7.09.2022

Our idea of contemporary image quality depends on mis-remembering how good we already had it just a few years ago...


I'm as big a sucker for faulty memory syndrome as the next photographer. What is FMS? It's a condition that makes us remember the past as being worse, by far, than what we are living with right now. This condition rarely presents itself when thinking about general social history but does make itself felt when comparing different technologies. It is most prevalent when the victim is pondering things like cameras, cellphones and cars. 

In short the condition causes otherwise rational people to start remembering things they bought in the past in a worse way than reality would show was really true. Just as a random example let's look at FMS as it relates to buying and using digital cameras. If one had purchased a Panasonic GH5 camera in 2016 with the idea of using it for both still photography and video production, and had been satisfied with the performance of the camera at the time, that would establish a neutral baseline for effectively evaluating the results of the camera. If no enormous breakthroughs in technology occur (and history shows us that most camera improvements are incremental....very incremental)  then the satisfaction with a unit's performance should be a straight and continuous line. No change in satisfaction as long as the equipment continues to produce results that are equal to, or actually outperform, the limitations of the media for which the gear is intended. In people without FMS the gear in question, if found to be satisfactory (not the weak link in the imaging chain) would continue being used until such a time as it became non-functional. Or unrepairable. 

After all, the cost of the gear has already been amortized and if it continues to produce exactly the same results then nothing in the process of use or evaluation needs to change. In short, it is usually the performance boundaries of the media that are the limiting factor in most photographic situations and not the imaging prowess or lack thereof of the camera or lens.

But in the minds of victims of FMS a different sort of process takes place. When new gear is introduced to replace previous models the "patient" makes a flawed presumption that any newer model is obviously  superior to the old model and (this is where the disconnection takes place...) that the new "improvements" are so spectacular and so obvious that the new camera (or lens) will make visually obvious improvements that will be discernible in all images created for the same use case/media that the previous model was already ably fulfilling. The mind of an FMS victim makes an immediate assumption that any lost "potential" by way of not having immediate access to the new unit's improvements (however incremental; if they exist at all) will degrade the overall quality of their experience. Even if the potential is never realized in actual practice. The victim will "know" that the work "could be better." 

A good example would be the compulsion to replace a 24 megapixel camera with a 48 megapixel camera when the output from either camera is presented as a 6 megapixel image on a 6 bit viewing screen. If the viewing screen isn't capable of at least 25 megapixels of resolution then both cameras would be equally  capable of meeting or exceeding the limitations of the medium. A fact-based evaluation which is lost on the logic circuits of FMS victims. They invariably presume that any specification improvement will add to the potential improvement of the final image. 

This misguided assumption triggers a hormone release that floods certain areas of the brain which in turn compels the victim to immediately pull whatever credit card still has an available credit limit attached and rush to acquire the new model. With the new model in hand a process begins in which the memories stored in the camera comparison area (CCA) of the brain begin to mis-remember the performance of the previous camera as being worse and more "impaired" than it was. This leads to comparison differential enhancement in which the victim is hyper-sensitized to any change or perceived change in imaging capabilities between the models. Like "monsters under the bed" each parameter of the older camera that can be called into question will be, even if there is no objective discrepancy between the old and new model in the determined use cases. 

There is even a law called the imagined emphasis of disappointment which comes into play. Stated simply the law of IED says that the lower the skill set of the victim the more emphatically he or she will blame the difference between the old and new camera when comparing contemporaneous images with images taken in the past. Even if, to all other viewers, the images are identical. The idea of past camera disappointment (PCT) grows as the hormones trigger a buy-or-cry response which drives the victim to make the purchase in order to temporarily stave off feelings of depression and photographic inadequacy. 

For a GH5 user this might mean getting a newer GH6. Or, in the case of someone with a severe case of FMS it could even mean having to buy the interim upgraded model, say ---- a GH5ii ---- as a holding strategy until they are able to buy the aforementioned GH6. There is always a linear drive toward the newest or most fully specced model. 

The only cure is to go back and carefully reexamine work done previously with the older cameras or older lenses to evaluate whether or not the new model rises above the limitations of the existing media (a website? An Instagram post?) and yields observable improvements. If there is no visible change in the quality of presentation in the "target" media then no change really needs to be made. 

In most cases, however, the victim remains in denial even after many observations are made by objective and expert third party investigators. At this point one of two things happen. If the victim is financially able they are consigned to having to buy each new product release or even each new camera system, the marketing of which has even the smallest promise of technical improvement. The other solution is to buy in the same way until the victim is either bankrupted, or both bankrupted and institutionalized...  It's generally incurable by logic or argument. 

