Are clever cameras spoiling photography?

Richard King

Richard King

Messages
3,661
Name
Richard King
Edit My Images
No
I am looking at the manual for a new camera...

I can have auto ISO, god knows how many scene modes, I can re-program buttons, I have different focus modes, 3d focus tracking, stupid amounts of focus points... something dawned on me

Nothing has changed, once you get past the jigerypokery, in the box, I have intrinsically the same tools that I have on my film camera

- Choice of ISO (or film)
- Choice of aperture
- Choice of shutter speed
- Choice of where the lens is focused

So I thought perhaps these camera makers know what's what - so I gave the camera a workout, embracing all of the auto silliness. After getting a sore head, taking a bunch of crap shots, I turned off all the auto everything, went back to one focus point, Set the ISO to 200, popped it on A/P and the camera now takes stunning well exposed images

I hear a lot about "how many focus points" "auto ISO" and all of these superb modes, but I still stand by the fact that all these things seem to do for you is remove creative control from the photographer

Do we think that people are substituting skill with technology. If they are, I fear photography as a whole will go backwards

... and all that is before we consider lighting
 
Last edited:
nope, its a pants argument TBH. All modern clever cameras do is make it easier to create technically correct images. The photographer remains in control of the photograph. A badly composed boring photograph is still a badly composed boring photograph regardless of how technically correct photograph. Whereas an interesting, well lit, well composed photo will still be just that and all the jiggery poker has done is made it a little easier to get the technical bits right
 
For a lot of us it's about understanding how the automatic features work and using them to our advantage. Auto iso, for example, is great for keeping your shutter speed up (especially with zoom lenses in low light) but then you need to understand when to crack open manual iso and do it yourself. I personally stick to Av mode, auto iso and center focus point most of the time but then there are the times that I'll go into full manual mode in the studio, for example. I think it's a little backwards to totally ignore anything automatic when it can be used to your advantage when you understand it.
 
think its time you went back to the 1950s lol

Richard King said:
I am looking at the manual for a new camera...

I can have auto ISO, god knows how many scene modes, I can re-program buttons, I have different focus modes, 3d focus tracking, stupid amounts of focus points... something dawned on me

Nothing has changed, once you get past the jigerypokery, in the box, I have intrinsically the same tools that I have on my film camera

- Choice of ISO (or film)
- Choice of aperture
- Choice of shutter speed
- Choice of where the lens is focused

So I thought perhaps these camera makers know what's what - so I gave the camera a workout, embracing all of the auto silliness. After getting a sore head, taking a bunch of crap shots, I turned off all the auto everything, went back to one focus point, Set the ISO to 200, popped it on A/P and the camera now takes stunning well exposed images

I hear a lot about "how many focus points" "auto ISO" and all of these superb modes, but I still stand by the fact that all these things seem to do for you is remove creative control from the photographer

Do we think that people are substituting skill with technology. If they are, I fear photography as a whole will go backwards

... and all that is before we consider lighting
Click to expand...
 
That's like asking has auto tune ruined music?, IMHO yes it has, on BBC Radio 2 the other night, I was listening to some music from 1937, I was thinking wow these people can actually sing.

To answer your question, you need a fully manual camera, with manual focussing, put a roll of film in it and then see if you can get a decent photograph from it.

:)
 
Rob 80386 said:
That's like asking has auto tune ruined music?, IMHO yes it has, on BBC Radio 2 the other night, I was listening to some music from 1937, I was thinking wow these people can actually sing.
Click to expand...

Yes, so true, and the musicians could play, very well
 
I don't have a problem with the toys on the camera, you still need to have an artistic eye to get the photo, it can't do that for you.

Its the same with autotune - someone might now be able to sing, but it doesn't make it a good song.

I personally don't like the over the top photoshopping, removing objects etc.
 
Rob 80386 said:
That's like asking has auto tune ruined music?, IMHO yes it has, on BBC Radio 2 the other night, I was listening to some music from 1937, I was thinking wow these people can actually sing.

