Camera Restricta Comments Best-OfNOV 15, 2015
Here’s a list of my 112 favorite internet comments on Camera Restricta.
You can use the buttons below to see only people who ...
Just realize that the reason those photos mean something to you is because they are a reminder of your trip to see the real object. Everyone who wasn't there just sees another random picture of the eiffel tower. This is also why photos of your latte are boring. No one really cares because they aren't drinking the latte. Many of the people seeing the image will never even go to the place where the latte was sold. Or why people who don't know you don't really find the coloring book pages your kid did fascinating most of the time.
Consider sharing fewer images to everyone on the entire internet and sharing more directly with the people you know will appreciate them. Or just keeping them for yourself.
Also, it may prevent taking more creative shots like composing the Eiffel as my towering dick. Fail.
Ob all der Kommentatoren kann man nicht behaupten, daß aktuelle Kunst nicht mehr in der Lage ist, zu provozieren!
Hey Mami machst du mal ein Foto von mir vor dem Eifelturm?Ja, natürlich. Das lege ich dann zu den Backups mit den anderen 200.000 Bildern (300 von dir und dem Strand in Bali), die ich mir auch nie wieder ansehen werde.
Beim Knipsen - vor allem mit Digitalkameras oder Smartphones - geht es nicht darum, einen Fotowettbewerb zu gewinnen. Man drückt einfach auf den Auslöser und reichert sein Fotoarchiv an.
Ich finde es toll. Es lässt mich mal darüber nachdenken und zeigt mir, dass sogar so junge Menschen in der Lage sind, über irgend etwas mal nachzudenken. Ich würde so eine Kamera jedem japanischen Touristen schenken wollen. :-)
Ich wohne gegenüber von einem Wahrzeichen der Stadt. Ich sehe jeeeeden verdammten tag und jede nacht irgend einen vogel, der sein stativ aufbaut und 10000 Fotos macht. Dass man das als Tourist macht ist klar. Aber wenn die Kamera dann wenigstens eine Sprachausgabe hätte: "Dieses Motiv gibt es ... 340 032 mal in der Datenbank. Suchen Sie alternative Motive, Sie Langweiler"....das wäre cool.
Ein Pflichtupdate für die Blitzer am Strassenrand.
ONE SMALL STEP AWAY FROM BRILLIANCE! As I do the tourist thing, and try to photo the Eiffel Tower, it SELECTS the best shot of the Tower from its database & saves it instead. When I return home, I have the best possible shot(s) of all the popular sights I've been to. No hassle, no "poor light conditions" no poor overlook, it's perfect! So, just one more small step to be added (not merely refuse to click.)
Schmitt, that name is over used, hence the obsession
There are a lot of people here posting things like "this is a stupid idea," and those posters may be missing the motivation behind the idea. Schmitt didn't build this thing as a product that he wants to sell. He built it as a proof-of-concept warning about products that may exist in the future, enabled by current technology.
I think this article was pretty clear about that, but look up Schmitt's website for more details. The idea and execution are pretty brilliant; even though this is a product nobody will want, it's a product that in some societies may be imposed to varying degrees.
Though we may cringe at yet another photo of the Western American painted canyons or the London Eye (assuming they haven't already forbidden shots of that) someone always finds a way of showing things in a new light.
China will love it.
This measures 100 megakardashians on the stupid meter.
I think for stock, commercial and creative photography this is a good thing. It can help protect against copyrighted material as mentioned. For a photographer looking for more original material it forces them out of the usual area people march in. If a person is in an unfamiliar area this camera would be a great assistive tool.
For the average joe just wanting some photos probably not as useful.
Only a European brain could dream up something this daffy. From the look of the that God-awful contraption, and the word "NEIN" shown on the "screen" -- I would have to venture to guess a German brain?
Danke, aber NEIN.
What happens if one person takes 1000 pictures in one spot, they gets all rights to that spot? I could murder someone at a landmark and there would be no evidence and no crime scene investigation?
It's an experiment exploring photography in an authoritarian, photo-restricted world; one that is frighteningly closer than we would like to think. Several countries already ban photographing "copyright protected" landmarks.
