Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,911   Posts: 1,584,687   Online: 735
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 48
  1. #31
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,547
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    Underlined of mine.



    It also gave them privacy.

    According to someone, the possibility to take home nude or even homemade porn photography was one of the drivers of the Polaroid success.
    You couldn't do that with pictures you had to bring to the shop and get them back. I bet they were Christmases...

    There are a lot of "private" images on hard disks I bet all over the world (especially the more puritan countries).

    I have the impression this thing is overlooked, undertalked, but it could just have been an enormous driver in the advent of digital. The fact that you don't have to show your pictures to your shopkeeper (and hence to the entire district) is just huge. It's not just nude or porn, is anything private in nature (like your child's poo to send to your brothers, mentioned in another thread, or children nudity, or whatever else).
    I worked my way through college in a photofinishing lab. You would be surprised at the number of pictures of nudes and outright porn that were sent in. Law prevented us from sending them to the customer, so the pictures were destroyed. Law also did not allow us to report them due to privacy concerns. That latter has exceptions for the safety of individuals.

    The instant and digital era has only increased this type of thing.

    PE

  2. #32
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    I worked my way through college in a photofinishing lab. You would be surprised at the number of pictures of nudes and outright porn that were sent in. Law prevented us from sending them to the customer, so the pictures were destroyed.
    Of course they were (wink, nudge)
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  3. #33
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,164
    Excuse me but why was it forbidden/unlawful to send nudes or porn. Did you destroy the negs as well or only the prints?
    Forbidden to give them to the costumers and forbidden to inform the authorities sounds like an idiotic law to say the least.

    Since the content industry has pushed many laws by calling them protection against .....pornography The Film manufacturers could use a similiar logic digital facilitates illegal activities therefore everyone has to use film.

    Dominik

  4. #34
    kb3lms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Reading, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    739
    Images
    5
    Since the content industry has pushed many laws by calling them protection against .....pornography The Film manufacturers could use a similiar logic digital facilitates illegal activities therefore everyone has to use film.
    Along these lines, I have always wondered how a digital image stands up in court. You would think law enforcement would be huge users of film. It takes a pretty good craftsman to doctor a film image without leaving some, possibly very minute, detectable trace of the doctoring. But digital is just a computer file which can readily be hacked by those skilled in the art.
    Last edited by kb3lms; 09-17-2012 at 11:00 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: spelling
    All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.

  5. #35
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by MDR View Post
    Excuse me but why was it forbidden/unlawful to send nudes or porn. Did you destroy the negs as well or only the prints?
    Forbidden to give them to the costumers and forbidden to inform the authorities sounds like an idiotic law to say the least.

    Since the content industry has pushed many laws by calling them protection against .....pornography The Film manufacturers could use a similiar logic digital facilitates illegal activities therefore everyone has to use film.

    Dominik
    You don't list where you are but I'm guessing it's not in the US. We've long ago stopped being surprised by idiotic laws.

    The time frame for PE being in college would have been, what PE, the 60s maybe? Earlier? People of all ages in some countries and even younger Americans would be amazed at some of the puritanical laws we had back then.

  6. #36
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,164
    Roger Idiotic laws are not restricted to the US. We have a fair share of them in Austria as well.

    Dominik

  7. #37
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by MDR View Post
    Roger Idiotic laws are not restricted to the US. We have a fair share of them in Austria as well.

    Dominik
    Oh I'm sure. I've aware of various ones throughout the world. But the US does seem to rate high on the prudishness scale among western industrialized countries. Seems countries have different areas of specialization when it comes to idiocy!

  8. #38
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,547
    Images
    65
    Geez, I'm sorry I mentioned it.

    Ok, it was in the mid to late 50s. I was a teen, and I was a printer among other things. I saw the negatives, but not the prints. My boss told me that he could not let me see the prints, and he took the prints and negatives. IDK what happened to them, but I never saw them accumulate beyond a few which would represent a weeks worth of prints.

    The law said that they could not be returned to the customer. The law said that for privacy purposes, the authorities were not to be informed, and it was later changed to have an exception for child porn.