To answer your question, you need a fully manual camera, with manual focussing, put a roll of film in it and then see if you can get a decent photograph from it.

:)
Click to expand...

Quite straightforward. I could do this when I was about 11 or 12 (maybe a bit younger), and I wasn't any sort of prodigy!
 
The auto ISO thing is interesting. I may be way off with the attitude, but some people seem to see it as a crutch, to counteract a lack of lighting or skill with flash

It's a bit like the "you must have fast glass" that also seems to be a crutch too

I say this because shooting at 1.4/2.8 @ ISO 3600 gives a very specific look. For me, if I want the look, I shoot there, but it isnt a 1 trick pony, its just another creative option in the box

I think that's my issue with all the auto stuff, ultimately, I look at a shot and if I want it clean, in colour, at F8 and a bit of fill flash, that's how I shoot it

With auto everything turned on, I shoot it and find out the camera lobbed it on a really high ISO, and ignored the splash of flash I wanted... Or it suddenly decided something else in the scene was the primary focus point etc. etc.
 
I have a Ross Ensign 12-20 folding box camera made in 1953 and I set the ISO by choosing the speed of the film, I set the shutter speed and I set the aperture. I think it takes excellent, well exposed photographs. I think know what makes a good photograph and sometimes it all comes together to produce something I'm proud of.
Now with a digital camera I roll up take a look at the composition set my chosen aperture and take the pic, most of the time I get a well exposed, technically good shot and if not I'll mess with the settings until I do get the image I want.

So, which camera needs the most 'creative control' to get the image I want? Mainly the film camera I suspect.

Interesting debate, I look forward to more comments.

Andy
 
You know the only thing is that all of this technology has done is make it easier for the happy snapper to get technically good photos. Some people will never take the camera off auto mode for the simple reason they don't need to. They just want to press a button and get a memory. I've no problems with this at all, and it allows anybody to use a camera. I started just by using auto mode, it enabled me to make satisfying enough images to get into the hobby.

However if the photography bug bites you the more you become aware of the results you want to achieve, and inevitably it becomes apparent that the auto modes are not thinking the way you're thinking, and that's when you realise that to get the results you want you are going have to start telling the camera what to do. So you move away from the auto and scene modes. You do a bit of reading and understand how the settings affect the photos. Before you know it you find yourself using the camera in a not too dissimilar way to how you would being using an SLR from 20, 30 40 years ago - autofocus probably being the one exception.

I recently came into an old SLR of late 70's vintage. If I had only ever used my DSLRs in auto mode I wouldn't have had a clue how to use this thing, but because I'd learnt to shoot semi manual and manual with the DSLRs, using it was second nature - the only thing that perplexed me a bit was loading film for the first time.

Basically yes auto modes have made photography easier, if you're not a photographer. If you are a photographer then the auto modes and all that technology are pretty meaningless because sooner or later you'll end up doing it the old fashioned way anyway.
 
Auto whatever is fine as long as you understand what it's doing - and why. I've seen no end of shots taken by people using aperture priority who don't understand why their shots go all blurry when the sun goes in.

Auto focus works just fine virtually all the time, and makes most photography easier and better, as does auto white balance in RAW.
 
It's simple economics. Modern cameras are designed so that someone who knows nothing about the mechanics of a camera can make a good record of what happens in thier lives, which is what most camera owners use thier cameras for. The camera industry would still be a small thing if cameras were still complicated to use well. This also extends to SLRs, where manufacturers very kindly provide a green square, which most SLR users never get thier cameras off. Most cameras can be forced to thier owners will in some way or another and this accomodates the people who want to be a bit more creative.
 
