Lofty Matters: Professionalism and the Panasonic GF2
by
Felix Columbidae
The screen shot shown above comes from the BBC web site’s technology pages. The video in question discusses the development of digital photography and how manufacturers have realised that the amateur market is now more valuable then the professional market. So far, so good and nothing on the surface to really get that excited about. Well maybe so but I don’t think we need to rush on to the next bit of techno sales splurge the BBC pretends are genuine journalistic articles.
The reason why we may dally around this item is that the subject matter here could actually be the source of some very interesting journalism in hands other than the BBC. Hmmm, let’s reconsider what is being said in this quaint piece about technology becoming more user friendly and see where the rich vein of gold actually lies.
The thread of the story is that as digital photography has provided instant gratification at low cost more and more “amateur photographers” have not only emerged but are beginning to dominate the commercial stock archives. Using software, the average person no longer needs a shed at the back of the garden with thick black curtains covering the windows, where, with noxious toxic chemicals, he/she can develop photographs and produce stunning images complete with special effects. In the twenty-first century you can point and click, look at your picture, adjust it with software and e-mail it off to an archive which then slaps a $400 price tag on it. If a magazine buys that snap then you have made some cash and hey ho, you are a commercial photographer!
Where the Panasonic GF2 comes into the picture, so to speak, is that those clever people at the Japanese electronics giant have realised that they can make what was previously complicated very, very simple. Instead of Fstops and apertures, instead of focus pulls and grain acquisition, instead of all the technical language of professional photography the Panasonic GF2 provides on screen sliders and finger touch pad control. The “photographer” can then bypass the technical gobbledeegook speak and decide “Do I want the background blurred or focused?” or “Which part of my picture do I want in focus?”. Even better he/she can slide the slider up and down and see on the screen exactly what that effect is doing. Photography made easy.
All seems quite straight forward so far eh? Once we have watched the first two thirds of the video the presenter then starts to look at the impact on “professional photographers”. Prior to this explosion of amateur digital photography, one of the ways that a pro made their bread and butter was through the sales of their photographs in commercial stock archives. Now that millions of amateurs are flooding the archives with their digitally produced snaps that income stream is a lot more precarious and the “professionals” are suffering.
Due to demystification the future of photography, especially in terms of stock images used by advertising agencies, magazines, leaflet manufacturers and web site designers amongst others, appears to be largely a public occupation rather than a private professional business. Yep, I know, quite a mouthful, so I will sort out some of the language here.
To be a professional is to belong to an exclusive club of people practising the same trade. Membership of that club is identified by the ability of the members to talk to each other in a language the general public does not understand. The language of the professional is a mystery to the man/woman on the street. That benefits the professional because they can then charge the general public large sums of money to explain what Fstop means; “Do you want the background fuzzy of clear? Fuzzy, ok, I will have to adjust my Fstop, consider exposure levels and ensure optimum traingulated platform adjustment, so that will cost you $700.”
The Panasonic GF2 rips that drivel apart and says, “Fuzzy or clear? Slide this slider and choose!”.
That is photography demystified. More importantly though, what was a private source of income available only to the members of the profession is now an income stream available to anyone with a good eye for an image. The “photography profession” has just lost a substantial amount of its value and integrity. I would suggest that this is the real story behind this article on the BBC web site, the dismantling of a professional exclusion zone and the democratisation of income stream through user friendly digital tools.
Naturally there is a lot more to being a professional than a restrictive inaccessible language structure. Being a professional in the true sense means to do an excellent job, to be able to provide the service you say you are going to provide for the cost you have quoted and in the time frame you have offered. Deviate from any of these standards and your professionalism comes into question, well not always, especially not if you are a “professional” working on a government contract, but that is another story. The point I am making is that the standards by which a professional sets out their stall are surely just the common sense of best practice. Admittedly there can be years of specialist learning and knowledge acquisition, for example knowing how to design a building and thus becoming an architect, but even such knowledge could in the future be reduced to a slider or a press screen selection.
“What type of building do you want? Four storeys, luxury accommodation units, underfloor heating, snazzy glass fronted iconic design? Press the screen here and use the slider to obtain the look you need then press print for the architectural drawings.”
