Having more ambition in photography often translates into developing some specializations: becoming expert in some topic, developing a unique and personal style. On the other hand, if there are no professional ambitions or pressures in one’s photography hobby, one can just continue diversifying: having fun in creative experimentation and testing one’s hand and eye in multiple different topics and styles.
My photobook experiment, Spring 2020.
While the latter path can have a certain vague and drifting effect on one’s photography, there are also the positives: total creative freedom, constant possibility for new directions, and the sense of discovery.
Tiny spider (macro photograph, (c) Frans Mäyrä, 9/5/2020)
My own experiments during the past month alone have included some insect and macro photography, testing the design and curation for a hardback photobook of my own, bird photography, black and white landscapes and nature photos. And it has been definitely fun, and this free-roaming style of hobby has also the benefit of being easy to adapt within changing conditions, such as the pandemic restrictions of this Spring.
Winter plant telephoto (c) Frans Mäyrä, 26/2/2020.
My mirrorless Canon EOS M50, with a 50 mm EF lens, and a “speed booster” style mount Viltrox adapter.
It has been interesting to follow how since last year, there has been several articles published that discuss the “mirrorless camera hype”, and put forward various kinds of criticism of either this technology, or related camera industry strategies. One repeated criticism is rooted to the fact that many professional (and enthusiast) photographers still find a typical DSLR camera body to work better for their needs than a mirrorless one. There are at least three main differences: a mirrorless interchangeable camera body is typically smaller than a DSLR, the battery life is weaker, and the image from an electronic viewfinder and/or LCD back screen offers a less realistic image than a traditional optical viewfinder in a (D)SLR camera.
The industry critiques appear to be focused on worries that as the digital camera market as a whole is going down, the big companies like Canon and Nikon are directing their product development resources for putting out mirrorless camera bodies with new lens mounts, and new lenses for these systems, rather than evolving their existing product lines in DSLR markets. Many seem to think that this is bad business sense, since large populations of professionals and photography enthusiasts are deeply invested in these more traditional ecosystems, and lack of progress in them means that there is not enough incentive to upgrade and invest, for all of those who remain in those parts of the market.
There might be some truth in both lines of argumentation – yet, they are also not the whole story. It is true that Sony, with their α7, α7R and α7S lines of cameras have stolen much of the momentum that could had been strong for Canon and Nikon, if they would had invested into mirrorless technologies earlier. Currently, the full frame systems like Canon EOS R, or Nikon Z6 & Z7, are apparently not selling very strongly. In early May of this year, for example, it was publicised how Sony α7 III sold more units in Japan at least than the Canon and Nikon full frame mirrorless systems combined (see: https://www.dpreview.com/news/3587145682/sony-a7-iii-sales-beat-combined-efforts-of-canon-and-nikon-in-japan ). Some are ready to declare Canon and Nikon’s efforts as dead on arrival, but both companies have claimed to be strategically committed into their new mirrorless systems, developing and launching lenses that are necessary for their future growth. Overall though, both Canon and Nikon are producing and selling much more digital cameras than Sony, even while their sales numbers have been declining (in Japan at least, Fujifilm was interestingly the big winner in year-over-year analysis; see: https://www.canonrumors.com/latest-sales-data-shows-canon-maintains-big-marketshare-lead-in-japan-for-the-year/ ).
From a photographer perspective, the first mentioned concerns might be the more crucial than the business ones, though. Are mirrorless cameras actually worse than comparable DSLR cameras?
There is the curious quality when you move from a large (D)SLR body into using a typical mirrorless: the small camera can feel a bit like a toy, the handling is different, and using the electronic viewfinder and LCD screen can produce flashbacks of compact, point-and-shoot cameras of earlier years. In terms of pure image quality and feature sets, the mirrorless cameras are already equals to DSLRs, and in some areas have arguably moved already beyond most of them. There are multiple reasons for this, and the primary relates to the intimate link there is between the light sensor, image processor and viewfinder in mirrorless cameras. As a photographer you are not looking at a reflection of light coming from the lens through an alternative route into the optical viewfinder – you are looking at the image that is produced from the actual, real-time data that the sensor and image processor are “seeing”. The mechanical construction of mirrorless cameras can be made simpler, and when the mirror is removed, the entire lens system can be moved closer to the image sensor – something that is technically called shorter flange distance. This should allow engineers to design lenses for mirrorless systems that have a large aperture and fast focusing capabilities (you can check out a video, where a Nikon lens engineer explains how this works here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxT17A40d50 ). The physical dimensions of the camera body in itself can be made small or large, as desired. Nikon Z series cameras are rather sizable, with a conventional “pro camera” style grip (handle); my Canon EOS M50 is diminutive, from the other extreme.
I think that the development of cameras with ever more stronger processors and their machine learning and algorithm-based novel capabilities will push the general direction of photography technology towards various mirrorless systems. Said that, I completely understand the benefits of more traditional DSLRs and why they might feel superior for many photographers at the moment. There has been some rumours (in the Canon space at least, which I am personally mostly following) that new DSLR camera bodies will be released into the upper-enthusiast APS-C / semi-professional DSLR category (search e.g. for “EOS 90D” rumours), so I think that DSLR cameras are by no means dead. There are many ways in which the latest camera technologies can be implemented into mirror-bodies, as well as into the mirrorless ones. The big strategic question of course is that how many different mount and lens ecosystems can be maintained and developed simultaneously. If some of the current mounts will stop getting lenses in the near future, there is at least a market for adapter manufacturers.