The accompanying video is a demonstration of the frustration of someone attempting to take pictures in this restricted world. It's wonderfully understated and ironic.
Absolutely brilliant project. Great vision and extremely well executed - the red cross, the Geiger counter, the retracting shutter button, and the fact it takes into account the pictures the device itself takes.
And if you don't get the point about firmware manipulation by outside authorities, I hope it'll never be your loss.
The concept is interesting but I agree with many of the comments here, a serious photographer would find it's use totally ridiculous, disconnecting the picture taking function away from the photographer nuts…
However – some public skyline scenes are protected by copyright for commercial use. The concept of this invention could be utilized for identifying these copyright sense and at the very least informing the photographer that 'property release form' would be required if they intend to use the shot for commercial purposes.
Personally - who cares if a scene has been over photographed – its the creativity of the photographer and what they do with the visible light makes a repetitive scene unique, not an image tag hidden on online metadata.
I can see how governments might want to restrict photography in certain locations and there could be a way to force manufacturers to include this technology in camera firmware - of course this would be a dystopian nightmare of sorts, but I must confess; last time I was at the Eiffel Tower (just one example), I couldn't understand why so many people just wanted to photograph the same thing over and over again. Pretty much every angle, every inch of girder, every rivet of that thing must have been photographed a gazillion times in all lighting conditions and it's all online if you want to see it.
The one photo I took was of a discarded Eiffel Tower-branded coffee cup, visible through the translucent bag of a litter bin. It summed up how being there made me feel ;-)
Has anybody noticed it says 'NEIN' for no and YES for ...yes. Typical German sense of humor....or the lack of....
Hmmm, 4 weeks worth of holidays, and no image on my card. Damn, what went wrong?
So you stand in Denali, Alaska, just about to take a picture of the gorgeous northern lights, where a lynx wanders into the frame. You have the right setting, exposure, and all, press the button, and... that red X tell too many people have snapped at the rocks behind. Great concept!
Ah, that's why there's no reception in Denali :)
The punishment scale needs to climb.
Blonde in a bikini or sunset? - 240 volts.
Taj Mahal or Mt Rushmore? - the viewfinder pokes you in the eye. Along with 240 volts.
Cat being a cat or selfie being self? - the camera explodes in your face, plays "Wish you were here" and cremates you simultaneously.
Just wait until North Korea gets hold of this.
seems like, sounds like, and likely, paranoia
In Heidelberg there are medallions set into the side walks intended to mark the perfect place to stand when photographing points of interest. It's interesting to think that so many people have nearly identical pictures. And I recall in the 1970's you could buy color slides of the Grand Canyon or the upper and lower falls in Yellowstone. I suppose if Google takes enough pictures, including pictures taken every few feet along well known trails through National Parks, you wouldn't even need a camera. Just conduct a search to find a picture of the very scene before you. Forget your camera? No problem, Google it later.
He should market this in North Korea.....they will love him.
from an artist perspective and as an art object and project it's well made, from a photographic standpoint..it's quite underexposed
Photos Interruptus must be frustrating.
No, it's not going to be sold. But you can bet your ass that in a few decades every image-taking device will have the 'photography prohibited here' feature built-in and impossible to disable.
I've taken so many photos over the years of the same things where I live that it wouldn't let me take anything ever again.
We keep getting pictures of my Mother in Law sent to us via email from overseas. My other half doesn't mind but I might be interested in one of these.
Great fun! A highly intelligent performance commenting on the social practice of photography today. As the comments here show, there is hardly any appreciation for this kind of thing on a site like this. Relax people, don't take your addiction too seriously.
Makes totally sense. And if the location is blocked, the camera offers you to download an already taken picture instead. And of course you can download a software to fit in the heads of your friends you wanted to photograph...
Everything has been photographed--except by me
In sum, the fallacy behind this camera is that it assumes photography is for the consumption of others. A photograph often is for the photographer's enjoyment.
[...] Die Restricta ist eine Strafe.
