Great expectations...

Well, two years have flown by and another Photokina is upon us. The Techno-Tubbies and up-before-the-dawn Early Adopters have been wetting themselves with excitement for weeks at the thought of some tasty new bit of bloatware or “shiny thing”. The internet fora have been rife with onanistic speculation as to what would be served up to the eager faithful. With camera product cycles now measured in weeks and rapidly approaching something that would compare to the life of an average mayfly, the expectations placed upon camera manufacturers are now more unrealistic than a TV advert for mascara.

In order to feed this insatiable appetite for the novel, manufacturers are forced into unnatural acts of marketing hype. “Innovations” that would never have been deemed as newsworthy a few years ago are now trumpeted to the World with all the zeal of the Second Coming. Even the venerable Leica cannot ignore the “need” to feed. Unfortunately the NIRN (Need It Right NOW) Brigade, brought up on a diet of instant gratification – from mashed potato to fame – do not share the same planet as the Gnomes of Solms. Leica have always pursued a policy - either deliberately or through Teutonic indifference to the more excitable elements of society - of “never apologise, never explain”. Now this works if you are an absolute monarch, or an absolute bastard, but is not what sits well with the posters in the opinion-rich, patience-poor online communities to which Leica is both paramour and pariah.

The howls of indignant and righteous frustration that have greeted the announcement of the M9 Titanium special edition would put a cuckolded husband to shame. Never have I seen so many middle-aged men united in universal derision and condemnation of a product launch. You would have thought that Dr Kaufmann and Stefan Daniel had stood up and announced the joint development of a nuclear-powered electronic viewfinder M10 with Iraq and North Korea – the axis of EVIL itself – rather than a simple special edition. In the stream of thoughtless bandwagon-jumping vituperation few seem to have stopped to consider that this is effectively a "concept camera" a mule, or testbed for "new" ideas. The clever bit is that Leica are offering those with more money than sense the opportunity to own something limited to just 500 pieces worldwide. Leica have been offering luxury versions of standard models since the Luxus in 1929 - at least this is more than just some gold-plating and a lizardskin cover.

What did people expect? It is only just over a year since the M9 saw the light of day. The factory has been going flat out to meet demand, not only for that but for M lenses and the ugly duckling X1. The fact that Leica has managed to introduce anything significantly novel at all should be applauded rather than derided.

But no.

“...embarrassment...”

"...betrayal...”

“...ugly...”

“...obscene...”

“...unreal...”

These and many other brickbats have been hurled like so many cups and saucers in a domestic tiff. Messrs Mills and Boon will never run out of authors; all they need do is sign up some of the more waspish internet commentators and they will have an endless supply of melodramatic hissy fitters to fill their pages.

Don't get me wrong – Leica is not squeaky-clean in all this. Their biggest “mistake” (for which read “tactical error”) is not that they are not listening to their faithful followers, it is that they are not being seen to listen. Middle-aged men make toddlers look sanguine in their ability to pout, stamp their Mephisto-shod feet and hold their breath until they turn HDR-sky blue. Middle-aged men regard it as their God-given right to hold forth on their opinions and be listened to in rapt attention. It is a consequence of having nobody to order about now that their children are old enough to tell them where to go. Hell hath no fury like a middle-aged man scorned by the object of their affections.

And make no mistake, “affections” is the right word, It is clear that the wailing and gnashing of teeth is coming from those who feel that they have been cruelly betrayed by the love of their life. How DARE Leica not make a camera EXACTLY to their fantasy specifications? How DARE they make a camera that is more expensive than a diamond-tipped dental drill? How DARE they put that red dot on the front? It is only their corporate logo, after all. Do hip-hop chaps complain, I wonder, when Nike puts their swoosh on the side of their latest gym-shoe? I think not. The only reason the faithful take issue with a red dot on a titanium camera is because they know how hard it is to find titanium-coloured insulating tape.