SKR Pirkanmaan rahasto, vuosijuhla 10.5.2019 Juhlapuhe, Frans Mäyrä
Mitä leikki on?
Googlen haku vastaa: leikki on lapsen työtä.
Toisaalta, ja ehkä mielenkiintoisemmin, hakuikkunaan täydentyy myös: ”Leikki on totta”, ja: ”Leikki on tutkimisen korkein muoto”. Nämä toisaalta Albert Einsteiniin, toisaalta leikkikasvatukseen viittaavat ilmaukset kertovat leikin suosiosta ja iäti säilyvistä, laajoista merkityksistä. Leikki liitetään arkiajattelussa erityisesti lapsiin, ja leikkikenttineen sekä leikkivälineineen leikin kulttuurinen paikka on erityisesti lasten luona. Lapselle leikki on totta – tai, lapsille leikin erityinen todellisuus on tuttua. Leikin asemaa laajemmin kulttuurin ja yhteiskunnan piirissä voi olla haastavampaa tunnistaa, mutta se ei merkitse sitä, että esimerkiksi aikuisten leikki olisi vähämerkityksellisempää.
”Ei tänne leikkimään olla tultu!”
Leikin arvostamisen vastapoolina kulttuurissa vaikuttavat leikkikielteiset näkemykset. Työ ja leikki asettuvat vastakohdiksi, ja aikuisuutta määrittää kasvu ulos leikki-iästä ja leikillisyydestä. Kypsää aikuisuutta on vakavuus, määrätietoisuus ja tavoiterationaalinen, tehokas toiminta. Tosin tutkijat ovat tuoneet esiin kuinka jopa ankarimman puritaanisen, työkeskeisen kulttuurin piiristä on aina ollut tunnistettavissa myös leikillisyyden, luovuuden ja hauskanpidon muotoja ja hetkiä. Kulttuurin pohjavirettä ovat kuitenkin yleensä verrattain hitaasti muuttuvat arvot, normit ja merkitykset. Länsimaisessa kulttuurielämässä hyödytön leikillisyys on liitetty synnillisyyteen, kun sen sijaan kurinalainen ja kieltäymykseen perustuva, lähes askeettinen työnteko on sävyttynyt eettisesti ja uskonnollisestikin aikuisen kansalaisen hyväksi ja oikeaksi elämänasenteeksi.
Perinteistä suomalaista kulttuuria usein luonnehditaan stereotyyppisin termein sangen jäyhäksi, jopa ilottomaksi. Onneksi meille on säilynyt runsaasti vastakkaista todistusaineistoa. Suosittelen kaikille perehtymistä esimerkiksi Kalevalaseuran vuosikirjaan 61: Pelit ja leikit.
Tämä vuonna 1981 julkaistu, kansanrunousarkiston johtajan Pekka Laaksosen toimittama antologia valottaa suomalaisen kansankulttuurin pelillistä ja leikillistä puolta. Niin säilyneet kirjalliset leikki- ja pelikuvaukset, kuin rikas kuvallinen aineistokin tarjoavat välähdyksiä niihin moniin eri tapoihin, joilla leikillisyys eri muodoissaan oli punoutunut osaksi niin aikuisten kuin lastenkin elämää – myös suomalaisten heimojen kansankulttuurissa. Piiritanssit ja rinkileikit, arvoitukset ja sanaleikit, laululeikit, perinteiset urheilumuodot ja voimannäytöt, ennustaminen ja vedonlyönti, vitsit ja kepposet, nuket, kaarnaveneet, pikkuautot, pallot ja kuulat – vaikuttaa siltä, että menneiden vuosisatojen ihmisten energiaa ja kekseliäisyyttä on riittänyt runsaasti pelkän hengissä selviämisen yli ja ulkopuolelle.
Leikki kulttuurin kulmakivenä
Nykyaikaisen peli- ja leikkikulttuuritutkimuksen uranuurtaja, hollantilainen kulttuurihistorioitsija Johan Huizinga esitti vuonna 1938 valmistuneessa Leikkivä ihminen (Homo Ludens) -teoksessaan että kaikessa kulttuurissa on syvälle ulottuva leikkielementti. Taide ja urheilu, teatteri ja uskonnolliset rituaalit ovat Huizingan tulkinnan mukaan leikki-impulssin läpitunkemia, itsetarkoituksellisia ja tietynlaisiin (usein implisiittisiin) sopimuksiin ja sääntöihin pohjaavia ilmiöitä. Peli ja leikki nostetaan erilleen arkisen puurtamisen ja ravinnonhankkimisen todellisuudesta, omaksi ”taikapiirin” tapaan rajatuksi vaihtoehtoiseksi maailmakseen. Pelissä tai leikissä vallitsevat toiset pelisäännöt kuin arkitodellisuudessa. Huizinga väitti, että leikki on ei-vakavaa toimintaa, mutta monet hänen esimerkkinsä osoittivat, että vaikkapa oikeuden istuntoa tai tiettyjä sotanäyttämön rituaalisia muotoja on myöskin mahdollista analysoida leikin tai pelin termein. Ja tällainen ”leikki” voi olla, ja usein onkin, kuoleman vakavaa. On myös esimerkiksi urheilulajeja, joissa toistuvasti tapahtuu jopa kuolemaan johtavia onnettomuuksia. Ne ovat kuitenkin asettuneet kulttuurin osaksi, ja tällaista ”leikkiä omalla hengellä” siis sallitaan.
