Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Roc Camera

roc.camera

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 491 posts

Re: Roc Camera

#281

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

aspenmayer wrote: post #241
krior wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> public spaces aren’t considered private by virtue of them being shared and nonexclusive. I live in a country where photographing people in public is highly restricted. The reason is that 99% of people cannot avoid public places in their day-to-day lives, therefore public places cannot be a free-for-all.

> therefore public places cannot be a free-for-all. They can’t in those places with the restrictions you are familiar with and are subject to, but that is no argument against the norms of other places and the denizens thereof. I can, and do see public spaces as a free-for-all, and that is neither better nor worse, but simply the way we do things here. If you don’t like it, it doesn’t affect you. Most folks are aware,…

[flagged]

Re: Roc Camera

#282

Post by etrautmann »

foldr wrote: post #267
MarcelOlsz wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not live a little and get a film camera? It's more time for sure but are you not tired of optimizing everything in life?

I enjoy film photography in some contexts (I do a bit of 4x5), but film photography basically sucks. I think possibly a lot of the people who find some kind of magic in it are those young enough not to have grown up in the era where shooting film was the only option. I don't mind 4x5 so much because just taking the photo is so much effort that the associated ordeal of developing and scanning isn't out of proportion.…

That’s kind of the point though. The scarcity focuses you n taking more deliberate and intentional photos.

Re: Roc Camera

#283

Post by v9v »

volemo wrote: post #274
lynx97 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People with photographic memory can't just upload their memories to the Internet. So that comparison is pretty much worthless.

Artists with photographic memory can. And in the modern world of computational photography and gen AI what even is the difference between a photo and drawing?

The difference is time, effort and scalability. There are many things that humans can do that society doesn't strictly regulate, because as human activities they are done in limited volumes. When it becomes possible to automate some of these activities at scale, different sorts of risks and consequences may become a part of the activity.

Re: Roc Camera

#284

Post by rkomorn »

aspenmayer wrote: post #250
rkomorn wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> public spaces aren’t considered private by virtue of them being shared and nonexclusive The problem is that "public" 20 years ago (before cell phone cameras, photo rolls, social media, growth/engagement algorithms, attention economy, virality, etc) vs now just doesn't mean the same thing anymore. There's a difference between "no expectation of privacy" and "no expectation of having every moment of your life in publ…

> I think it's a mistake to cling to a definition of "public" that doesn't account for how much things have changed. I think it’s a mistake for others in different jurisdictions to tell those subject to those norms how they ought to live. The times may have changed, and we didn’t start the fire. We could put it out if we wanted, or if the lick of the flames brought us undue harm. Perhaps most folks just don’t want to…

Photography is my favorite art form to consume, so I'm not in favor of any kind of ban of it.

I also agree that freedom to photograph is a free speech issue. I just happen to think the ability to live your life without having it being recorded everywhere is also a freedom issue.

I think it's a challenge for us to solve and I don't pretend to have a solution. I just don't agree with a "change nothing" stance on grounds of "no expectation of privacy" because I think things have changed to a point that it needs to be addressed.

Side note: > I think it’s a mistake for others in different jurisdictions to tell those subject to those norms how they ought to live.

If that's directed at me, then I think you're reading something in my comment that I haven't expressed.

Re: Roc Camera

#285

Post by aspenmayer »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #281
aspenmayer wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> therefore public places cannot be a free-for-all. They can’t in those places with the restrictions you are familiar with and are subject to, but that is no argument against the norms of other places and the denizens thereof. I can, and do see public spaces as a free-for-all, and that is neither better nor worse, but simply the way we do things here. If you don’t like it, it doesn’t affect you. Most folks are aware,…

[flagged]

Hi!

Re: Roc Camera

#286

Post by rkomorn »

bborud wrote: post #256
rkomorn wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> public spaces aren’t considered private by virtue of them being shared and nonexclusive The problem is that "public" 20 years ago (before cell phone cameras, photo rolls, social media, growth/engagement algorithms, attention economy, virality, etc) vs now just doesn't mean the same thing anymore. There's a difference between "no expectation of privacy" and "no expectation of having every moment of your life in publ…

Well, there is also the fact that in a lot of cities, you will be filmed, often by multiple cameras, most of the time, without you being aware of it. By law enforcement, security cameras (private and otherwise), cars etc. on top of that you carry around a phone that streams intimate information about your location, behavior, preferences to a bunch of data aggregators. And then there are the signal surveillance networ…

I agree we're already in a bad place but I don't find the "ship has sailed" take particularly engaging.

