push one of the buttons four times
whenever I turn the power back on. The camera, of course,
has reverted to its pre-programmed mode.
Oh, for a return to those good old days of products not quite
so intelligent – products that left some of the thinking
to the user. In fact, after this experience I decide to go
on a search to try to find a digital camera that has all of the
capability of manual as well as automated photography in the true
sense of the word. I’m pretty sure that I should be
able to find this capability in one of the newer digital SLR models,
but before I make my next purchase I am going to make really sure
that what are designated as manual modes are really “manual”.
Not only that, but just for the record, I am still quite capable
of parking my own car and making my own sandwiches. I
can also mow my own lawn and sweep out the garage when it needs
it. Wow, I must be a real pioneer. I must have grown
up walking for miles through the snow just to get to school – well
actually it was only about a mile and mostly it was in the rain.
As we continue this technology evolution, will we be able to achieve
an adequate balance between automation and functionality? It
may be that eventually the companies that succeed and prosper will
be the ones that devote more resources to the development of products
that are designed for intuitive and elegantly simple operation – not
just loaded with menu-driven features that in actual fact limit
the product’s convenience and usability.
If you have already resolved the photography dilemma described
in this column, please let me know how you did it. I would
be interested to hear your thoughts on this topic or others.
|