Und was ist, wenn ich das Motiv dieses komischen beleuchteten Baugerüsts bei Nacht künstlerisch bearbeite? Das Copyright in dieser Auslegungsstrenge ist antiquiert und gehört überarbeitet bzw. abgeschafft. Wird etwas nicht-kommerziell veröffentlicht, MUSS es legalisiert werden.
Noch nie hat sich an einem vielbesuchten und vielgeknippsten Ort etwas abgespielt was die Welt bewegte... Jedenfalls wohl nicht in dem hinterwäldlerischen Provinznest aus dem diese Idee stammt - wohl aber unter dem Eifelturm oder auf dem Platz des himmlischen Friedens oder auch dem Roten Platz oder an jedem Ort an dem viel fotografiert wird!
Das ist wohl mehr Neid des Entwicklers nie aus seinem Provinznest weggekommen zu sein um besagte Orte selbst knippsen zu können...
Stell dir vor, du bist einmal in deinem Leben auf Urlaub im amerikanischen Westen, stehst vor dem unbeschreiblichen Grand Canyon, und deine Kamera weigert sich, auszulösen, nur, weil Millionen Touristen vor dir schon an gleicher Stelle auf den Auslöser gedrückt haben.
So schnell wäre bei mir noch keine Kamera in die Schlucht geflogen...
So if aliens land in a well photograped place you will not get the best pay out shot of all time.
So what if I am at a popular spot and aliens land in front of it...to have lunch with a Sasquatch. I'm not going to be able to take a pic because my camera says there are too many pics already!? Yes, sign me up
The point of photography is about capturing the moment that the photographer finds themselves in or the moment they are able to create... Sometimes that means taking a picture a million other people have taken (because that is your moment) and other times it's to transport others to that moment...
As an "art" and technology project this concept is both interesting and terrifying.
This was a big eye opener for me when we filmed with Elia Locardi. Every image we took had already been taken before. That was depressing to me but it's simply the nature of the internet and that genre of photography. Even if you find a new amazing place someone else will copy it as soon as you start sharing it.
The same thing is true of photographic and lighting techniques...We all want to shoot like Hurley or cinematicly like what's his name or what ever - The basic opening assertion of the article "Photography as an art form is all about creating something unique and original" is obviously quite flawed. Photography is a derivative art form - Not original, it always starts as a copy of something.
I also find this somewhat depressing, but I get even more depressed when I see yet another shot of Half Dome or [insert overexposed place] winning a major photo contest. I guess that is also the nature of the Internet.
There is a "3-mile" rule for landscape icons. A location can't become iconic (Botany Bay, tunnel view, glacier point, oxbow bend, Horseshoe Bend, Cannon Beach, Delicate Arch, Mesa Arch, Slot Canyons, etc) if its more than three miles from a parking lot. That distance is simply to far for people to walk in mass, and that mass of people is how a location becomes overrun/popular/iconic.
In the end, I think that the deluge of similar imagery on the internet has been a good thing because it's forced people to realize how little professional value there is in it. There is personal value in taking the same picture that others have taken before, but the illusion of professionalism may be finally starting to come to an end.
I fly to Iceland Thursday. I'm 1000% sure I'll take most of the same pics other guys have and that is AWESOME. It's awesome because I haven't shot these photos. I want to see these sites and, being a photographer, i'm obviously going to take photos while I'm there. The earth is only so big and, given the advances in modern travel, we can cover almost all of it. Sooooooo, shoot what makes YOU happy and let everyone else worry about the things that don't matter.
Totally my thought on this as well. To many of us, it's not always about trailblazing. It's about getting the opportunity to make an iconic photo for ourselves. There's a sense of pride in making a great postcard image, if even just to prove to yourself that you can do it.
Just imagine no musician would be able to play a Mozart sonata or a Beethoven symphony or even a Beatles song, because so many have done already and a lot surely have done it better than this musician may ever be able to. This is a ridiculous thought. So why shouldn't thousands of photographers try to make THEIR OWN interpretation of any given subject out there. Thats the concept of photography in my eyes. It's what you make out of it, what makes you smile when you look at it, no matter how many others have done before. If others like your interpretation also, fine. If they don't, so what? You still were there, did what you liked the most and shot what you felt you had to shoot. And you have the memories of making that peculiar shot, something you could never get from viewing someone elses pics, no matter how good they are.
