Craftsmanship, Making, Technology and Things

[Broomstick]

It's already passed that point for some things.

I remember when, if you had a radio, clock, or TV and it wasn't working you could go out to a local store, buy parts, and fix it yourself. You can't do that with IC chips. I remember when my dad would take the vacuum tubes out of our TV, take them down to the tester at the store, and buy replacements just like you'd buy a replacement lightbulb. Can't do that with my flatscreen TV, no way.

Of course, you can still purchase radio and clock parts that aren't IC chips, but those are the exceptions rather than the rule.

[General Zod]

If you don't really want to spend your time sewing or fixing stuff if you don't have to, why not pay someone else to do it or just buy a new item? Frankly I hate assembling furniture, and I'd just as soon get someone else to do it for me or have it pre-built.

[aerius]

That's a good point. Is technology advancing beyond the point where it'll be easy for us to work on without highly specialized equipment and/or facilities?

It's way past that point for many things. If your LCD TV has hardware issues you're very likely screwed unless you have an electrical engineering degree and a bunch of specialized test equipment. You'll need to trace the circuits, find the defective part(s), order them from Digikey or one of the other major parts suppliers, and then break out the soldering & rework equipment to replace the parts. This isn't a skill you pick up from your parents or casual reading on the internet, you're looking at a full college or university program plus industry experience.

The computerized control systems in your car are now like this as well, when I was in that industry it was already a nightmare (I built airbag modules & other control systems) and since then everything has become far complex & integrated. Despite my previous experience in the field, I would be just as screwed as the average person and would be reduced to swapping parts instead of being able to get in there and actually fix things. I'd have to replace an entire systems module instead of being able to get in there to fix a bad connection or fried chip.

[Borgholio]

I used to be an auto mechanic, and I saw first-hand how things are changing. Used to be we just pop the hood, swing our legs over into the engine bay, sit on the fender, and do our work. All we really needed was a set of hand tools and a torque wrench and we could fix almost anything. Once they started adding pollution control equipment we had to learn how to trace vacuum lines and test diaphragms. Not too hard to do, but already at that point if the diaphragm went bad, you had to replace it. No rebuilding like we could do with a carburetor.

Once computers got into the mix, the number of parts that we had to test and replace went way up...the number of parts we could repair went down. Carburetors went to fuel injectors, distributors went to computerized coil packages, etc... I used to work on my old 74 Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser every weekend. My 87 Ford F-150...far less often. My 2013 Prius...hell...I don't even change the oil myself anymore.

[InsaneTD]

"... swing our legs over into the engine bay, sit on the fender..." can't do that anymore either. Most cars barely have the room to fit your hand right around it. Getting to the point you have to pull the motor out to do anything.

[Borgholio]

"... swing our legs over into the engine bay, sit on the fender..." can't do that anymore either. Most cars barely have the room to fit your hand right around it. Getting to the point you have to pull the motor out to do anything.

Remember those older cargo vans where the engine was so far back that you had to open a compartment inside the vehicle to work on the engine? The only thing you could access from the under the hood was the dipstick, coolant, and other fluids. Well...the new Civics are like that. You literally have to pull the motor to do anything more than changing the sparkplugs or drive belt. So you actually hit it right on the nose.

My wife's 2006 Acura RS-X - I cannot change the headlight bulbs on it due to the lack of space. My wife has to do it because she has smaller hands than I do. Her brother is bigger than me and he flat out refuses to even try. It's getting rather stupid how cluttered they make it these days. I guess that's another point in favor of buying an electric car....most of the shit under the hood they don't even have so the issue is moot.

[His Divine Shadow]

Check out Paul sellers if you wanna get into woodworking on a budget, guy shows hoe do things with handtools and old style techniques. Plus side of handtool working is also that it's safer, produces way way less dust and less noisy, so its more realistic if you don't have a dedicated workshop.

This post aimed at no one in general.

[His Divine Shadow]

Here's a 40 year old piece of german engineering I got home a few days ago (not pictures, disassembled sliding table and overhead SUVA blade guard):


This one is also german, and I think pre-WW2:


Both of these will still be ticking and working in another 40-50 years. I'd be lucky to get 10 years out of whatever modern junk if I had bought new from the store (in addition to paying more). Really a sad statement in a way, that we have to look behind us for quality technology like this.

[Simon_Jester]

I wonder how many tools made in the mid-twentieth century didn't stand up to the test of time, broke down like the cheap junk they were... and just aren't remembered?