    Now, the problem is that it is difficult to define porn. Is a nude porn? Well, IMHO it is not. But, we could not sent out nude pix. Of course, in that day and age, there was little beyond nude pix and I never heard of child porn.

    So, there you have more information. Please don't ask more. I was about 18 at that time. I hardly remember the details.

    PE

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    191
    I just can't imagine my self being Perez, with glamorous title yet no result to be proud of. He should join Trump's apprentice show.

  10. #40
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,646
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    Sorry, but the convenience and results in going to dcams are what drove the large scale consumers switch, NOT marketing-driven perception of convenience and results. The results and convenience are REAL. Particularly the IMMEDIACY part of 'convenience'. I spent 7 years working on Kodak's instant system; a lot of that time involved looking at customer surveys and customer feedback. The biggest item that drove instant sales (both Kodak and Polaroid) was IMMEDIACY; the ability to share the images almost instantly. I've spent a lot of time looking at photos coming out of photofinishing processors, and it was quite common to see a roll of film that had pictures from 2 (or more) different year's Christmasses on it. Instant, and now digital, give CONSUMERS immediacy that film doesn't offer (even with minilabs) and that's what sells!

    I recognize that the above comments don't apply to the members of this forum, who, first and formost, care about the imaging technology.



    To put my comment about convenience and results in an APUG approved context: George Eastman's 'You push the button, we do the rest' cameras made the underlying silver halide process completely transparent to the user, giving the user convenience and results.
    Exactly. Mr. Eastman created a better (photographic) mouse trap, then went out and created among the general public a perception via marketing that it was more convenient and produced results at least as good as those pesky user-processed glass plates. And a new industry was born.

    You see, I'm not disagreeing with you regarding the proclivity of the market to demand greater convenience with results as good or better than earlier versions. My point was that the higher one climbs on the technological product curve, the more complex those products actually become. And the buying public must be convinced of the exact opposite. That they are simpler and easier to use (i.e., more convenient). This requires the establishment of more and more marketing-driven perceptions to accomplish. And, generally speaking, higher and higher product reliability to maintain those perceptions.

    You say you spent seven years wrestling with the issue of what the public said it wanted in a photographic technology. Well, I've been doing exactly the same thing with software technology for over a quarter of a century. Trying to give the marketers something that they can convince the customers is a sufficient upgrade in convenience and results that those customers will part with their hard-earned money. But they have to be convinced first.

    The appearance of greater convenience is often just a shell game. The creators of a new technology will quietly substitute a set of new problems that simply replace the old familiar ones. Because the user is unfamiliar with the new technology, those new problems go unrecognized for a while. But the old familiar ones stand right out in their absence. So the new must be more convenient than the old, right?

    Is a word processor more convenient than a typewriter? Sometimes. Sometimes not. Have you ever tried to open a newer formatted file type with an older version? Never had that problem with real paper. All you had to do to decode it was to look at it.

    Is a digital camera more convenient than a film camera? Sometimes. Sometimes not. Have you ever lost all of your photos to a hard disk crash? I know someone who did. In an instant, all of the baby pictures, gone forever. Because the new technology simply gave her a new set of problems that replaced the old familiar ones. Got to see the photos almost immediately. Didn't have to buy film over and over. But DID have to buy a backup hard disk, and didn't recognize that critical new problem in time.

    My argument is that on balance digital camera technology is no more or less "convenient", and overall produces no more or less better "results", than film camera technology. The only meaningful difference is in the set of technology problems which must be addressed by the user. And that the paradigm shift from film to digital was primarily driven by the availability of a new technology that could be readily adapted and sold into a market that always craves more convenience and better results in everything.

    Digital cameras for the masses were not created to satisfy an unmet photographic demand. Everyone was already perfectly satisfied with their film cameras, because they knew nothing else. Digital camera technology came out of basic research, which was then adapted into products that could be marketed as better than film cameras, thus creating a new market where satisfied film camera owners could be convinced to part with their hard-earned money for replacement digital cameras.

    In other words, the cart was being pulled along by the donkey. The donkey was not pushing the cart from behind.

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin