From personal experience, as your eyes get older the shutter mechanism doesn't function as well as it did when you were twenty. What I see through my eyes reminds me of the over exposed polaroid pictures had to shake in my hand for development.
Nice reminder of how sub-optimal some desk setups are, with a solid wall of test equipment and then no way of having natural light because it will provide glare off screens. Whereas here you've got perfect clear view of the instruments. Although, where I am, natural light is so limited, I have to resort to artificial lighting for most of the year regardless of desk setup.
One lab that I saw (which was designed by a non-traditional design team with out-of-the-box thinking) had overhead glass windows for natural light, but also LED lighting tubes positioned to radiate light toward the (low) angled ceiling, to reflect off, and therefore coming from all directions, it produced little glare regardless of where screens were positioned.
The equipment was not against a wall, but on desks in two rows (so that you could slide your seat from one side to the other depending on what you needed to do), but the compromise what that because there was less equipment on the desks, a lot more desk space was needed. The spaciousness and light was definitely appreciated. Obviously, that's not usually feasible due to cost.
Perhaps the camera was a hand-held mobile phone with no timer or remote shutter release pretending to be a real camera on a tripod. I'm sorry Jan, please accept my apology, but I'm a "camera-on-phone-phobe". To me, the two functions should never be in the same box. Too many compromises.