Amerikkalainen leikkitutkija Brian Sutton-Smith kirjoitti leikin ristiriitaisesta monimielisyydestä, ambiguiteetista. Leikki ja peli voivat olla harmitonta ja rentouttavaa hauskanpitoa, tai äärimmäisen keskittynyttä ja kuolemanvakavaa kamppailua. Kilpailullinen peli voi pönkittää ryhmäidentiteettiä ja ylläpitää raja-aitoja vaikkapa eri kansallisuuksien välillä – ja yhteistoiminnallinen, luova leikki ja peli puolestaan voivat purkaa stressiä ja rohkaista kokeilemaan. Sutton-Smith kuvaa kuinka kulttuurien historiassa pelit ja leikit on puhe- ja ajattelutavoissa liitetty niin yhteisön suuntaa määrääviin kohtalon voimiin, valtapeleihin, sekä yksilön kasvuun ja kehitykseen – kuin toisaalta täysin naurettavaan turhuuteen. Nykypäivän digitaalisten pelien ja leikkien tutkijat ovat samaan tapaan tunnistaneet kuinka peleissä kukoistavat luovuus, energia ja huimat taidonnäytteet; mutta toisaalta digitaalinen pelaaminen voi olla pakonomaista, ilotonta ja jopa sisältää henkiseksi väkivallaksi asti yltyvää kiusantekoa.
Tietoyhteiskunta – vai peliyhteiskunta?
Elämme nykyään yhteiskunnassa, jota – hyvässä ja pahassa – sävyttävät digitaaliset informaatio- ja viestintäteknologiat. Tälle yhteiskunnalle annettiin erityisesti 1990-luvulla ja 2000-luvun alussa erilaisia teknologiakeskeisiä nimityksiä: tietoyhteiskunta, informaatioyhteiskunta, verkostoyhteiskunta. Vähitellen huomio on alkanut kääntyä teknologisesta murroksesta niihin sisällöllisiin ja merkityksellisiin muutoksiin, mitä ihmisten välisissä suhteissa, olemisen ja tietämisen muodoissa on tapahtumassa. Innostuksen jälkeen ovat esiin nousseet kriittiset ja pessimistiset äänenpainot. On siirrytty totuuden jälkeiseen aikaan, missä sosiaalisen median kuplat eristävät ihmisiä toisistaan sekä rohkaisevat vihaa ja tietämättömyyttä levittäviä joukkoliikkeitä. Globaali ympäristökatastrofi uhkaa, mutta eripuran ja valheiden kylvämisellä pakollisia toimia kehityksen suunnan muuttamiseksi jatkuvasti jarrutetaan ja pysäytetään. Vaihtoehtoiset ja optimistiset näkemykset yhteiskunnan tulevaisuudesta ovat harvassa.
Yksi tällainen optimistinen visio viime vuosilta on ajatus siirtymisestä pelilliseen kulttuuriin ja leikilliseen yhteiskuntaan. Tämän ajattelun kehittelijät ovat pelisuunnittelijoita, tutkijoita, taiteilijoita ja harrastajia, jotka ovat kiinnittäneet huomiota niihin myönteisiin mahdollisuuksiin ja voimavaroihin, joita pelillinen ja leikillinen käänne kulttuurissa voisi tuoda mukanaan. Yksi huomio kytkeytyy pelaamisen ja leikkimisen levittäytymiseen: pelejä alkaa olla lähes kaikkialla, ja lähes kaikki pelaavat ja leikkivät. Oman Pelaajabarometri-tutkimuksemme mukaan vähintään kerran kuukaudessa jotain peliä pelaa noin 88 prosenttia suomalaisista. Kun antropologian ja kansatieteen kartoittamat perinteiset pelimuodot voidaan ryhmitellä esimerkiksi onnen- ja taitopelien perusryhmiin, tai ulko-, piha-, kortti- tai lautapelaamisen tyyppisiin klassisiin muotoihin, on digitaalisen teknologian vapauttama pelillisyys kokenut valtaisan kehitysharppauksen. Perustavasti erilaisia pelimuotoja on laskentatavoista riippuen jo kymmeniä, tai satoja, julkaistuja pelejä satoja tuhansia. Suosituimpien pelien virtuaalimaailmoissa on eräiden laskelmien mukaan vietetty yhteensä jo kymmeniä miljardeja tunteja peliaikaa. Kaikki tämä jättää jälkensä: toimintamallit, kyvyt ja valmiudet muuttuvat, neurologisella tasolla tapahtuu muutosta, ihmisten vuorovaikutus ja päivittäinen toimintaympäristö muuttuvat.
Kohti pelillistyvää yhteiskuntaa
Amerikkalainen pelisuunnittelija ja -tutkija Eric Zimmerman on kirjoittanut ”Leikillisen vuosisadan manifestin” (Manifesto for a Ludic Century, 2013). Siinä hän kiinnittää huomiota itseilmaisun, vuorovaikutuksen ja kulttuurin muodoissa tapahtuvaan muutokseen. Hän nostaa esimerkkeinä esiin verkossa reaaliaikaisena liikkuvan kuvan, suurien data-aineistojen ja ohjelmoitavien toiminnallisuuksien kasvavan roolin kirjoitetun sanan ja klassisten teosmuotojen aiemmin hallitsemilla kulttuurin ja yhteiskunnan foorumeilla. ”Elämme systeemien, järjestelmien todellisuudessa”, Zimmerman julistaa. Pelit ovat dynaamisia järjestelmiä, ja monipuolinen ”pelilukutaitoisuus” (Ludic Literacy) on tehokas tapa oppia ymmärtämään monimutkaisten järjestelmien toimintaa. On eri asia vaikkapa lukea hiilen kiertokulusta, kuin osallistua pelilliseen simulaatioon, missä jokainen oma teko aiheuttaa välittömästi koettavia vaikutuksia ja muutoksia ilmakehässä ja luonnon tasapainossa.