With all this laid out in front of me I happened to start looking at images taken back in 2015-2016 with an ancient and primitive Panasonic GH5 camera. FMS victims today would tell you quickly that those cameras had "very limited dynamic range" and "were impossible to use with any sort of autofocusing." 

Since I had recently sold off some GH5s and more recently replaced them with, first a GH5ii and then a GH6, I thought I owed it to my last gasp of rationality to go back and see if the files in the older camera were really as poor and woeful as my brain was trying to convince me was the case. Did the potential improvements justify the buying imperative?

First things first. I was shocked, SHOCKED to find that both images presented here were focused automatically by the ancient camera. Diving into 100% magnification revealed that they were, indeed, in focus!!! Then I looked at dynamic range and tried to see the huge impediments to visual excellence that the now obsolete camera must have certainly introduced. I found that the files were at least the equal of the media we used in order to promote the show we were photographing for. The files had ample DR for web use and, remarkably, they could be well printed at sizes up to 11x17 on a four color press without losing highlight or shadow detail. 

Is the GH6 that much better? Not in those two uses. Not at all. I was shocked. I had to take a tranquilizer and lie down with a cold washrag across my forehead. The shock of objectivity was almost too much to bear.

Sadly, slowly, and with great resignation, I had to admit that I'd been infected with FMS and had been remembering older camera performance in an inaccurate way. Through the smudged and dirty eyeglasses  of self delusion. 

Just a cautionary note to those of us who are constantly on the search for "new and improved" gear. We might be suffering from FMS, as it relates camera tech. The cure? Unknown. A preventative? A strong spouse with control over the credit cards. The damage? Still to be determined. 

I am starting a foundation to help photographers afflicted with FMS. We'll be accepting contributions as soon as the website is set up. Please, though, don't send in cameras as contributions --- it just makes the syndrome worse...

Both images were taken using a GH5 camera and an Olympus 12-100mm lens. Long since made "obsolete" to victims of FMS by the introduction of two newer camera models in that line. But still usable and competitive to non-victims.


( just a note for the obdurate: I am not starting a foundation. The mention of it was an attempt at humor).
 

10 comments:

karmagroovy said...

Don't forget about OFS, Old Fart Syndrome. It's the arch nemesis of FMS whereby photographers staunchly proclaim that the output from current camera technology will never hold a candle to viewing Kodachrome 64 (I liked 25 even more) slide film via a carousel projector, onto a white screen, in the dark, while drinking a 1974 Charles Krug cabernet and listening to CC&R on the HiFi.

Bob F. said...

Thanks for this insightful scientific analysis. We're about to start a long road trip and I was fretting about whether my old DX Nikon would suffice. Now I know it was only IED exacerbated by GAS and FOMO. After looking at old images from previous trips, I'm okay with the existing equipment. Not only did I save a chunk of change, but now I am free to fret about other issues, like whether our trailer and tow vehicle will hold up. Actually, they're both in like-new condition but worry-wart is my middle name...

bralk said...

Brilliant said. With your permission I will translate it and present it at our next camera club meeting

Lee McCurtayne said...

Being of the pre-digital area, when film was the rule, people would change their camera, regularly, ah, like every 5 or 6 years. That was probably the norm back then. People were reasonably happy with their Canon, Nikon or whatever brand that stuck their "brand nipple"in your way. More care in taking the shot was evident, mainly, I guess because of film and the support of film, which in itself demanded you put your brain into gear and concertrate on the technique and workflow to achieve higher levels.
Really what I am saying is we are brobably still looking for what been there all the time. yes the knowledge of achieving the result you want. Thanks to todays cameras most of what demanded attention is harbored on a microprocessor.

Jim said...

I have reached the point where my 'upgrades' of cameras have nothing to do with the number of pixels or "image quality". My last switch was from an EOS M-3 to an OMD EM-5 III. I made the switch because of 1) weatherproofing (I hike and like to have my camera out on a chest harness), 2) a fully-articulated screen (I often shoot down low and at 77 getting up off the ground is harder than it used to be), 3) longer lenses than are available for the EOS m series. The M series tops out at 200mm with a 1.6 factor relative to full-frame and I can get up to a 500mm native lens for the OMD. I could adapt a longer EF series lens to the M-3 but then I lose most of the small/light-weight advantage of a mirrorless system. To this day I still prefer the Canon auto-focus and the files produced by the EOS system but the difference is so small as to be trivial relative to the camera's functionality. IMO Canon discontinued the development of the M series too soon. Had they gone with an articulated screen on the M-6 and made a native lens longer than 200mm, I'd still be shooting with Canon gear. I've held an EOS R in your favorite camera store and found it nearly as heavy and bulky as its DSLR cousins, not to mention more expensive than either the M series or the OMD E-M5. Price and function were my deciding factors.