By default, the only furniture left standing around from the 1800s is the tough, well-built stuff; the rickety chairs and tables put together by inept carpenters' apprentices all broke apart long ago.

[Elheru Aran]

I think even mid-20th is a little too early to blame the junky-tool thing on; you want more late 60s, early 70s and even then stuff was still pretty decent. It's not until the 80s that you really start seeing a rise in pure crap.

A big part of this, I think, is a heavy shift to overseas manufacturing, especially with power tools. As an example, there's an article in a back issue, 2011 perhaps of Woodworker's Journal, of benchtop band saws. Out of the 6 reviewed, 4 were essentially identical except for cosmetic differences; they almost certainly came from the same manufacturer, just with a different brand name on each. The same thing happens with many different kinds of power tools.

Really the big reason for the decline in quality hand tools is twofold: First, the rise in conveniently sized and reasonably priced power tool equivalents, which secondly remove some skill from the equation, therefore you don't need people expert with hand tools to do the same work. And, well, do you want to be whaling away with a brace and bit to make ten holes in a hour, or do you want to use a heavy-duty power drill to do the same in ten minutes?

More later, but this is something that does bug me as well. With the loss of quality tools, the average person never really knows what they can do with really good tools available to them. They try to do what they can with average or substandard tools and as a result the job is botched, half-hearted or simply unacceptable.

[General Zod]

I wonder how many tools made in the mid-twentieth century didn't stand up to the test of time, broke down like the cheap junk they were... and just aren't remembered?

By default, the only furniture left standing around from the 1800s is the tough, well-built stuff; the rickety chairs and tables put together by inept carpenters' apprentices all broke apart long ago.

How much of that is because they're cheap and how much of that is because people just stopped maintaining them when they got newer equipment?

[Broomstick]

Well built stuff usually don't require much maintaining, and even after severe neglect can usually be restored. I have a 105 year old sewing machine and a 170 year old spinning wheel, both of which are in fine working order. Both of those items are somewhat complex machines with many parts yet were of such quality that they're stll working and still mostly original parts. The sewing machine spent decades in an unheated barn and I had to partially disassemble it, clean it out, and deal with some rust on the stand and treadle but it's back to being a workhorse.

Contrast this with the first 5 or 6 sewing machines I ever used which were cheap junk that broke done irretrievably after a few years.

At some point we traded durable, high quality tools for relatively lower-priced, less durable tools. See the Sam Vimes Theory of Economics in my sig line. Higher quality tools require a higher initial outlay but you make up for it over time.

[Melchior]

The topic is both complex and dear to me, I hope that I'll be able to write more about this later; one quick thing I want to point out that someone might find interesting is how older, professional and built to very high standards analog photographic equipment has dropped in price in the used market (except Leicas, that are actually jewelry, not tools), especially medium format gear. If one is willing to deal with the inconvenience of shooting, developing and scanning film / finds value in the process, it's possible to get better results (unless you shoot stars or indoor sports) than anything possible with digital cameras that are not exorbitantly expensive (medium format digital backs).

[General Zod]

The topic is both complex and dear to me, I hope that I'll be able to write more about this later; one quick thing I want to point out that someone might find interesting is how older, professional and built to very high standards analog photographic equipment has dropped in price in the used market (except Leicas, that are actually jewelry, not tools), especially medium format gear. If one is willing to deal with the inconvenience of shooting, developing and scanning film / finds value in the process, it's possible to get better results (unless you shoot stars or indoor sports) than anything possible with digital cameras that are not exorbitantly expensive (medium format digital backs).

The quality argument is really subjective. IF the photographer really knows what they're doing, then sure, you might be able to get higher quality pictures out of older equipment. But the equipment has come along so much in the last few years that the time investment for analog format just isn't worth it for most people, so there's no real demand except among collectors.

[salm]

The topic is both complex and dear to me, I hope that I'll be able to write more about this later; one quick thing I want to point out that someone might find interesting is how older, professional and built to very high standards analog photographic equipment has dropped in price in the used market (except Leicas, that are actually jewelry, not tools), especially medium format gear. If one is willing to deal with the inconvenience of shooting, developing and scanning film / finds value in the process, it's possible to get better results (unless you shoot stars or indoor sports) than anything possible with digital cameras that are not exorbitantly expensive (medium format digital backs).

Better results in what way?