Mutta pelilukutaito ei itsessään riitä. Meidän täytyy myös omaksua kirjoitustaidon uusi ulottuvuus: valmiudet suunnitella, muokata ja luoda pelillisiä järjestelmiä itse, ja yhdessä toisten kanssa. Monipuolinen pelianalyyttinen ja kriittiseen pelisuunnitteluun pohjautuva ymmärrys ja tietotaito voivat olla tehokas tapa kohdata ongelmia, kehittää ratkaisumalleja ja muuttaa todellisuutta. Tai kuten toinen pelitutkija-suunnittelija Jane McGonigal on julistanut: todellisuus on rikki – mutta käsittelemällä epäreilua, tehotonta tai tuhoon matkaavaa yhteiskunnallista todellisuutta viallisena pelinä, pystymme aiempaa tehokkaammin tunnistamaan ja muuttamaan sitä hallitsevia, vinoutuneita pelisääntöjä ja toiminnan logiikkoja.
Leikillisen kulttuurin ja pelillisen yhteiskunnan kasvatti on toimelias: hän ei jää kuuntelemaan auktoriteetteja, pänttäämään manuaaleja, vaan hän kokeilee itse. Hyvässä ja pahassa.
Leikki, taide ja kulttuuri
Leikillistyvää kulttuuria halkovat omanlaisensa, perustavat jännitteet. Kuten Sutton-Smith kirjoitti, leikkiä leimaa ambiguiteetti. Jos esimerkiksi palaa tarkastelemaan 1900-luvun modernin ja avantgardistisen taide-elämän leikkielementtejä, tavoittaa helposti vaikkapa dadan, surrealismin ja situationismin kokeilevat traditiot.
Dadaistiset kollaasitekniikat pyrkivät vapauttamaan mielikuvituksen luovia, vapaan assosiatiivisia potentiaaleja silppuamalla ja satunnaisesti yhdistelemällä. Samalla haastettiin auktoriteetteja, kumottiin konventioita ja tehtiin vallankumousta, ainakin ajatuksen tasolla. Dadan perimmäinen anti ja merkitys ei ehkä kuitenkaan kanna kovin kauas, ainakaan jokaisen ihmisen kohdalla. Anarkistinen leikki lakkaa, kun ei enää ole mitään raja-aitoja kaadettavana tai tabuja rikottavana.
Surrealistit myös leikittelivät satunnaisuutta hyödyntävillä ja kollektiivisilla taiteen tekemisen mekanismeilla. Esimerkiksi ketjukirjeen tapaan toteutettavat, ihmisruumiin ja taiteen konventioita haastavat exquisite corpse -kokeilut tai vaikkapa räjähdyksestä tai roiskeesta lähtevä luomistyö eivät ole kaukana nykypäivän algoritmeja ja koneoppimista hyödyntävistä taidesuuntauksista.
Situationistien perintöä tähän päivään voi puolestaan halutessaan seurata vaikkapa Pokémon GO -paikkatietopeliin asti.
Guy Debord ja kumppanit pyrkivät 1950-luvun lopulla taistelemaan kapitalistisen, kuvien ja spektaakkelin yhteiskunnan vieraannuttavia kehityskulkuja vastaan muun muassa ”psykogeografisen tutkimuksen” keinoin. Kaduilla satunnaisesti tai mielivaltaisten sääntöjen mukaan tapahtuva ”ajelehtiminen” (la dérive) tuotti yllättäviä kohtaamisia ja vaihtoehtoista ymmärrystä ihmisten, tilojen ja paikkojen vuorovaikutuksesta. Pokémon GO -peli on omien tutkimustemme mukaan kyennyt monien pelaajien kohdalla samaan tapaan rohkaisemaan peliä pelaavien ihmisten satunnaisia kohtaamisia toistensa, ja arkisen, lähes näkymättömäksi muuttuneen ympäristönsä kanssa.
Leikillisyys ja elämän voimavarat
Leikillinen ja pelillinen kulttuuri ei välttämättä rajaudu arjessamme vain viihteellisten pelien tai avantgardistisen taiteen piiriin. Kyse on laajimmin ymmärrettynä kehityskulusta, missä uudenlaisten pelien asettuminen kulttuurin ilmaisukieleen on yksi ulottuvuus, osallistuvuus, kokeilevuus ja erilaiset pelaamisen muodot toinen. Kulttuurin sisältöjen ja toimintamallien lisäksi kannattaa huomioida kuitenkin myös yleensä näkymättömiin jäävät muutokset arvopohjassa ja ajattelumalleissa. Ehkä leikillisyys, luovuus ja kokeilevuus olisi kaikkialle levittäytyvän pelillisyyden myötä saamassa hieman enemmän hyväksyntää – jopa arvostusta – osakseen? Oma lukunsa on sitten se, missä määrin pelillisyys ja leikillisyys oikeasti pystyvät muuttamaan esimerkiksi yhteiskunnan valtarakenteita, ansaintalogiikkaa, tai ihmisten kykyä sopeutua ja hyväksyä erilaisuutta.
Yksilön ja arjen tasolla persoonallisuuteen liittyvät piirteet ovat tässä suhteessa kiinnittäneet tutkijoiden huomiota. Eräiden määritelmien mukaan leikillisyys persoonallisuuden piirteenä tarkoittaa taipumusta osallistua leikillisiin ja pelillisiin toimintoihin, ja lisäksi kykyä kehystää erilaiset arjessa kohdatut ilmiöt tai tehtävät humoristisella ja luovalla otteella.
