Discussion: Are we to hung up in gizmos these days?

[nomix]

Well, just one thought.

We are surrounded by steadily increasing performance with regards to IQ at higher ISO settings, faster autofocusing, faster framreates, higher resolution, and all the other bells and whizzels that camera manufacturers add into their newest models.

Is there a danger this could in the end detract from what's the essense, the art of photography?

Some years ago, all newspapers hired large numbers of photographers, simply because photography was tricky when you couldn't review the results emidiatly.

Today, anyone can pick up a dSLR, take a photo, look at it, and see if it's acceptably well exposed.

But it does beg the question, was the whole role of those photographers to expose pictures? Or was it to capture moments?

I think that added to the experience exposing pictures, in the good 'ol days, you got properly exposed images, but you also got a photographer, not just a journalist with a camera.

Has the introduction of cheap, easy to use dSLR's ruined news photography to some extent?

As for technical improvements, they're all good. But I keep in mind a shot I saw of the photographers bench during the 1952 Winter Olympics in Oslo. There was a couple of Leicas, but an overwhelmingly large proportion of people shooting medium format, even a couple of large format cameras.

Bjørn Delbekk is considered the best sports photographer in Norway. He's the kind of guy who takes his photos with layout in mind, while getting good sports photos.

So, what type of focus mode does he use? How does he configure his autofocus points, sensitivity of them, and so on?

Well, he doesn't. He uses a focus mode called 'his fingers', or, manual focus for the rest of us.

I take a lot of photos, for my newspaper and for my own pleasure. But rarely am I so happy, so constructive and so at ease, as when I use my 30 year old Olympus OM-2 with a 50. Manual focus, a thirty year old metering system and 'fixed' ISO. It won't even let me alter exposure in less than 1EV steps, compared to 1/3 EV steps on my dSLR.

But it does make me happy. I spend time, find new angles, get the focus to sit properly, the exposure bang on, then I take the shot.

Unlike what I could be tempted to do with my dSLR. Standing up, zooming to frame something I find on the street. Missing focus a bit, taking a new one, now the aperture priority metering has made a mistake, do it again, come home, and see that the first picture was well exposed, perfectly composed and out of focus. The second was perfectly composed, underexposed and in focus. The third ended up being a bad composition, perfectly exposed and in perfect focus.

Had I been using my OM-2, I'd get down on the ground and taken one shot that was good, not three mediochre.

That's hightly hypotetically, but it illustrates a point.

Yes, I could take my time with my dSLR, yes, I could do it right with one shot. Well, I generally do take my time to get it right the first time.

But why do I bother? It's not like it's costing me anything to take three shots of something. Only the minute values of electrisity I lose.

Well, just a couple of thoughts.

This is highly philosophical, and I don't mean we should be going backwards. I want to go forwards, with all pistons throbbing, onwards to a great future with new technological advances.

But does the new technology make us lacy? Do we think in this day and age, that all we need to do is put our cameras on aperture priority, let continious focus do its job, and push the shutter?

So, my fellow photographers, what do you think?

[BerserkerCatSplat]

If you are shooting professionally, you need to have the right equipment for the situation you're in. You have a responsibility to get the good shot, and therefore you need to know what gear you need to do so.

If you're shooting "art," you are no longer gear-limited, a good shooter can make fantastic images with pretty much anything.

If I'm shooting for a client, I take whatever cameras/lenses/lights I need or think I might need. When in doubt, I take everything. If I'm just shooting for fun, I take as much or as little as I want. 99% of the time, I take my Bessa with a fast 50 and loaded with HP5, because it's enjoyable to use. I enjoy it mostly because you really cannot get any more basic than a Bessa L. Sure, it's got a light meter, which can be luxurious, but it's manual everything and scale focus. It takes practice to gauge distances correctly.

Now, that being said, 99% of people don't want an "enjoyable" camera to use, that goes back to basics and makes you think more. They want an appliance that has features X and Y and has Z megapixels that the guy at Best Buy told them was important. They want to press a button and receive a photo. This hasn't changed, ever. In the film heyday, most people had a compact film camera, not an SLR. With the advent of digital, we see a lot of features X and Y, but we also have the option of not using them. Nobody's making you autofocus your DSLR. Nobody's forcing people to use Live View. A DSLR is as basic or whizbang as you want it to be, and I think that's fantastic. Sometimes gadgetry is a hoot to use, sometimes simplicity is key. The great thing about the modern world that that we have the freedom to choose at all times.