ChrisGilbert said:
It's simple economics. Modern cameras are designed so that someone who knows nothing about the mechanics of a camera can make a good record of what happens in thier lives, which is what most camera owners use thier cameras for. The camera industry would still be a small thing if cameras were still complicated to use well. This also extends to SLRs, where manufacturers very kindly provide a green square, which most SLR users never get thier cameras off. Most cameras can be forced to thier owners will in some way or another and this accomodates the people who want to be a bit more creative.
Click to expand...

Mmm not sure about this, If I hand my mum a P&S compact with a "shoot button" she is OK, thats the point..

50/ 70 programmable AF points 3d tracking, face recognition - all seems to really pander to marketing hype
 
Richard King said:
Mmm not sure about this, If I hand my mum a P&S compact with a "shoot button" she is OK, thats the point..
Click to expand...

I think we're fiercely agreeing there.

Richard King said:
50/ 70 programmable AF points 3d tracking, face recognition - all seems to really pander to marketing hype
Click to expand...

Absolutely - all accessible from the green square as well.
 
The OP fears photography is going backwards. The problem with that statement is; what is photography?

People take photographs for all sorts of reasons, but i would suggest that most people take photographs for there own benefit. That is they take photographs of family and friends, of places they have been and things they have done. and I don't think that has changed, what has changed is the speed at which those photographs get seen. I can now take a photo and immedietley, not only share it with my friends and family but the world as well.

To me that is the only thing that has really changed.

Because for us photography is a hobby/job we tend to look at photographs more critically.
But we perhaps forget what most people want from a photograph and that is a memory.

And for me anything that makes that memory easier to get the better.
 
Last edited:
Photography is going forwards - I don't hanker for the 'good old days'.

I'm not young and can remember the old, badly designed, badly made cameras and I remember how much they cost too. My very first SLR camera was an Edixa, it cost £44.6.11d, equal to about £4461 in today's money, if my own earnings shift is typical.
Yes, we needed to learn our craft well in those days and I think it's sad, in a way, that modern digicams can do all of the thinking and that, because of that, lazy people don't bother to learn for themselves, and it's even more sad that Photoshop is seen by many as a substitute for camera and lighting skills but...

The cameras we have now work. Like cars, there are no bad cameras around today. Modern cameras with decent lenses can do great things in the right hands and one of the great benefits of automation is that people can concentrate on the job of creating an outstanding photo, without getting bogged in down with technicalities which, to them, may be a challenge.

So, I don't accept the OP's argument, any more than I accept what William Morris (I think) said about the cars he made - "Good brakes make bad drivers". I do understand what he meant, but I'd much rather have a modern car with good brakes, handling and performance, even though it might mean that even someone like me can drive it well.
 
Most people who take photographs aren't interested in photography, they just want 'snaps' of family, friends, holidays, events and places they've visited. That's fine.

The Instamatics and most of the the other entry level cameras of 40 - 50 years ago were, sort of, automatic in the sense that you didn't have to - and couldn't - adjust the settings. Some of them let you switch the aperture from sun to cloud, and focus from close to distant, using icons, but the results weren't anything to write home about.

Most modern compacts take far better photographs under any sort of reasonable conditions, and shoot video, just by pressing the button and relying on the automatic features. You can step up to an entry level DSLR if you like, for the benefits of the bigger sensor and better lens too, and most of them work pretty well in 'A'. That's all most people want, and you get the results immediately. I doubt if many of these images are ever printed - it's easier to mail or share on social networking groups.

I don't see any downsides. There's something for everyone.
 
All this technology is simply a means to an end - creating a picture. Doesn't matter whether there is a high degree of manual intervention or whether 100% of the technical decisions were taken by the camera, neither are infallible. Of all the photographs I've entered into competitions, sold, had published, accepted by Alamy, etc, no-one has ever asked me whether my photographs were taken in Program, Auto, Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, using Auto ISO, RAW/JPEG or whatever, and I don't think anyone's bothered.
Anything that makes the job easier, and enables me to concentrate on composition, and capturing the moment or the essence of whatever it is I'm photographing is a good thing IMO.
 