Erityisesti vastoinkäymisten ja kovien aikojen kohdalla tämä ulottuvuus leikillisyyttä on kullan arvoinen. Leikillisten taidemuotojen tai pelisuunnittelun mestarien lisäksi kannattaakin nostaa esiin ne kaikki tavalliset ihmiset, jotka jaksavat ylläpitää iloa ja luovuutta päivittäisen elämän pohjavireenä. Leikillisyyden harjoittamisen myötä kehittyy resilienssi – psyykkinen palautumiskyky, sisäinen voima ja taittumattoman sitkeä elämänilo.
Kaunista kevättä ja leikillisempää tulevaisuutta kaikille!
(Juhlapuheen teksti on aiemmin julkaistu Suomen kulttuurirahaston sivuilla: https://skr.fi/serve/pi-juhlapuhe-2019 Puheen kuvituskuvat: Creative Commons - Flickr.com, Wikipedia.)
I have been recently thinking why I feel that I’ve not really made any real progress in my photography for the last few years. There are a few periods when some kind of leap has seemed to take place; e.g. when I moved into using my first DSRL, and also in the early days of entering the young Internet photography communities, such like Flickr. Reflecting on those, rather than the tools themselves (a better camera, software, or service), the crucial element in those perhaps has been that the “new” element just stimulated exploration, experimentation, and willingness to learn. If one does not take photos, one does not evolve. And I suppose one can get the energy and passion to continue doing things in experimental manner – every day (or: at least in sometimes) – from many things.
Currently I am constantly pushing against certain technical limitations (but cannot really afford to upgrade my camera and lenses), and there’s also lack of time and opportunity that a bit restrict more radical experiments with any exotic locations, but there are other areas where I definitely can learn to do more: e.g. in a) selecting the subject matter, b) in composition, and c) in post-production. Going to places with new eyes, or, finding an alternative perspective in “old” places, or, just learning new ways to handle and process all those photos.
I have never really bothered to study deeper the fine art of digital photo editing, as I have felt that the photos should stand by themselves, and also stay “real”, as documents of moments in life. But there are actually many ways that one can do to overcome technical limitations of cameras and lenses, that can also help in creating sort of “psychological photorealism”: to create the feelings and associations that the original situation, feeling or subject matter evoked, rather than just trying to live with the lines, colours and contrast values that the machinery was capable of registering originally. When the software post-processing is added to the creative toolbox, it can also remove bottlenecks from the creative subject matter selection, and from finding those interesting, alternative perspectives to all those “old” scenes and situations – that one might feel have already been worn out and exhausted.
Thus: I personally recommend going a bit avant-garde, now and then, even in the name of enhanced realism. 🙂
I decided to experiment with microblogging, and set up three new sites: https://frans.photo.blog/, https://frans.tech.blog/ and https://frans.game.blog/. All these “dot-blog” subdomains are now offered free by WordPress.com (see: https://en.blog.wordpress.com/2018/11/28/announcing-free-dotblog-subdomains/). The idea is to post my photos, game and tech updates into these sites, for fast updates and for better organisation, than in a “general” blog site, and also to avoid spamming those in social media, who are not interested in these topics. Feel free to subscribe – or, set up your own blog.
I have studied immersive phenomena over the years, and still am fascinated by what Finnish language so aptly catches with the idiom “Muissa maailmoissa” (literally: “in other worlds” – my dictionary suggests as an English translation “away with the fairies”, but I am not sure about that).
There is a growing concern with the effects of digital technologies, social media, and with games and smartphones in particular, as they appear to be capable of transporting increasing numbers of people into other worlds. It is unnerving to be living surrounded by zombies, we are told: people who stare into other realities, and do not respond to our words, need for eye contact or physical touch. Zombies are everywhere: sitting in cafeterias and shopping centres, sometimes slowly walking, with their eyes focused in gleaming screens, or listening some invisible sounds. Zombies have left their bodies here, in our material world, but their minds and mental focus has left this world, and is instead transported somewhere else.
The problem with the capacity to construct mental models and living the life as semiotic life-forms has always included somewhat troublesome existential polyphony – or, as Bakhtin wrote, it is impossible for the self to completely coincide with itself. We are inaccessible to ourselves, as much as we are to others. Our technologies have not historically remedied this condition. The storytelling technologies made our universes polyphonic with myths and mythical beings; our electronic communication technologies made our mental ecosystems polyphonic with channels, windows, and (non-material) rooms; and our computing technologies made our distributed cognition polyphonic with polyphonic memory and intelligence that does not coincide with our person, even when designed to be personalized.
Of course, we need science fiction for our redemption, like it has always been. There are multiple storyworlds with predictive power that forecast the coming of shared sensorium: seeing what you see, with your eyes, hearing your hearings. We’ll inevitably also ask: how about memory, cognition, emotion – cannot we also remember your remembering, and feel your thinking? Perhaps. Yet, the effect will no doubt fail to remedy our condition, once more. There can be interesting variations of mise-en-abyme: shared embeddedness into each other’s feeds, layers, windows and whispers. Yet, all that sharing can still contain only moments of clear togetherness, or desolate loneliness. But the polyphony of it all will be again an order of magnitude more complex than the previous polyphonies we have inhabited.
Working with my Toshiba Chromebook 2, in a sunny day.
I am not sure whether this is true for other countries, but after a long, dark and cold winter, Finns want to be outdoors, when it is finally warm and sunny. Sometimes one might even do remote work outdoors, from a park, cafe or bar terrace, and that is when things can get interesting – with that “nightless night” (the sun shining even at midnight), and all.
