Disruptive innovations: are they ruining the art of photography?

13

October

2017

No ratings yet.

In 1888, George Eastman launched “The Kodak”. It was the first camera that was accessible for the average consumer thanks to its simplicity and relatively low price. The camera was a pre-loaded with film for 100 exposures. After shooting your pictures, the whole camera had to be returned to Kodak. There the film was developed and the camera reloaded, before sending it back (I guess without the option for a speed delivery) (Bellis, 2017).

It is easy to see that a lot has changed. Technological change can either be incremental or disruptive (Cicala, 2017). Incremental changes are gradual improvements, such as the increase in pixel density (Lugtu, 2016). On the other hand, disruptive change causes the need for more fundamental changes in the way business is done. One major disruptive change, known for most of us, is the transition from analog photography to digital photography. Another is the invention of autofocus, something that to some might seem self-evident these days.

Leica was the first to develop autofocus in the 1960s, but they didn’t see the potential of it and sold the technology. Back then, photographers did not take the technology serious. They never believed that the technology could be fast enough to capture quick movements for example while shooting sport (Cicala, 2017).They believed that only skilled photographers could do that, and that wouldn’t change. Nevertheless, the auto function technology improved and most of the people nowadays don’t even touch the manual function on their cameras.

You could argue that these disruptive technological changes ruined the art of photography. They simply made it too easy. Maybe like printing a table from a 3D printer instead of working on every piece of wood by yourself. I experienced some of these feelings when I went on a holiday with only an analog camera. I was limited to a small number of pictures, so I couldn’t just “shoot a lot and filter the good ones out”. It has to be right the first time. I didn’t even found the time to experiment with altering the lighting and shutter speeds (all things that work perfectly fine on a digital SLR), because I had to focus on autofocus.

A forgotten challenge, skill, which is crucial for a good photo but nowadays not necessary to master. And yes, when shooting analog and manually it felt more like creating a piece of art then shooting a bunch of them with a SLR camera or just shooting away with your iPhone. However, I wouldn’t state that the art of photography is gone. It didn’t ruin the game, it only changed it. Making it more accessible to less experienced players, and requiring different skills sets. Maybe it’s easier to shoot photos of a good quality, but making good digital photos is still a challenge. It is one thing to add extra functionalities, it’s another to know how to use them!

 

References

  • Bellis, M. (2017, 04 30). History of Kodak and Rolled Photographic Film. Retrieved from ThoughtCo. : https://www.thoughtco.com/george-eastman-history-of-kodak-1991619
  • Cicala, R. (2017, 02 19). Disruption, innovation, and the future of photography: Roger Cicala reads the tea leaves. Retrieved from Imaging-Resource: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/19/disruption-innovation-future-of-photography-roger-cicala-reads-tea-leaves
  • Lugtu, R. (2016, 04 15). Radical change vs incremental change. Retrieved from Business World Online: http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Finance&title=radical-changevs-incremental-change&id=125986

Please rate this

Mythinformation

10

October

2017

No ratings yet.

The amount of data that is gathered nowadays is astonishing. Everyday objects can be connected to the internet, allowing them to communicate with human beings as well as other devices (Xia, Yang, Wang, & Vinel, 2012). Internet of Things (IoT) transforms your car from a device that you need to drive, to a source of data about your driving behavior. Companies like Facebook and Google gather huge amounts of data about our online behavior. And we have access to a range of application that can keep track of our personal activities. Apple, for instance, developed The Help app, that, as they state on their website, “makes it easy to learn about your health and start reaching your goals” (Apple, 2017). You do not even have to provide the application with the input-information since it consolidates health data from your phone, Apple watch and other applications that you installed on your iPhone (Apple, 2017).

The possibilities to generate data are increasing, such as the possibilities to analyze and use this data. We moved from digitization, the process of turning the analog world into a digital world, to datafication. In the era of digitization, the purpose of information often had a specific purpose for which the data was collected. Datafication, on the other hand, allows analysis for patterns and correlations across large data set (Mai, 2016). Nowadays, different elements of information can be combined for different purposes.

Organizations are more and more realizing the potential of personal information from their customers. All kinds of organizations, from gas stations to hospitals, are adopting the use of big data analytics to learn more about their end-users. They are acting upon the expectation that more information about their customers, will enable them to establish customized services and marketing. The underlying thought for the increase of data analytics is that “more information is better, more digital services improve people lives, and that greater connectivity provides a better world” (Mai, 2016).

Obviously, there are some great possibilities and benefits that come with the amount of data and information that we have nowadays. However, I think that this premise is too often taken for granted and must be more often challenged. In this era, there is a somewhat blind belief in the need and necessity of data. Professor Langdon Winner even states that our thinking is dominated by “mythinformaiton: the almost religious conviction that a widespread adoption of computers and communication systems along with easy access to electronic information will automatically produce a better world human living” (Winner, 1986).

Organizations are eager to get their hands on more personal information, while often not even knowing if they have the knowledge or resources to accurately analyze it. The question whether this, in fact, is necessary or even beneficial is not often raised. And while privacy legislation is developing, there is still much vague about how companies use personal information. I hoop that the questions whether data collection is desirable and suited for the situation will be more often raised: Is more information always better? Are more digital services really improving people lives? Is greater connectivity providing a better world?

References
Apple. (2017, 10). A bold way to look at your health . Retrieved from Apple: https://www.apple.com/ios/health/

Mai, J.-E. (2016). Big data privacy: The datafication of personal information. The Information Society , 192-199.

Winner, L. (1986). The wale and the reactor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Xia, F., Yang, L., Wang, L., & Vinel, A. (2012). Internet of Things. International Journal of Communication Systems, 1101-1102.

Please rate this