despite all the technical jiggery mcPokery that modern camera do for you , there is still no "compose" button. When they start being released with that then technology will have spoiled photography
 
If all these auto modes mean more exceptional moments are captured more easily rather than bogged up by the photographer missing them because they were pratting around in manual exposure mode then it can only be a good thing ;)

If you hear someone that has made a great image just shrug and say the just pressed the shutter button it seems more of a cheat than someone said they'd waited for days or months for the right light and spent hours perfecting the composition etc. I think there is still a desire for 'worthiness' which is why some dreadful efforts win prizes because the photographer caught a tape worm and the subject was half dead with some horrid disease and then was run over just after the photo was taken and then the photographer's plane crashed on the way home and they had to live on a deserted island and then their card was eaten by a shark...same photo with a shrugger would have been consigned to the trash immediately as it is then just a bad photo.
 
Interesting post. Going back to the good old days of film before automation started to set in, the camera mags were full of articles and impatient letters asking when we were going to get auto film speed recognition (DX coding) automatic film loading and rewinding. I used to think "What is the matter with these people - what's so difficult in setting a film speed and feeding a film onto a take-up spool?"

The one that really got me going though was the clamour for autofcus. How could such a thing possibly work and what would it choose to focus on anyway? :thinking:

Looking back, I just think how wrong I was as we now take these things for granted. Curiously though I still get a kick out of shooting film which is a much slower and thoughtful process - it can take me days or weeks to shoot a roll of 35mm film, and even using MF I sometimes struggle to shoot a roll in day - you tend to be very choosy in what you're shooting compared to digital.

I'm not sure all the features in modern cameras spoil photography but there's an undoubted tendency to fire off shots you wouldn't dream of with film, and quantity doesn't necessarily equal quality. Something I think we need to be a bit wary of?
 
Last edited:
essexash said:
despite all the technical jiggery mcPokery that modern camera do for you , there is still no "compose" button. When they start being released with that then technology will have spoiled photography
Click to expand...

Aren't they heading that way, with the Nikon 1 being able to decide which is the 'best' photo out of the stream that it's taken?

To me, photography is both a science and an art, and any technology that the manufacturers employ for image creation and manipulation is all number-crunching, based on what they think will be appealing. But no camera will ever have the 'feel' or 'passion' for a good image, and that's where the creativity part comes into it.

To continue the music analogy, that auto-tune thing is absolutely dire. It squeezes every last ounce of feeling that the performer may have had for what he/she was singing or playing and homogenises the bloody lot into a single non-creative commercial pile of cack, in my opinion - it's a machine telling us what we want to hear. There's only one 'E' note on the 2nd fret of the D string on a guitar, and an infinite number of ways to get it to sound. Add too much technology and there's a danger that they'll all sound the same - sterile and soul-less.

Some advances in technology can be used to enhance our photography - things like metering, and so on... but all the different modes? I might not be that good a photographer, but I'm learning and I only ever use my camera on manual...
 
Catdaddy said:
To continue the music analogy, that auto-tune thing is absolutely dire. It squeezes every last ounce of feeling that the performer may have had for what he/she was singing or playing and homogenises the bloody lot into a single non-creative commercial pile of cack, in my opinion - it's a machine telling us what we want to hear. There's only one 'E' note on the 2nd fret of the D string on a guitar, and an infinite number of ways to get it to sound. Add too much technology and there's a danger that they'll all sound the same - sterile and soul-less.
Click to expand...

The same with quantisation which aligns notes which are slightly off the beat exactly to the beat. It sounds so mechanical and bereft of human feeling. Reminds me of a mechanical music box. :gag:
 
CT said:
Interesting post. Going back to the good old days of film before automation started to set in, the camera mags were full of articles and impatient letters asking when we were going to get auto film speed recognition (DX coding) automatic film loading and rewinding. I used to think "What is the matter with these people - what's so difficult in setting a film speed and feeding a film onto a take-up spool?"

