malachi wrote:Just because I enjoy a shot doesn't make it good nor does it make it consistent. The minute I consider my shots to be good is the minute I stop progressing is the minute I stop learning is the minute I start lying to myself.

I've had good shots periodically.
I don't pull good shots consistently.

emphasis added

Man, do you ever have things inside out and upside down. You apparently uphold the view that "Taste is the only morality" yet in its true and proper domain, Aesthetics/Enjoyment/Pleasure, taste has no meaning?

Endo wrote:... Having a custom tailored temp and pressure profile for each bean would be like having "electronic contols" on your camera. Of course you can always turn it off so in no way would it be limiting. These controls were shunned by the traditional photographers as well when they first came out, but can you imagine buying a camera these days with only manual shutterspeed and aperature control? ...

Yeah, that's actually what I want in a camera! The last 35mm SLR body I bought (about 2 yrs ago) was a used F3/T. I just shot some flowers last night (on KR) using the fully manual settings to intentionally underexpose the shots. Can I do that on a top-tier DSLR? Sure, but it doesn't give me the "personal" control I'm interested in. The reason I shoot is for capturing personal creativity on film, just like the reason I brew is for capturing personal creativity in the cup.

You are comparing manual SLR to digital SLR.

How creative can you get with a Kodak Brownie camera (i.e. no shutter speed, no aperture control).

That's basically what we have in today's espresso machines.

Compass Coffee wrote: I mean no offense. Could simply be semantics, differing understandings of the meaning of the word good. Good always seemed to mean like getting a "B" when the goal isn't just an "A" but a 100% scoring "A".

It could just be semantics.
Or I could just have unrealistic goals / standards.

I think part of it is that I pull shots for people who have infinitely better palates than I do - and far more experience and ability with coffee than I do - at least once or twice a month (and often they are in groups). In that context - shooting for an A is required and getting a B just isn't good enough (despite the fact that the B shot is probably perfectly "enjoyable").

Compass Coffee wrote:Chris, I've respected your experience and opinions on coffee and espresso for a long time yet sometimes think your humility may be a bit extreme, even sounding sometimes contrived.

Hell! I'm not humble by a long shot!
Just 'cause my shots aren't consistently good doesn't mean 99% of other people's shots aren't worse than mine!

malachi wrote: In that context - shooting for an A is required and getting a B just isn't good enough (despite the fact that the B shot is probably perfectly "enjoyable").

In that context, 'good' takes on a whole 'nuther meaning. In my context, 'good' means that I can go sit down with my drink. 'Not good' is, by definition, means that I have to take another go at the machine.
'Great' means that I detect no noticable defects in the cup at all ('cause, if I were to stand there until I got great, I'd be spending a lot of my days there...) , and 'God' is no detectable trace of any defect, no matter how hard I squint and tilt my head.

Having a shared lexicon is really handy... ; >

Endo wrote:You are comparing manual SLR to digital SLR.
How creative can you get with a Kodak Brownie camera (i.e. no shutter speed, no aperture control).
That's basically what we have in today's espresso machines.

Yes, I'm using your example of a camera with all electronic controls versus one with only manual shutterspeed and aperture control. It's the control of the creative process that I'm after, and, for me, that comes with manual controls. Now, saying that, I do use the "semi-automatic" exposure control feature some times. But those are the times that I either don't want to think about that part of the process or don't feel I'd have anything to learn from setting the controls myself.

I do own working single lens and twin lens rangefinders, as well as a working Brownie (all-plastic lens!). I'd have to say that removing much of the controls from a camera actually forces more creativity from the operator. Instead of relying on the electronics, you're forced to use the basic artistic elements of composition, angle and lighting (while working within the confines of the camera's fixed lens angle and limited aperture range) to create something unique. The same can be done with coffee machines. Limiting the user inputs provides results based on the experience and technique of the operator. Removing all of the inputs either gives you a superauto or a Brownie.

I guess I don't agree that today's espresso machines are in the Kodak Brownie stage of development. The "steam toys," yes, they're the Kodak Brownies. The levers would be rangefinders or F/F2 equivalents, while the semi-autos would be F3/F4/F5/F6 variants (depending on the brand and model, of course).

It sounds like you really need to call Versalab and have John build you a machine. His current design comes closest to what you're looking for, and he's probably the only guy who's capable of getting anything else designed and built for you.

Endo? Stick to one illustration and try not change in mid-stream . . .

Do you want to use "but can you imagine buying a camera these days with only manual shutterspeed and aperature control?" (boldface added)

Or do you want to use "How creative can you get with a Kodak Brownie camera (i.e. no shutter speed, no aperture control). That's basically what we have in today's espresso machines." (boldface added)

You can use whichever analogy you want, but -- as with pulling shots -- one strives for consistency.

Cheers,
Jason

P.S. Needless to say, I strongly disagree with your last sentence.

I am unsubscribing this thread, as it has devolved into a camera discussion.

Actually, that is not the primary problem with this thread. The primary problem is that it has become "content-challenged."

ken