[Zixinus]

There is also the factor that we now see handcrafting in a different way than our ancestors did. Our ancestor valued good tools more highly because they had to do handicraft. Nowadays, a hobbyist buys anything sold because the hobbyist simply doesn't know any better or aren't willing to invest in higher-quality tools. Market adapted accordingly.

[Broomstick]

Beginning hobbyists might not know any better but as they grow in experience and skill they certainly learn better.

For one thing, it's harder to find good quality tools these days. I think some manufacturers don't see it in their own interest to sell really durable tools because you might make only one sale in a lifetime (or, in the case of some of the tools I own which are 2-3 times my age, only one sale in several lifetimes!).

There are definitely different tiers of quality out there.

[Melchior]

The quality argument is really subjective. IF the photographer really knows what they're doing, then sure, you might be able to get higher quality pictures out of older equipment. But the equipment has come along so much in the last few years that the time investment for analog format just isn't worth it for most people, so there's no real demand except among collectors.

Shooting digital to the fullest of the potential of your equipment is actually harder than doing the same with analog film, even if of course it's easier at the beginning. The funny part about the recent improvements in digital (which are massive) is that most people apparently keep shooting with the same terrible kit zooms.

Better results in what way?

Technical image quality: you can drum-scan a 4x5 negative from a fifty years old Linhof (using modern fine-grain film) for more than 100 megapixels of actual detail. Black and white film still has better dynamic range than typical sensors, too. Even without the hassle of large format, a medium format fuji rangefinder (that can be found for 500$ or so on ebay) can give results like this (not mine). Even 35mm isn't really behind a consumer dslr (but it's behind a correctly used professional dslr with good lenses), for example (mine, cheap lens and home scanned, so nothing exotic).

[salm]

Technical image quality: you can drum-scan a 4x5 negative from a fifty years old Linhof (using modern fine-grain film) for more than 100 megapixels of actual detail. Black and white film still has better dynamic range than typical sensors, too. Even without the hassle of large format, a medium format fuji rangefinder (that can be found for 500$ or so on ebay) can give results like this (not mine). Even 35mm isn't really behind a consumer dslr (but it's behind a correctly used professional dslr with good lenses), for example (mine, cheap lens and home scanned, so nothing exotic).

And the 4X5 are getting cheap? That´s interesting. I haven´t had 4x5 in my hands since the mid 2000s when I used to work as a scanner and dust remover for an architecture photographer.

On the other hand the dynamic range of b&w images isn´t very impressive compared to an HDRI. Granted, it´s not always possible to record HDRI (moving objects for example) but I´ve made it a habbit to record almost everything in HDRI and simply use it when necessary. This produces absurd amounts of redundant data but with the current prices of storage that isn´t really an issue.

For most people a modern cell phone is almost enough to take pictures but I´m really happy that people buy DSLRs like crazy just to use it in full automatic because it brings prices down.

[K. A. Pital]

I can somehow empathize with the thread starter since we tend to do a lot with our own hands (by that I mean we the Russians). However, it doesn't mean I don't want a glorious tech future with super-advanced gadgets.

One doesn't interfere with the other. You can select fabric in an online store and buy it, then do some really nice gobelins at home with a super-advanced programmable sewing machine. You can use 3D modelling for craftsmanship, especially jewellery, knives and the like - most of my friends in the art know it and use it one way or the other. You can use advanced equipment on the factories to make final pieces, since it is much more precise than a human hand alone.

There is no reason technology can't coexist with craftsmanship.

[Melchior]

And the 4X5 are getting cheap? That´s interesting.

Sort of; what's not getting cheap are sheet film and people who still know how to operate a drum scanner, so the per-image price is high, but the entry price is low.

On the other hand the dynamic range of b&w images isn´t very impressive compared to an HDRI. Granted, it´s not always possible to record HDRI (moving objects for example) but I´ve made it a habbit to record almost everything in HDRI and simply use it when necessary. This produces absurd amounts of redundant data but with the current prices of storage that isn´t really an issue.

You can bracket exposure on film too (less convenient and more expensive, sure) - it's also quite hard to get natural-looking tone mappings in situations more complex than "bright sky dark landscape".

For most people a modern cell phone is almost enough to take pictures but I´m really happy that people buy DSLRs like crazy just to use it in full automatic because it brings prices down.

I find that good cellphone cameras are entirely adequate with perfect light, else the combination of limited controls and small photosites results in blown highlights, excessive noise, etc.