I think the key is finding something new to "say" while shooting the iconic landmark. Showing up and shooting the same shot everyone else has but from a slightly different angle is never going to be all that impressive but if you show up and take a picture of something that has been photographed a billion times already in a way that is completely new that is really impressive!
Oh dear. Fascinating that this person actually thinks that there could be someone who would actually buy into this -- please, computer in the sky, tell me what pictures I may take today. Very Soviet. #facepalm.
The question should be "should photographers avoid SHARING the same famous places". Yes, it can be tedious to see the same landmarks over and over again on social media. (Yes, I'm as guilty as anyone of sharing photos of the Eiffel Tower) -- :) But it can be a great learning experience - you can try to shoot the landmark in your own way to help develop your voice and style, or you can try to copy an existing photo. One of my favorite exercises in my photography classes was to try to copy an existing photo - it was a great way to learn about light, focal length, POV etc.
Love this concept. We take so many pictures with digital and then we hardly ever look at them. Is my photo of the Eiffel tower much different than millions that have been taken before? Why do we feel the need to document a building or a place? Who will look at these photos when we're dead? We're collecting a bunch of mediocre photos of landmarks. I'm with you with the selfie stick, most annoying tool ever.
If they add a compass you could have copyrighted building detection to prevent you from shooting unless you pay a fee. Available only if there is no panorama freedom in the country.
HA! I love the "Yes" and then the "Nein." It's so perfect!
Die Funktion sollte 15 cm hinter dem Sucher sein :-)
Schickes Ding ;-)
Liegt sicherlich satt in der Hand und hat ne tolle Haptik.
Und Geräusche macht es auch.
Oben ein Türmchen, oder Fahnenmast
Echter Lederriemen wie man sieht.
Das wird ein Sammlerstück
Camera Restricta - what kind of fascist shit is this?
The headline ... on ChangStar
No, everyone! Stop! Its an art school project!! By us discussing the very issues he is being intentionally haphazard with (censorship, free expression, free thought, people who take shitty photos), WE ARE HELPING AN ART STUDENT WIN. He will cite this thread and say "see I made discussion happen!"
This is a lazy project, and the use of the word "nein" where everything else is English is essentially pandering to the nazi-fear impulse. Not on my watch! GET A JOB, HIPSTER.
Yeah, this is an art school project. poo I can smell 'em a mile away - my daughter spent six ruinously-expensive, poodle-pumping years in art school before she woke up and entered the real world. The whole point of most of these projects is to get a rise out of old bastards like us. It's just another form of whoopee cushion. Ignore.
This is actually hilarious. Quite an inspired sendup of the hyper-paternalistic mindset that crops up from time to time in the EU.
You'd have to be a top arsehole to want one of these. The only positive thing I can say about it is that it looks heavy, so at least you could smash any pretentious twats you saw with one right over the head with it.
I only get one close up pic of my ass hole!?!?! Unacceptable.
Perfect for my dad. He literally takes hundreds of pictures of the same people.
I just wanted to cheer you as I do like your idea. However, I do believe that a commercial blockbuster would require, in fact, the exact OPPOSITE algorithm. In common life, people use to confound art and beauty with canon and dogma. They like what other people like: "beauty" is repetition, and repetition is a form of ethical relief which people love to perform. In fact, we are conservative when it comes to our canons. On the other hand, real innovators dislike to validate their idea through an algorithm.
This gets an A for quality agit-prop art in my mind; I immediately started coming up with objections as if I was actually going to be using one. My first was "what if I want people I know in my photos?" My second thought was "You could just include a highly rated photo someone else took in your photo roll," followed by "But what about licensing?"
We could also imagine Camera Commons: distributed by EFF and Google and Yahoo, and encourages you to take photos places that have no CC-licensed photography that rates highly on flickr, but all your images are CC0 licensed. The better your average rating, the more frequently they send you new models.