Surely, for most aims and purposes, summer is for relaxing and dragging your work and laptop always with you to your summer cottage or beach is not a good idea. This is definitely precious time, and you should spend it to with your family and friends, and rewind from the hurries of work. But, if you would prefer (or, even need to, for a reason or another) take some of your work outdoors, the standard work laptop computer is not usually optimal tool for that.
It is interesting to note, that your standard computer screens even today are optimised for a different style of use, as compared to the screens of today’s mobile devices. While the brightest smartphone screens today – e.g. the excellent OLED screen used in Samsung Galaxy S9 – exceed 1000 nits (units of luminance: candela per square meter; the S9 screen is reported to produce max 1130 nits), your typical laptop computer screens max out around measly 200 nits (see e.g. this Laptop Mag test table: https://www.laptopmag.com/benchmarks/display-brightness ). While this is perfectly good while working in a typical indoor, office environment, it is very hard to make out any details of such screens in bright sunlight. You will just squint, get a headache, and hurt your eyes, in the long run. Also, many typical laptop screens today are highly reflective, glossy glass screens, and the matte surfaces, which help against reflections, have been getting very rare.
It is as the “mobile work” that is one of the key puzzwords and trends today, means in practice only indoor-to-indoor style of mobility, rather than implying development of tools for truly mobile work, that would also make it possible to work from a park bench in a sunny day, or from that classical location: dock, next to your trusty rowing boat?
I have been hunting for business oriented laptops that would also have enough maximum screen brightness to scale up to comfortable levels in brighly lit environments, and there are not really that many. Even if you go for tablet computers, which should be optimised for mobile work, the brightness is not really at level with the best smartphone screens. Some of the best figures come from Samsung Galaxy Tab S3, which is 441 nits, iPad Pro 10.5 inch model is reportedly 600 nits, and Google Pixel C has 509 nits maximum. And a tablet devices – even the best of them – do not really work well for all work tasks.
HP has recently introduced some interesting devices, that go beyond the dim screens that most other manufacturers are happy with. For example, HP ZBook Studio x360 G5 supposedly comes with a 4k, high resolution anti-glare touch display that supports 100 percent Adobe RPG and which has 600 nits of brightness, which is “20 percent brighter than the Apple MacBook Pro 15-inch Retina display and 50 percent brighter than the Dell XPS UltraSharp 4K display”, according to HP. With its 8th generation Xeon processors (pro-equivalent to the hexacore Core i9), this is a powerful, and expensive device, but I am glad someone is showing the way.
Even better, the upcoming, updated HP EliteBook x360 G3 convertible should come with a touchscreen that has maximum brightness of 700 nits. HP is advertising this as the “world’s first outdoor viewable display” for a business laptop, which at least sounds very promising. Note though, that this 700 nits can be achieved with only the 1920 x 1080 resolution model; the 4K touch display option has 500 nits, which is not that bad, either. The EliteBooks I have tested also have excellent keyboards, good quality construction and some productivity oriented enhancements that make them an interesting option for any “truly mobile” worker. One of such enhancement is a 4G/LTE data connectivity option, which is a real bless, if one moves fast, opening and closing the laptop in different environments, so that there is no reliable Wi-Fi connection available all the time. (More on HP EliteBook models at: http://www8.hp.com/us/en/elite-family/elitebook-x360-1030-1020.html.)
Apart from the challenges related to reliable data connectivity, a cloud-based file system is something that should be default for any mobile worker. This is related to data security: in mobile work contexts, it is much easier to lose one’s laptop, or get it robbed. Having a fast and reliable (biometric) authentication, encrypted local file system, and instantaneous syncronisation/backup to the cloud, would minimise the risk of critical loss of work, or important data, even if the mobile workstation would drop into a lake, or get lost. In this regard, Google’s Chromebooks are superior, but they typically lack the LTE connectivity, and other similar business essentials, that e.g. the above EliteBook model features. Using a Windows 10 laptop with either full Dropbox synchronisation enabled, or with Microsoft OneDrive as the default save location will come rather close, even if the Google Drive/Docs ecosystem in Chromebooks is the only one that is truly “cloud-native”, in the sense that all applications, settings and everything else also lives in the cloud. Getting back to where you left your work in the Chrome OS means that one just picks up any Chromebook, logs in, and starts with a full access to one’s files, folders, browser addons, bookmarks, etc. Starting to use a new PC is a much less frictionless process (with multiple software installations, add-ons, service account logins, the setup can easily take full working days).
If I’d have my ideal, mobile work oriented tool from today’s tech world, I’d pick the business-enhanced hardware of HP EliteBook, with it’s bright display and LTE connectivity, and couple those with a Chrome OS, with it’s reliability and seamless online synchronisation. But I doubt that such a combo can be achieved – or, not yet, at least. Meanwhile, we can try to enjoy the summer, and some summer work, in bit more sheltered, shady locations.
I will be speaking in April 26th about the “Potentials of multidisciplinary collaboration in the study of future game and play forms” in A MAZE, Clash of Realities collaborative seminar: Academic and Artistic Research on Digital Games summit. For the full program, see this link.