[matt2000]

I don't want to take anything away from what you are saying Nomix, and I know there is always a satisfaction with achieving success with something difficult, like using an older camera compared to a new one, but this is the main reason I refuse to go to any type of photography school. While I'm more than happy to learn how my D-SLR works out of auto mode (which I rarely use now), I don't like the really technical side that comes with schools and courses, for me it's about the end result. I don't shoot for a paper or for clients, so whether or not I get a good picture only affects me and nobody else.

The other thing is that the advance in technology has allowed other people to join in with photography, not just the men in suits who had the big cameras. My DSLR has allowed me to do exactly that, which is the whole reason I bought it.

Newspaper photographers will always have the more advanced, and therefore more technical kit for taking their photographs, so the advance hasn't ruined it in my opinion, just expanded it to the point where people can have heir own personal photos used in print. If you understand what I mean.

Most of my other feelings have been said above too, and I would never swap my D40 for an older camera, not yet anyway. Although I do have an old bin I could use as a pinhole...

Damn.

I don't mean any of that in a bad way.

[amadeus]

It's not the camera that makes a picture - it's the person behind it. I think you can have all the gear in the world and come up with crap results, or you can have little equipment but use it well.

[nomix]

I get all your points, but I'm not talking about that. I wouldn't think about shooting a soccer match with MF.

As I said, it was just a philosphical thought.

[MXM]

With the risk of pretty much repeating what was said above:

Gear doesn't matter. Some of the best photos I've seen would looks just as impressive if taken by phone camera. But I enjoy using DSLR alot. I enjoy using old manual cameras even more (I really should find a good FM some time). So sometimes it's about the final result, sometimes you just enjoy doing it.

Pro-journalism is a different matter entirely, and I don't really know much about it...

[nomix]

FMs are good cameras. Mate of mine got his from his father. He in tern once dropped it out of a canoo, so it's been at the bottom of the Amazon river. Still takes pictures.

I once had a lecturer who summed up camera equipment rather well.

- A good photographer can get a good shot with any camera. But a good camera makes it very, very easy.

I would also suggest a look at Alex Majoli's pictures. He's in the Magnum bunch, and shoots conflicts around the globe with a couple of compact cameras.

[hansvonaxion]

Berserker said pretty much what I was going to say.

In the example you gave of your OM-2 vs DSLR, there would be nothing stopping you from whacking the DSLR in full manual mode and using it in the exact same way as your OM-2. Obviously film and digital are two different mediums but processing digital photos properly can take just as much skill as film. While the instant feedback changes the way people shoot, it can be a great teaching tool also. And the fact that shooting doesn't cost me anything is one hell of a relief, it makes photography even more accessible.

As for the sports guys shooting MF etc, you realise that they were using the most technologically advanced equipment available to them at the time. When 35mm was introduced I'm sure there were a number of guys who complained about the poor quality and stuck with MF for a while, same thing happened with digital.

Saying that technology might take away from the essence of photography is funny when you consider that photography itself is technology. What you look back on now as quaint and lo-tech was, in fact, the pinnacle of technology back in the day. Even the pin-hole camera.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by hansvonaxion

In the example you gave of your OM-2 vs DSLR, there would be nothing stopping you from whacking the DSLR in full manual mode and using it in the exact same way as your OM-2. Obviously film and digital are two different mediums but processing digital photos properly can take just as much skill as film. While the instant feedback changes the way people shoot, it can be a great teaching tool also. And the fact that shooting doesn't cost me anything is one hell of a relief, it makes photography even more accessible.

Again, you are missing my point. My point is not that a dSLR will give you worse results than film. In many cases, it will give you better results, well, more practical results anyway.

My point doesn't regard IQ, it doesn't regard anything with regards to the technical side.

It regards creativity and a state of mind. I don't know why, but when I use a 35mm camera, I think a lot different. Is it a psychological thing? Yes, of course. A dSLR can be a manual camera (even if I think it's a bit like turning the traction control off on a modern Mercedes-Benz, it isn't made for it), but it really is missing the point.

My very philosophical question is simply, are technology making us lazy and less creative? I won't say yes, but in some cases, I'd say perhaps.

I am not by any means telling you to drop your dSLRs and get cheap manual cameras off Ebay, I'm just airing the idea that perhaps we sometimes need to go backwards to go forward.

As for the sports guys shooting MF etc, you realise that they were using the most technologically advanced equipment available to them at the time. When 35mm was introduced I'm sure there were a number of guys who complained about the poor quality and stuck with MF for a while, same thing happened with digital.

Well, yes. He probably doesn't trust the AF on his camera. He doesn't trust the camera to make the same judgement as him, so he uses MF to get total control.