[General Zod]

Technical image quality: you can drum-scan a 4x5 negative from a fifty years old Linhof (using modern fine-grain film) for more than 100 megapixels of actual detail. Black and white film still has better dynamic range than typical sensors, too. Even without the hassle of large format, a medium format fuji rangefinder (that can be found for 500$ or so on ebay) can give results like this (not mine). Even 35mm isn't really behind a consumer dslr (but it's behind a correctly used professional dslr with good lenses), for example (mine, cheap lens and home scanned, so nothing exotic).

And the 4X5 are getting cheap? That´s interesting. I haven´t had 4x5 in my hands since the mid 2000s when I used to work as a scanner and dust remover for an architecture photographer.

On the other hand the dynamic range of b&w images isn´t very impressive compared to an HDRI. Granted, it´s not always possible to record HDRI (moving objects for example) but I´ve made it a habbit to record almost everything in HDRI and simply use it when necessary. This produces absurd amounts of redundant data but with the current prices of storage that isn´t really an issue.

For most people a modern cell phone is almost enough to take pictures but I´m really happy that people buy DSLRs like crazy just to use it in full automatic because it brings prices down.

I've found the cell phone to be completely inadequate if I want to add certain special effects, work with long exposures or use it in poor lighting without a flash, but I probably don't fit the average camera user. Oh, and you can't zoom for crap on a cell phone and still maintain crisp images beyond a certain point the way you can with a 500mm telephoto. But I fully agree about bringing the prices down.

[Ziggy Stardust]

There is a great three-part series of articles in Nautilus (that link is to part one) about the practical differences in filming digitally versus analog. It is specifically with reference to cinema, but the same principles apply to photography. It is a very interesting read.

[Broomstick]

There is no reason technology can't coexist with craftsmanship.

No, there isn't - technology is a tool. Like any tool it can be used well or poorly. There's a lot to be said for taking the grunt work and boring, tedious crap out of crafting. Like a lot of things there's a potential trade off here.

[Elheru Aran]

There is no reason technology can't coexist with craftsmanship.

No, there isn't - technology is a tool. Like any tool it can be used well or poorly. There's a lot to be said for taking the grunt work and boring, tedious crap out of crafting. Like a lot of things there's a potential trade off here.

Of course, there's a question to be asked-- in some cases, isn't the "grunt work" actually part of the experience that one's looking for?

To put it in another fashion: It's better to know how to do things the 'hard' way in order to appreciate the 'easy' way all the more. If you always do things the easy way, you never push your boundaries and improve your understanding of what you're doing. If you start out the hard way, you know better what you can do and give yourself more options.

Take dovetails, an interlocking joint between two boards to form a carcase, such as cabinets and boxes. One of the most common ways to do this today is with a jig and a router bit. Ten minutes to stick the board in the jig, move around the bits of the jig until you have the right spacing, hit it with the router. Put the other board in, change to a different bit, repeat, and you're done.

But that way you're confined to the jig. You can't do boards of a different size without more jiggery-pokery or a larger jig (if you have a board larger than your current jig fits). You risk tearing up your board or screwing yourself up at 30,000 rpm with a razor-sharp bit. If you have an extra-deluxe jig, you can do various configurations-- but it'll cost.

The 'hard' way? Take a pair of dividers, play with them for a few minutes until you have the right dimensions, and lay 'em out. Take a gauge, knife in the necessary lines, fine saw down the lines. Use a coping saw to get out the waste, clean up with a chisel if necessary (and if you don't have a coping saw, you can just chisel the whole thing out). Use what you just cut to lay out the corresponding joint on the other board. Repeat, and you're good. This works for any board of any size and thickness. This does take a bit longer-- but remember, with a router, you still have to get everything lined up, so that's part of the process too, and with practice comes speed.

Speed is certainly a virtue of its own, and I absolutely won't disagree with that. For all that, though, I believe that there is something gained by knowing how to do things the "old fashioned", "hard" way. If a person only learns how to do it the "modern", "faster" way, I think that they're the poorer for it. Does it work? Sure, it wouldn't be a method if it didn't. Is it the best way? That's an argument that could go on ad nausem. What's important is what it does for the individual, and whether it deserves preservation or not.

And honestly speaking-- I fear that what we make today isn't worth preserving for the future, for the most part. Not because the future won't need it-- people will be people even 100 years ahead of us-- but because what we (this generation-ish) are leaving behind us was made by people who did not care, for people who don't care and can't tell.