The one that really got me going though was the clamour for autofcus. How could such a thing possibly work and what would it choose to focus on anyway? :thinking:

Looking back, I just think how wrong I was as we now take these things for granted. Curiously though I still get a kick out of shooting film which is a much slower and thoughtful process - it can take me days or weeks to shoot a roll of 35mm film, and even using MF I sometimes struggle to shoot a roll in day - you tend to be very choosy in what you're shooting compared to digital.

I'm not sure all the features in modern cameras spoil photography but there's an undoubted tendency to fire off shots you wouldn't dream of with film, and quantity doesn't necessarily equal quality. Something I think we need to be a bit wary of?
Click to expand...

It is interesting. I answered a post the other day where images were getting over exposed. The EXIF for the three shots said 12800, 400, 800 (or something like that) between 3 consecutive, similar shots. Apparently from one of the fairly automatic modes

As a photographer, I don't need my camera making such basic (potentially shot spoiling) decisions for me

I was looking at a young(ish) wedding photographer work recently, they had the camera set on auto ISO, also set on some wierd setting that apparently kept the aperture under 5.6, they had the flash on permanently, bouncing off the card. and on continuous shooting. Guess what - the dress images are nearly all blown, a lot of the images are noisy, many have the wrong thing in focus, and the image look flat and lifeless. That's no surprise.

You could say that this is a lack of skill or experience, but as I see this more and more (and especially after seeing the PP) It really shows a lack of effort in wanting to learn how the basic elements of photography come together to make (or break) a shot.

My worry is is that as the new generation of photographers don't really learn the basics (exposure, using flash, composition) and just rely on the camera to deal with "the settings" and "the flash" the craft will be kind of lost, or with "the few" that care to learn

When I shot film and developed stuff in a darkroom, I felt connected to every stage of the image making process, and felt what I did made a difference. I wonder if the new breed of digital cameras is step by step removing us away from the craft

Don't get me wrong, I am a technologist through and through. I can see the advantages of many of the new features, but many of them just seem a step too far
 
CT said:
Interesting post. Going back to the good old days of film before automation started to set in, the camera mags were full of articles and impatient letters asking when we were going to get auto film speed recognition (DX coding) automatic film loading and rewinding. I used to think "What is the matter with these people - what's so difficult in setting a film speed and feeding a film onto a take-up spool?"

The one that really got me going though was the clamour for autofcus. How could such a thing possibly work and what would it choose to focus on anyway? :thinking:

Looking back, I just think how wrong I was as we now take these things for granted. Curiously though I still get a kick out of shooting film which is a much slower and thoughtful process - it can take me days or weeks to shoot a roll of 35mm film, and even using MF I sometimes struggle to shoot a roll in day - you tend to be very choosy in what you're shooting compared to digital.

I'm not sure all the features in modern cameras spoil photography but there's an undoubted tendency to fire off shots you wouldn't dream of with film, and quantity doesn't necessarily equal quality. Something I think we need to be a bit wary of?
Click to expand...

I agree. As I said before, I think full automation may have more to offer people who just want to take social/personal photographs, but most pros and serious amateurs use some degree of automation too. It's available, usually works well, and you don't have to use it if you don't want to.

The quantity and quality debate probably has more to do with digital technology than automation, which was mature as digital started to become mainstream. I know some pros did shoot enormous amounts of film, but most amateurs didn't. It was too expensive, but I know I shot a lot more once I started reloading bulk film and developing it myself.

Digital changed the perspectives, because it was seen as 'free' once you bought the camera. People who used to buy a few - or maybe a couple of dozen - rolls of film a year now bang off dozens, or hundreds, of shots at a time. Of course, all DSLRs have a continuous mode now and most of the older SLRs required a separate motor drive for this, until some of the pro bodies started coming out with it built in. High speed, machine gun, mode certainly seems to work for sports and some wildlife/bird photography.