Addressing nothing because everything can't be addressed isn't a great strategy for change.

Re: Roc Camera

#287

Post by nandomrumber »

aspenmayer wrote: post #265
lynx97 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "you" in my writing was refering to any photographer who takes a picture of me without my consent. I should probably mave made that clearer. IOW, I am not suggesting that you in particular are making fun of me or anyone you photograph. But since we were talking about strangers, I have no way of knowing how that photoographer will act. Sure, you in particular probably have a morale compass. However, in the general…

> And therefore, I oppose the "right" for anyone to do that, simply because I can never know what they will end up doing with that photo. Jurisprudence in my country can’t preempt legal activities because they might lead to wrongdoing in the future. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don’t know what you think folks are likely to do, but there are likely already laws against doing most things you would…

Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean you aren’t being a rude cunt.

Which are here too.

People can complain about whatever they want. It’s entirely legal to have an opinion, since you seem so preoccupied with laws.

Re: Roc Camera

#288

Post by exasperaited »

barrell wrote: post #120
peteforde wrote: post #62

I used to be really (really really) into photography. I respect anyone working hard on a physical product, but this misses the mark on every front I can think of. The real issue that photographers grapple with, emotionally and financially, is that pictures have become so thoroughly commodified that nobody assigns them cultural value anymore. They are the thumbnail you see before the short video clip starts playing. N…

I also used to be really (really really) into photography. Personally, I’ve stopped taking pictures because of the stigma around a camera. Everyone, me more than most, doesn’t want their picture taken, or to be in the background of other photos. When someone can take thousands of pictures an hour, and upload them all to some social media site to be permanently stored… idk it’s shifted from a way to capture a moment t…

The contemporary “ick” about street photography is the ick of non-consensual capture. Everyone feels it to some degree; I stopped doing street photography work and even most social photography (including paid work) because I felt it and I wasn’t ready to navigate those feelings.

This “ick” is real and it’s good that you feel it, because you can build on it for a sense of ethics about photos and the use of the camera, about how its gaze affects subjects, about how to reduce that impact.

A solution for you is to focus on photography with people posing for photos who want the photos, or people posing for photos who want money. Try art nude, even: it is fascinating, liberating, has a very strong historical and creative through line, and will teach you a lot.

I have developed a much stronger sense of the ethics around my photography and a little more personal confidence, so I might yet give street photography a go again in future, if I think I have something specific to say.

Re: Roc Camera

#289

Post by mlrtime »

october8140 wrote: post #67
peteforde wrote: post #62

I used to be really (really really) into photography. I respect anyone working hard on a physical product, but this misses the mark on every front I can think of. The real issue that photographers grapple with, emotionally and financially, is that pictures have become so thoroughly commodified that nobody assigns them cultural value anymore. They are the thumbnail you see before the short video clip starts playing. N…

The biggest lie capitalism tells us is that something only has value if it can be sold.

Capitalism doesn't 'tell us' anything, it just like everything else has pros and cons.

I don't know anyone who understand economics would say this, unless you're talking about very specific meanings of 'value'. I'm not trying to be pedantic, I know what you mean, but these comments are not insightful or helpful.

Re: Roc Camera

#290

Post by foldr »

etrautmann wrote: post #282
foldr wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I enjoy film photography in some contexts (I do a bit of 4x5), but film photography basically sucks. I think possibly a lot of the people who find some kind of magic in it are those young enough not to have grown up in the era where shooting film was the only option. I don't mind 4x5 so much because just taking the photo is so much effort that the associated ordeal of developing and scanning isn't out of proportion.…

That’s kind of the point though. The scarcity focuses you n taking more deliberate and intentional photos.

It's what some people see as the point now. Back when film was the only option, the cost and time per frame were just negatives (if you'll excuse the pun). There was no romance in deciding whether or not to use one of your last three remaining frames; it was just annoying.

I don't deny that for a whole range of reasons, some people might take better or more meaningful photos using old cameras. Limitations can feed into the artistic process. I just think it's a bit silly to romanticize the cost and inconvenience of film, or to think that photos taken using film are somehow inherently more interesting or valuable.

Post reply on HN