At least they are trying to break out of the straitjacket of expectation and traditionalist inertia that is both their greatest asset and biggest millstone. Leica MUST innovate to survive, but they forever tread the unreasonable tightrope of expectation. In the past you didn't buy a Leica; you took it into your life, nurtured it and shared decisive moments with it. In time you passed it on to a new carer - a younger relative, or a stranger - and it lived on. But now we are in a new Millennium - expectations have changed, Leica must change - and so must its followers.

I shall continue to watch this soap opera with interest; the week is still young...

--o-O-o--

- All images on this blog are copyright Bill Palmer and may not be reproduced in any format or medium without permission.

Rules are made to be...

...broken?

Maybe... But to be honest life gets a little tedious (and potentially truncated) if you spend all your time in nihilist mode. We all go through a teenage phase in which we rebel against authority - any authority - just because. Rule breaking can range from the subversive - graffiti, or leaving the toilet seat up when you go to visit Granny - to downright stupid - driving on the wrong side of the road, for example, or not wearing a seat-belt in Reading. Most of us grow out of it, unless we are middle-aged, male and the owner of an expensive camera, a demographic that appears to have ripped up the rulebook on tolerance and courtesy, particularly when participating on internet fora.

Blindly following the rules is however as counter-productive as a total disregard. Some rules are downright pointless, some are outmoded and some are simply stifling. Consider the "compensation culture" that came to its pointless peak under the last government. Rules were put in place in every avenue of daily life to mitigate often unquantifiable and statistically insignificant risk in order to avoid the attentions of the ambulance chasers. Unquestioning adherence to rules is for the unimaginative, the risk averse and the habitual wearers of an inordinate amount of beige.

Let me offer an alternative approach to the rule.

Rules are made to be understood and disregarded if appropriate.

This more enlightened approach comes with age and experience. When we are children it is a rule not to touch the top of the stove. We do not have the nous to do anything other than obey the rule, or we will be hurt. When we are older, we understand that the rule only has meaning within a contextual framework; is the stove hot or cold? Can I touch it for an instant without harm? These levels of subtlety - of interpretation - can only come by understanding the rule and then interpreting - over-riding - it when it is safe or advisable to do so.

Issac Asimov built a whole career as an author on writing three simple rules, and then finding ways and means to subvert and interpret them in an entertaining manner. His Three Laws of Robotics:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2.A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

...are a case in point. Each "Law" is actually open to interpretation and subversion dependent upon context. Ultimately they can be bent, but not broken without terminal consequences. Thus, gravity can be defied, but never ignored. Exposure can be adjusted but not wilfully disregarded. F2.0 is F2.0, 1/1000 is 1/1000 and so on.

Today's techno-marvel digital cameras carry enough processing power to target a missile strike. But they are simply automata that blindly follow pre-set rules, partly defined by the laws of physics and partly by a team of programmers in the Far East. The photographer who places his images in the "hands" of his camera instead of taking control himself does so at his peril. It's a bit like those lorry drivers who find themselves wedged in a small village street having blindly followed their dashboard sat-nav. They have ignored the (sometimes literal) warning signs and simply let the machine take them up a blind alley.

Don't play with fire...


In the 1982 Star Trek movie, The Wrath of Khan, there is a memorable scene where the Enterprise is under heavy attack by another starship manned by renegades. Kirk, by now old and wily, uses a little-known command protocol to lower the other ships' shields before he delivers a decisive counter-attack. His explanatory line to a younger officer - "You have got to learn why things work on a starship..." is the perfect example of the benefit of applied experience over blind reliance on technology.

There is no harm per se in relying upon automated features as long as a) you understand what they are doing b) you know how they will behave in a given situation and c) you know how - and when - to over-ride and take direct control. The harm is in adopting the "fire and forget" approach, in which your only contribution to the process of taking the photo is being there and pointing the camera in the right direction. You may as well have acted as chauffeur for a mate who snaps in the direction you are pointing. Dumbing down only happens to those who are dumb enough in the first place to embrace without question the talent-numbing excesses of do-it-for-you technology.

--o-O-o--

- All images on this blog are copyright Bill Palmer and may not be reproduced in any format or medium without permission.