The camera could take his one stage further - when you pick the camera up in a well-photographed location, it just downloads the most popular shot from there. This would save you the effort of framing your shot entirely, and you'd always end up with a perfect picture :)
For a less absurdist but similar idea, it would actually be really neat to have a tool that can take a group of your photos and match them with one popular CC-licensed one that adds more context to the scene.
e.g. you and your friends at the base of the Eiffel Tower, and the album automatically has a suitably well-framed picture of the landmark as a whole added as a backdrop, that kind of thing.
Why is everyone missing the point? Yea sure this doesn't accurately determine whether a picture is original. Of course it's not practical. Of course you would not buy this. That isn't the point. This project is itself art.
Somewhat pertinent on Camera/Art/Tech/Internet projects:
A camera that prints out a description of the scene captured.
It's art, but is it /good/ art? Its intent is to draw attention to some rather crappy laws being proposed and/or implemented, but the project's implementation instead brings discussion as to how even items photographed thousands or millions of times can show new facets based on one photographer. Is the banal art? This project would have been better had it used much more digital processing to censor a random person, a random building, etc. That would have led to a much better discussion on the issue of copyrighting buildings.
I enjoyed the idea, particularly around the observation that thousands of people are photographing the same statue when you can just look up a much better picture on the internet. I saw the censorship angle as a sidenote, and a warning that tools developed for one purpose (in this case the retractable button) can be re-purposed as tools for oppression. It's better art than most. I don't see the need to be hypercritical of it.
Agree. I solve this problem not with technological barriers, but by going to places that tourists don't go. In fact I often look at the Lonely Planet maps, cross off everything mentioned, and then go to the remaining parts of the map, assuming it's a safe area.
Imagine a polaroid camera that shreds the picture if it's deemed not original enough :)
– pietherr on Hacker News
Many social platforms exist because of the power of their restrictions (twitter, snapchat, etc). I wouldn't be surprised to see this trend spread to rest of technology. I don't want technology that can make me anyone/anything; I want technology that will help me to be exactly who I want to be, and nothing else.
PS : I am not trying to add destructive comments here.But imagine going on a 20k vacation with a 5k camera being told you are not allowed to click a picture.
shade23 on Hacker News
I think this is an awesome attistic statement, especially going the extra mile to build the camera. People might actually use this if it was an iPhone app. "400 people took photos of sushi in this location, proceed?". That would be really kind of a funny way to limit shitty photographs.
Its not even presented as a product for sale. Its just a project for the sake of discussion. Look at the discussion it inspired in this thread. Its art in and of itself.
why should you buy it? Because it's a work of art, and not a consumer device, mainly. Because it doesn't make logical sense. It works as art and has value because it creates the things that we are talking about in this thread.
This reminds me of the wider-angle tourist shot of all the dozens of people taking the same "Look, I'm holding up the Leaning Tower of Pisa!" pictures at the same time. While that is certainly ridiculous, and this camera would prevent it, I am not a fan of buying tools that restrict how I may use them. You would have to pay me to use it. I think a better way to accomplish a similar goal would be for the camera to give you a score for your photos. Zero points for duplicate photos. Lots of points for a photo that has never been taken before. Give out prizes and badges to the people who top the leaderboards. But no, if I see "photography prohibited" on my camera, it's getting pwned and patched, or it's going in the trash.
But how am I going to get that picture of my son balancing the Washington Monument on top of his head?
Yeah, thanks, but I don't need my camera to be an elitist snob. Sometimes lots of people take pictures at a place because the place is fucking gorgeous.
People have constantly misunderstood photography, since its inception, and they still do it seems. Photography doesn't capture images of places, it creates them. Two photographs of the same place can look entirely different, being made with different camera position, ISO, time of day or source of illumination, and many other things; likewise, two photographs of different places can look virtually identical. For that reason, this seems rather bizarre; like, what's the point exactly, besides taking on a gratuitous constraint?
This 'camera restricta' thing seems like a lazy idea wrapped up in a dumb idea.
Apologies to Philipp Schmitt, who is not, himself, being called dumb or lazy.