Every now and then I am asked to recommend what PC to buy. The great variety in individual needs and preferences make this ungrateful task – it is dangerous to follow someone else’s advice, and not to do your own homework, and hands-on testing yourself. But, said that, here are some of my current favourites, based on my individual and highly idiosyncratic preferences:
My key criterion is to start from a laptop, rather than a desktop PC: laptops are powerful enough for almost anything, and they provide more versatility. When used in office, or home desk, one can plug in external keyboard, mouse/trackball and display, and use the local network resources such as printers and file servers. The Thunderbolt interface has made it easy to have all those things plugged in via a single connector, so I’d recommend checking that the laptop comes with Thunderbolt (it uses USB-C type connector, but not all USB-C ports are Thunderbolt ports).
When we talk about laptops, my key criteria would be to first look at the weight and get as light device as possible, considering two other key criteria: excellent keyboard and good touch display.
The reasons for those priorities are that I personally carry the laptop with me pretty much always, and weight is then a really important factor. If thing is heavy, the temptation is just to leave it where it sits, rather than pick it up while rushing into a quick meeting. And when in the meeting one needs to make notes, or check some information, one is at the mercy of a smartphone picked from the pocket, and the ergonomics are much worse in that situation. Ergonomics relate to the point about excellent keyboard and display, alike. Keyboard is to me the main interface, since I write a lot. Bad or even average keyboard will make things painful in the long run, if you write hours and hours daily. Prioritising the keyboard is something that your hands, health and general life satisfaction will thank, in the long run.
Touch display is something that will probably divide the opinions of many technology experts, even. In the Apple Macintosh ecosystem of computers there is no touch screen computer available: that modality is reserved to iPad and iPhone mobile devices. I think that having a touch screen on a laptop is something that once learned, one cannot go away from. I find myself trying to scroll and swipe my non-touchscreen devices nowadays all the time. Windows 10 as an operating system has currently the best support for touch screen gestures, but there are devices in the Linux and Chromebook ecosystems that also support touch. Touch screen display makes handling applications, files easier, and zooming in and out of text and images a snap. Moving hands away from keyboard and touchpad every now and then to the edges of the screen is probably also good for ergonomics. However, trying to keep one’s hands on the laptop screen for extended times is not a good idea, as it is straining. Touch screen is not absolutely needed, but it is an excellent extra. However, it is important that the screen is bright, sharp, and has wide viewing angles; it is really frustrating to work on dim washed-out displays, particularly in brightly lit conditions. You have to squint, and end up with a terrible headache at the end of the day. In LCD screens look for IPS (in-plane switching) technology, or for OLED screens. The latter, however, are still rather rare and expensive in laptops. But OLED has the best contrast, and it is the technology that smartphone manufacturers like Samsung and Apple use in their flagship mobile devices.
All other technical specifications in a laptop PC are, for me, secondary for those three. It is good to have a lot of memory, a large and fast SSD disk, and a powerful processor (CPU), for example, but according to my experience, if you have a modern laptop that is light-weight, and has excellent keyboard and display, it will also come with other specs that are more than enough for all everyday computing tasks. Things are a bit different if we are talking about a PC that will have gaming as its primary use, for example. Then it would be important to have a discrete graphics card (GPU) rather than only the built-in, integrated graphics in the laptop. That feature, with related added requirements to other technology means that such laptops are usually more pricey, and a desktop PC is in most cases better choice for heavy duty gaming than a laptop. But dedicated gaming laptops (with discrete graphics currently in the Nvidia Pascal architecture level – including GTX 1050, 1060 and even 1080 types) are evolving, and becoming all the time more popular choices. Even while many of such laptops are thick and heavy, for many gamers it is nice to be able to carry the “hulking monster” into a LAN party, eSports event, or such. But gaming laptops are not your daily, thin and light work devices for basic tasks. They are too overpowered for such uses (and consume their battery too fast), and – on the other hand – if a manufacturer tries fitting in a powerful discrete graphics card into a slim, lightweight frame, there will be generally overheating problems, if one really starts to put the system under heavy gaming loads. The overheated system will then start “throttling”, which means that it will automatically decrease the speed it is operating with, in order to cool down. These limitations will perhaps be eased with the next, “Volta” generation of GPU microarchitecture, making thin, light and very powerful laptop computers more viable. They will probably come with a high price, though.
Said all that, I can then highlight few systems that I think are worthy of consideration at this timepoint – late March, 2018.
To start from the basics, I think that most general users would profit from having a close look at Chromebook type of laptop computers. They are a bit different from Windows/Mac type personal computers that many people are mostly familiar with, and have their own limitations, but also clear benefits. The ChromeOS (operating system by Google) is a stripped down version of Linux, and provides fast and reliable user experience, as the web-based, “thin-client” system does not slow down in same way as a more complex operating system that needs to cope with all kinds of applications that are installed locally into it over the years. Chromebooks are fast and simple, and also secure in the sense that the operating system features auto-updating, running code in secure “sandbox”, and verified boot, where the initial boot code checks for any system compromises. The default file location in Chomebooks is a cloud service, which might turn away some, but for a regular user it is mostly a good idea to have cloud storage: a disk crash or lost computer does not lead into losing one’s files, as the cloud operates as an automatic backup.
ASUS Chromebook Flip (C302CA model) [see link] has been getting good reviews. I have not used this one personally, and it is on the expensive side of Chromebooks, but it has nice design, it is rather light (1,18 kg / 2,6 pounds), and keyboard and display are reportedly decent or even good. It has a touch screen, and can run Android apps, which is becoming one of the key future directions where the ChromeOS is heading. As an alternative, consider Samsung Chromebook Pro [see link], which apparently has worse keyboard, but features an active stylus, which makes it strong when used as a tablet device.
