Sunday, March 11, 2012

Me vs technology - the camera edition

I'm not opposed to technology, but I seem to have missed the computer/TV/anything mechanical training everyone else in Gen X received.  This is a big reason why I use Blogger instead of Wordpress or another fancy application that would allow me to share every thought that crosses my mind.  I can barely handle Blogger as it is - it took me hours of painstaking toggling between a tutorial screen and some photo editing thing to make a button for my blog.  Bulleted lists hate me and sometimes I don't use images in my posts because it's just too exhausting to try and make them look the same (ie not microscopic or the size of the entire screen) on my blog as they did wherever I found them. 

My latest display of technogical incompetence involves my digital camera, which I detest.  In the good old days, a camera cost $50, plus the cost of double AA batteries, film and development.  When the bride was walking down the aisle, you aimed the camera at her, pressed the button and took the picture.  Easy-peasy.

One horrible day, I could no longer find my $50 camera, or in fact any camera under $200.  The world had gone digital, upgrading me to:

-a camera that costs at least $200 and dies after taking 5 pictures, unless you buy a camera that costs at least $300 and then pay an extra $80 for a battery and a further $40+ for a memory card.  So now I'm up to approximately $400 for the ability to take 24 pictures in a row, something that used to cost $50.

-a camera that behaves like a sullen teenager whenever you press the photo button and moseys on through red eye, facial recognition, lighting, zoom and whatever the fuck else it can think of, before finally getting around to taking a blurry picture of the end of the bride's train or the blank space where my toddler/cat/Elvis Stojko's quadruple axel was 60 seconds before, when I actually pressed the button.

-12 hours (seriously) spent uploading 380 photos to a printing service, and then a further 5 hours spent going through every photo and re-cropping it, because apparently digital cameras use a default 4:3 aspect ratio (blah blah gibberish blah blah).  Which makes total sense given most people print their photos as 4x3, rather than 4x6.

I have no idea where to find the aspect ratio thing or how to fix it, and I'm afraid to try.  I've also been advised that if I want the camera to actually take pictures when I press the button, I need to spend at least $600 for a camera the size of my head and then press the button with a specifically timed amount of pressure, and only then will the camera consider immediately taking a clear picture.  Maybe.  If I don't screw up the pressure thing.

Here's how I feel about my digital camera and the rest of the technological improvements that come out every year...and by the way, this isn't in HD.  Deal with it.


RIP Kodak 35mm.  You were basic, but you got the job done and I never wanted to beat you with a bat.

2 comments:

  1. You mean there's something better than Blogger?
    Uh, oh.
    WTF is 'aspect ratio'?
    I would so want to that to my copier at work. But, then how would I Xerox my butt?
    I remember those little cubes on Kodak cameras. One picture, you were done. But, they were fun to throw at my little brother (when we were out of cubes, we just threw the camera).
    No, seriously, WTF is 'aspect ratio'?
    Oh, what the hell do I know? I bought a Beta VCR. It came with a porn tape, though. And some movie called "Red Sonja."
    Wore that tape out.
    YOU know the one I mean.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gah, I also have issues with cameras. It seems like whatever camera I buy, even though it says it has special features like making the thing you want to focus on clear and everything else kind of fuzzy or something like that, it never works for me. And I'm not the best photographer in the first place. So usually I just mooch pictures of my kids out of my mother-in-law. She's pretty good with a camera.

    ReplyDelete

Lend me some sugar!