Far fetched? I think not, I think not because there is a shift in global economics which is completely in tune with the incoming Human Global Identity, the new global culture. Take Facebook as an example. Where does the money go, it goes to the coders. The fastest ever growth business in the history of commerce, from bedroom to multi billionaire in seven years. When the “professional photographers” loose part of their revenue then where does that cash go to? Well it goes to the coders who build the software so the amateur in the street can look at a slider and choose fuzzy or clear! And if there is a more restrictive inaccessible exclusive language than computer code then it can only be Linear B or Whale Song.
The computer coders are the new emergent global professional class and their standards are actually more professional and more ruthless than anything that has gone before. The language, the code, has to work, it has to be clean and it has to be efficient, if the language you write fails any of those tests then you are not a professional coder. But where is there another profession where an impenetrable language alone excludes the public from democratic access?
The answer is of course the legal profession. This is the one profession where we are unlikely to get the slider option “Truth or Law”. The language of the police, lawyers, barristers, judges and ultimately politicians is the only real value asset they hold. This language can be and is used to define the lives of ordinary people all over the world both at domestic and international level. This language is in itself the language of a mythology, the mythology of law.
If ever there was a profession which needed to be replaced by digital code with a binary decision made on the basis of evidence, all evidence, then the legal profession has to be the pre-eminent candidate. Let’s look at the recent case of Simon Hall in the UK.
Simon is in prison for a murder the overwhelming bulk of the evidence indicates he did not commit. The problem is that he was not convicted on the overwhelming bulk of the evidence but on one specific very debatable element; fibre evidence. To give you an idea of exactly how unreliable that evidence is you only have to understand two facts, firstly that other legal jurisdictions will not allow a conviction on fibre evidence alone and, secondly, Simon is the first person in British legal history to be convicted on fibre evidence alone. Simon has also had his appeal turned down by the Appeal Court and here is the professional language of that decision:
In today’s judgement, the Court of Appeal said: ‘Upon the evidence presented to this court we conclude that Mr Coyle’s [an expert called in to challenge the original fibre evidence] evidence does not give rise to any ground for allowing the appeal.
‘While we have concluded that the fibre evidence given at trial was incomplete in its description and analysis of the available source material, and in its identification of green polyester fibres, wrong, we are quite satisfied that the scientific support for the assertion that the appellant was the source of the fibres found at the crime scene is compelling.
‘We have no reason to doubt the safety of the jury’s verdict and the appeal is dismissed.’
source
So Simon Hall remains in jail, despite the evidence which convicted him being flawed as admitted in this Court of Appeal judgement, because the judges find it compelling!
And the professional language of the police? Well this is what they said:
A spokesman for Suffolk police said: ‘Joan Albert was found dead at her home in Capel St Mary on December 16, 2001.
‘After an extensive investigation involving a team of more than 20 detectives, Hall was arrested, charged and subsequently convicted of Mrs Albert’s murder in February, 2003.
‘The Court of Appeal has today upheld that conviction, demonstrating that our investigation was both thorough and sound.’
source
So twenty detectives obtain a conviction based on one piece of highly dodgy evidence and ignore a whole mass of evidence which shows that other people were involved in the murder, other people who remain free in the community, and that is a “thorough and sound” investigation.
Are you beginning to get the picture now?
Click on video below to hear language everyone can understand.
Dr Michael Naughton, our own digital slider.
see more
Are you fuzzy or clear on the case of Simon Hall? The professionals, at the expense of millions of pounds of tax payers money, say that Simon Hall is guilty. Does it look like it to you? Are they speaking your language? What is the picture here? Has someone been framed by the professionals? Are you fuzzy or clear on this?
“Being a professional in the true sense means to do an excellent job, to be able to provide the service you say you are going to provide for the cost you have quoted and in the time frame you have offered. Deviate from any of these standards and your professionalism comes into question, well not always, especially not if you are a “professional” working on a government contract, but that is another story.”
Felix Columbidae 2011
Article Source:
Lofty Matters: Professionalism and the Panasonic GF2