Anonymous said...

Oh, no, impossible. Do you mean to say the "experts" and "photographers" on the infamous D reviewing site might possibly suffer from imagined emphasis of disappointment (IED). What about their improved pics due to more megapixels? No more cheating on the ISO? Dynamic range of 300 stops? Ability to shoot at ISO 24500? 25000 focus spots? 30:1 f/2 zoom lenses? You mean their snapshots and brick walls did not improve? Quelle horreur!

Frank Grygier said...

The only cure is to buy the latest iPhone. All of your imagining-related psychoses will fade away into the bliss of computational bokeh as you ponder how a sensor the size of a pin head replaced your 48-megapixel wonder camera.

Roger Jones said...

So are we twins? Separated at birth? Or two older gentlemen having the same thoughts? Do we (you and me) have ESP? I was just thinking about what you wrote, wondering why did I buy a Leica CL? I own other cameras 8 bodies 10 lenses to be exact. So why buy another? I trying to scale back to 1 camera an 2 lenses. I have an Sigma FP with the chimney EVF attached, the camera ergonomics are not as good as the CL, but the IQ is better or different. Please don't misunderstand I really enjoy the CL, but do I enjoy it because it's a Leica? Do I have the Red Dot syndrome? Or is the status of making the grade, and owning a Leica? It's very simple and easy to use.

Downside, the Leica lenses cost to much for what they are, and the Sigma MC-21 SA to L mount adapter will not work on the Leica TL, TL2 CL or SL. It will work on the SL2. It seems that at the very last minute Leica changed their firmware so the Sigma adapter won't work and didn't/won't put a firmware update on the internet. At the same time Leica and Novoflex joined and developed a adapter for the SL, TL, CL so these cameras could use Canon EF/EFs lenses with full functions. The NovoFlex sold for $699, but is now discontinued. I have this thing where I like to use the camera manufactures lenses on the camera, in this case Leica on Leica, but I think, I know I'll invest in Sigma L Glass.

I've call Leica Tech support 3 times now in the last 2 weeks, but haven't heard back as of yet.

Thank you for the update on updating my L mount lenses through the camera. I appreciate the information.

I have all the syndromes you mentioned in your blog, yes everyone....oh woo is me, but just one question, will the group sessions be video or in person? What's the cost? Will you be holding the sessions in your home like a bed and breakfast or in your studio? I'll pay extra for the top bunk.

Will we be aloud at swim practice with you? With our cameras? I hope so. Being from Oregon will I have any issues? No worries I can blend, I own a Leica.....LOL

Thank you for all your help
Regards
Roger

Tom Farrell said...

You didn't mention a completely unrelated aspect, though maybe a pertinent one: the simple pleasure of using a particular camera. Your thesis is sound - I recently culled my favorite images, and within that group my favorite people images, and the cameras used for them ranged over a dozen different brands and models. I was surprised at how many of the ones from years ago were as technically 'good' as the newest ones, and more pleasant to look at..

But I'm tired of taking pictures with the camera I've used for 5 years or so. RX1RII. Beautiful images over a range of areas - travel, people, nighttime, landscape, etc. But I'm tired of the viewfinder, tired of the buttons and menus, tired of the faint sense of guilt that I've never bothered to master all those buttons and menus. And beyond tired of the batteries.

So what camera has been, or might be, fun to use?Can't see going back to the M8, though at the time each shot felt like magic. My rangefinder days are passed. My Fujis felt vaguely disappointing for some reason. Didn't like the experience of an early GH.

You've pretty much convinced me that I'd most like an SL. And a CL. And a GH5/6. And an fp. Thanks! Actually, the SL has a strong pull for the kind of photography i'm doing these days when I'm not using my phone.

Eric Rose said...

Still rocking my GH5 and D800e. Both digital dinosaurs by todays standards. I'm happy with any camera that doesn't get in my way. IMHO interesting, expressive content trumps pretty much anything else. Mind you I'm not doing commercial work so my requirements are much different. I'm the only customer that matters.

Stay cool Kirk! Loving your wandering photos!

Eric

Post a Comment

We Moderate Comments, Yours might not appear right after you hit return. Be patient; I'm usually pretty quick on getting comments up there. Try not to hit return again and again.... If you disagree with something I've written please do so civilly. Be nice or see your comments fly into the void. Anonymous posters are not given special privileges or dispensation. If technology alone requires you to be anonymous your comments will likely pass through moderation if you "sign" them. A new note: Don't tell me how to write or how to blog! I can't make you comment but I don't want to wade through spam!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.