My point in that case was really that it's possible to photograph sports without AF, people did it for decades. I'm not saying we should, I can only imagine how stressfull it would be, and how many matches I would eff up that way, it was just a remark to show how people get the results they want without using all the technology offered to them.

Saying that technology might take away from the essence of photography is funny when you consider that photography itself is technology.

I'm not saying that. I'm not saying anything definate at all, if you read what I'm writing.

What you look back on now as quaint and lo-tech was, in fact, the pinnacle of technology back in the day. Even the pin-hole camera.

Of course. I am perferctly aware of that.

Please realise, I am not attacking technology, I was just posing a philosophical question, without giving any answer. And I have no intention of dropping my digital gear for film. I love using film, developing it, perfecting it in the dark room - but it's nothing more than a hobby. Photography is a part of my daily routine at work.

For me, I also find PP to be easier to learn than darkroom. But that's probably because I've grown up with digital technology. My dad needs a course to manage the computer system he uses at work, I've tried it, I didn't need a course.

He, on the other hand is superior developing prints.

I would also remark that if it wasn't for the digital revolution, I'd never get into photography. I think I have a quote from HCB in my signature. 14 000 photos with film, well, if we use film rolls with 36 frames, that's 388 rolls of film. Then we need to multiply that number with the price of each roll of film. And we need to develop it, and to really get the right learning experiene, we need chemicals to develop the film, we need a darkroom with equipment, and we need paper to print the images.

That's a cost I'd never be able to maintain with my limited income.

With digital, you can review the image immidiatly. What do you use for development? A computer, and you probably had that anyway. So you'll probably have a much faster learning curve with digital.

But I am sad I never got to learn exposure with a film camera before going to digital. I think I would had been at least a lot more thorough then.

[hansvonaxion]

Originally Posted by nomix

Again, you are missing my point. My point is not that a dSLR will give you worse results than film. In many cases, it will give you better results, well, more practical results anyway.

My point doesn't regard IQ, it doesn't regard anything with regards to the technical side.

It regards creativity and a state of mind. I don't know why, but when I use a 35mm camera, I think a lot different. Is it a psychological thing? Yes, of course. A dSLR can be a manual camera (even if I think it's a bit like turning the traction control off on a modern Mercedes-Benz, it isn't made for it), but it really is missing the point.

I never mentioned quality either. I don't think I missed your point. You can put your DSLR in full manual mode (yes, it was made for it) and it will function in the exact same way as your film SLR, I can't see how it could in any way hamper your creativity unless you let it.

I shot colour reversal 35mm on a Canon AE-1 and B&W film on a YashicaMat TLR 6x6 when I travelled through SE Asia. Since buying a digital camera I've had to learn how sensors react and record light as opposed to film (and the different types of film, neg, reversal and B&W) and adjust my process accordingly but it hasn't really changed my style of photography much. It has sped things up a little, that's about it.

Originally Posted by nomix

My very philosophical question is simply, are technology making us lazy and less creative? I won't say yes, but in some cases, I'd say perhaps.

I am not by any means telling you to drop your dSLRs and get cheap manual cameras off Ebay, I'm just airing the idea that perhaps we sometimes need to go backwards to go forward.

Forward in what sense? Why not just outward? People will always explore old technology and try to find new ways of working with it, that doesn't in any way devalue the work people do when using new technology.

Originally Posted by nomix

Well, yes. He probably doesn't trust the AF on his camera. He doesn't trust the camera to make the same judgement as him, so he uses MF to get total control.

My point in that case was really that it's possible to photograph sports without AF, people did it for decades. I'm not saying we should, I can only imagine how stressfull it would be, and how many matches I would eff up that way, it was just a remark to show how people get the results they want without using all the technology offered to them.

Sorry, when I said MF I was referring to meduim format, not manual focus. But anyway, there are a number of times when using manual focus can be advantageous. Does that mean I would prefer a camera with no AF? No, I can always turn it off, and sometimes do.

Originally Posted by nomix

I'm not saying that. I'm not saying anything definate at all, if you read what I'm writing.

Is there a danger this could in the end detract from what's the essense, the art of photography?

I was responding to this question basically. No need to be defensive, I'm just discussing. You asked the question and I was giving my opinion.

I think there needs to be a distinction made between commercial and fine art photography. Photojournalism has driven the technological advances made in photography because they were needed.

[Speedtouch]

Originally Posted by amadeus

It's not the camera that makes a picture - it's the person behind it. I think you can have all the gear in the world and come up with crap results, or you can have little equipment but use it well.

Agree entirely. I have received lots of praise for the shots I took with my old camera, even after showing the ones with my DSLR. Yes, the camera will increase the quality of your shots, but it wont improve the style and lens flair of them.