Just seems like bad interaction design, "You can't do something you thought you could! Sorry! Thanks for buying our product!" Frustrating, and negative -- it prevents certain behaviors, but does nothing to encourage the behaviors you actually (presumably) want, i.e., photographing stuff that hasn't already been done to death.
The version of this concept that would actually require some brains to do would be the one that encourages creative photography, rather than just frustrating already-done photography. (And, which, btw, who says a photo taken in the vicinity of other photos can't be original?)
Man, I actually think this is a GREAT idea. (Not the censorship part. That's problematic. But still: hear me out.) Go to some picturesque place some time: it's filled with people holding up their goddamned phones to get a pic. Every time I see that it bugs the shit out of me: do you really think you're going to get a shot on your fucking Samsung that's better that the gazillion pics of the same damn thing already on the internet?
The whole point of photographing a place is to have a memory of it. But what's the memory if you're just viewing it through the phone? Put the camera away. Be there. Be at the place, in the moment. You want to remember it later? Find pics of that place on the internet. You need pics of you or your kid or your dog at the place? Do you really? Why? Have you forgotten what they look like? Or do you think you need proof that they were there, like someone is going to call you out about it? "PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN" I guess if there's some unique element to it (I was at Old Faithful and ran into Bill Murray) then fine. But otherwise, put the damn camera down.
The whole point of photographing a place is to have a memory of it. But what's the memory if you're just viewing it through the phone? Put the camera away. Be there.
I'll second XKCD's take. Taking a picture doesn't prevent me from being there in that place, at that moment. In fact, most of the time it makes me feel more appreciative of it, for having spent the time to search for a visual representation that, for me, reminds me of the presence of that space. Plus, after I've taken a few photos, I can still turn the camera off and just sit and enjoy the view to my heart's content.
Moreso than banning cliched snaps I think the point is to get us thinking about how we are allowing intermediaries control of what we photograph. Anyone fancy a camera which doesn't function in a free-speech zone or if a police badge is visible? Because that's something we might one day be looking at.
Lucy: That's literally the dumbest thing I ever heard.
Vitruvius: Please, Wyldstyle, let me handle this. That idea is just the worst.
Now if they can build a camera that doesn't do selfies, all would be right with the world. Most (if not all) "selfies" are taken with cell phones. It's the forward-facing camera that's the work of the devil.
What an absolutely stupid invention! He should have spent his time making something more useful.Why don't you go and invent some shut up?
Well, it's a "conceptual project". It's more a commentary on how we humans document ourselves and our lives than an actual "this is the product of the future". As a product it is kind of stupid yes. As a critic on ourselves it's actually pretty cool. It gives you the opportunity to find new places, to not to be generic. It's like the concept of exploring a city without a map or without a preconceived plan to visit the known landmarks. It's a great opportunity to find cool spots, to wander around.
Actually, I think this would be a great tool to teach some aspects of photography to students or enthusiasts. Because people always tend to go to the obvious choice. "Oh, it's the eiffel tower, that'll make a great photo for sure." Discovering beauty in the non obvious things is the hardest.
When I saw this post I remembered a video which many of you may have seen, it shows how we all take the same photographs over and over again. And come on, don´t deny it, you have done it too. Link
We don´t like being told what we think is not special. But fact is, it rarely is. Being creative is not an easy process because it forces you to be hard on yourself, constantly critiquing your own ideas, images, and work.
The way I see it, this is a tool to help in that process, this camera is exercise for your inner photographer, the one that at some point dreamed of capturing a truly unique image. Restrictions are many times the means to do great things, and what a greater thing for a photographer than to force himself to view the world in a different way.
I for once, would love this camera!!
You could always put a tinfoil hat on the thing and mess up its GPS and internet connection. The only question at that point — is the “disable” opt-in or opt-out? I mean, image for a moment if, by default, the camera wouldn’t take a photo at all — it had to get permission. Then imagine all of the places that would make it useless.
I didn’t like this idea from the start. The more I think about it, the stupider and less practical, even less possible it seems.
I think there should be an option that will let you take the picture, but a small hand would emerge from the side of the camera and slap you.