For premium business use, I’d recommend having a look at the classic Thinkpad line of laptop computers. Thin and light Thinkpad X1 Carbon (2018) [see link] comes now also with a touch screen option (only in FHD/1080p resolution, though), and has a very good keyboard. It has been recently updated into 8th generation Intel processors, which as quad-core systems provide a performance boost. For a more touch screen oriented users, I recommend considering Thinkpad X1 Yoga [see link] model. Both of these Lenovo offerings are quite expensive, but come with important business use features, like (optional) 4G/LTE-A data card connectivity. Wi-Fi is often unreliable, and going through the tethering process via a smartphone mobile hotspot is not optimal, if you are running fast from meeting to meeting, or working while on the road. The Yoga model also used to have a striking OLED display, but that is being discontinued in the X1 Yoga 3rd generation (2018) models; that is replaced by a 14-inch “Dolby Vision HDR touchscreen” (max brightness of 500 nits, 2,560 x 1,440 resolution). HDR is still an emerging technology in laptop displays (and elsewhere as well), but it promises a wider colour gamut – a set of available colours. Though, I am personally happy with the OLED in the 2017 model X1 Yoga I am mostly using for daily work these days. X1 Carbon is lighter (1,13 kg), but X1 Yoga is not too heavy either (1,27 kg). Note though, that the keyboard in Yoga is not as good as in the Carbon.
There are several interesting alternatives, all with their distinctive strengths (and weaknesses). I mention here just shortly these:
Dell XPS 13 (2018) [see link] line of ultraportable laptops with their excellent “InfinityEdge” displays has also been updated to 8th gen quad core processors, and is marketed as the “world’s smallest 13-inch laptop”, due to the very thin bezels. With the weight of 1,21 kg (2,67 pounds), XPS 13 is very compact, and some might even miss having a bit wider bezels, for easier screen handling. XPS does not offer 4G/LTE module option, to my knowledge.
ASUS Zenbook Pro (UX550) [see link] is a 15-inch laptop, which is a bit heavier (with 1,8 kg), but it scales up to 4k displays, and can come with discrete GTX 1050 Ti graphics option. For being a bit thicker and heavier, Zenbook Pro is reported to have a long battery life, and rather capable graphics performance, with relatively minor throttling issues. It has still 7th gen processors (as quad core versions, though).
Nice, pretty lightweight 15-inch laptops come from Dell (XPS 15) [see link] and LG, for example – particularly with LG gram 15 [see link], which is apparently a very impressive device, and weighs only 1,1 kg while being a 15-inch laptop; it is shame we cannot get it here in Finland, though.
As Apple has (for my eyes) ruined their excellent Macbook Pro line, with too shallow keyboard, and by not proving any touch screen options, people are free to hunt for Macbook-like experiences elsewhere. Chinese manufacturers are always fast to copy things, and Huawei Matebook X Pro [see link] is an interesting example: it has a touch screen (3K LTPS display, 3000 x 2000 resolution with 260 PPI, 100 % colour space, 450 nits brightness), 8th gen processors, GTX MX 150 discrete graphics, 57,4 Wh battery, Dolby Atmos sound system, etc, etc. This package weighs 1,33 kg. It is particularly nice to see them not copying Apple in their highly limited ports and connectivity – Matebook X Pro has both Thunderbolt/USB-C, but also the older USB-A, and a regular 3,5 mm headphone port. I am dubious about the quality of the keyboard, though, until I have tested it personally. And, one can always be a bit paranoid about the underlying security of Chinese-made information technology; but then again, the Western companies have not proved necessarily any better in that area. It is good to have more competition in the high end of laptops, as well.
Finally, one must mention also Microsoft, which sells its own Surface line of products, which have very good integration with the touch features of Windows 10, of course, and also generally come with displays, keyboards and touchpads that are among the very best. Surface Book 2 [see link] is their most versatile and powerful device: there are both 15-inch and 13,5-inch models, both having quad-core processors, discrete graphics (up to GTX 1060), and good battery life (advertised up to 17 hours, but one can trust that the real-life use times will be much less). Book 2 is a two-in-one device with a detachable screen that can work independently as a tablet. However, this setup is heavier (1,6 kg for 13,5-inch, 1,9 kg for the 15-inch model) than the Surface Laptop [see link], which does not work as a tablet, but has a great touch-screen, and weighs less (c. 1,5 kg). The “surface” of this Surface laptop is pleasurable alcantara, a cloth material.
To sum up, there are many really good options these days in personal computers, and laptops in general have evolved in many important areas. Still it is important to have hands-on experience before committing – particularly if one is using the new workhorse intensely, this is a crucial tool decision, after all. And personal preference (and, of course, available budget) really matters.
I have been recently thinking why I feel that I’ve not really made any real progress in my photography for the last few years. There are a few periods when some kind of leap has seemed to take place; e.g. when I moved into using my first DSRL, and also in the early days of entering the young Internet photography communities, such like Flickr. Reflecting on those, rather than the tools themselves (a better camera, software, or service), the crucial element in those perhaps has been that the “new” element just stimulated exploration, experimentation, and willingness to learn. If one does not take photos, one does not evolve. And I suppose one can get the energy and passion to continue doing things in experimental manner – every day (or: at least in sometimes) – from many things.
If I’d have my ideal, mobile work oriented tool from today’s tech world, I’d pick the business-enhanced hardware of HP EliteBook, with it’s bright display and LTE connectivity, and couple those with a Chrome OS, with it’s reliability and seamless online synchronisation. But I doubt that such a combo can be achieved – or, not yet, at least. Meanwhile, we can try to enjoy the summer, and some summer work, in bit more sheltered, shady locations.
frans goes blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.