I still shoot film, not very often, but sometimes; and I think it does force you to slow down and think about what you're doing. Mistakes are a lot harder to rectify than in digital, where PS (or whatever you prefer) can often salvage the results. OTOH, I suppose you can use a DSLR in the same way, if you avoid the temptation.
 
Catdaddy said:
Some advances in technology can be used to enhance our photography - things like metering, and so on... but all the different modes? I might not be that good a photographer, but I'm learning and I only ever use my camera on manual...
Click to expand...

I don't restrict myself to using manual all the time. There's no point chasing the needle for the sake of chasing the needle IMO. Aperture priority is where it's at for me for pretty much most of the time. I typically use manual for flash photography and macro, but I'll also use shutter priority in certain situations. I never use auto ISO because I always preset the ISO to give me the best balance between flexibility and image quality for a given set of circumstances.

I guess we all find our particular preferences, and what works for one of us may not always work for the rest of us.
 
CT said:
The same with quantisation which aligns notes which are slightly off the beat exactly to the beat. It sounds so mechanical and bereft of human feeling. Reminds me of a mechanical music box. :gag:
Click to expand...

Agreed! It's butchering creativity and feel and turning music into an exercise rather than a performance. Technically, it might be better, but artistically it's losing all credibility. Hell, the guitar amps I use are reliant on technology that was developed well over 50 years ago, and there's still nothing that can match it for sound.

And that's why I'd much rather learn to use my camera in manual mode rather than rely on presets... it's the same thing, as far as I'm concerned - use the technology in conjunction with my own abilities, rather than have the technology dictate what the images come out like...
 
Last edited:
I think the first Aperture Priority cameras were a real genuine help with speeding up settings and were a step in the right direction - but they could have stopped right there for me - certainly as far as all the silly modes are concerned. Apart from Manual and AP, the rest of the modes are just useless hieroglyphics on the mode dial.:gag:
 
Last edited:
CT said:
I think the first Aperture Priority cameras were a real genuine help with speeding up settings and were a step in the right direction - but they could have stopped right there for me - certainly as far as all the silly modes are concerned. Apart from Manual and AP, the rest of the modes are just useless hieroglyphics on the mode dial.:gag:
Click to expand...
I disagree, to a degree. I was shooting people at the weekend and in order to freeze motion, stuck the camera on shutter priority with safety shift on.* Later in the day when the light was fading and I stuck the flash on, I confused myself with the set-up as it's the first time I'd tried using it so the camera went into P-1.** Without those options, I don't think I'd have got the photos I was after.

Auto-modes are tools in the box, to be used when necessary. I'm no fan of scene modes but I did use them until I understood more about what I wanted to achieve. You could argue that in-camera metering and AE-lock are unnecessary but I use them almost every time I take the camera out.




* An assist on the T90; you set the shutter speed you want and if the camera meters the scene and realises it'll be under-exposed, it'll reduce the shutter speed so that you can still get the shot.
** Program mode with settings biased for short telephoto lenses.
 
Having recently gone back to 35mm film with Olympus, the OM4T and OM4Ti just do all that I want and the metering system is fantastic, still better than what is available on a DSLR.

I must be honest though I did like the speed in which you could end up with an image from a digital camera, the option to shoot at various ISOs if required and shoot in colour but get a mono image if required. I cannot think of a time when I used anything other than manual or aperture priority exposure though, and almost always spot metering.
 
No brainer for me. All the technology and auto settings in the world are no good if the person behind the camera dosen't know what their doing.
 
I grew up with manual/mechanical cameras and still have my F2 and FM, so I'm quite comfortable with manual. My DSLR is usually in Aperture Priority, but I use Shutter Speed Priority, Manual and Programme at times. I've never tried the scene modes, and I can't see any reason to, but it's not for me to make decisions for other people.

I still have a fondness for MF, but my eyes aren't up to it on a crop camera viewfinder most of the time, and it's mainly AF now.
 
Manual focus with modern viewfinders is not as easy as it was when using my OM1n, hence I place more reliance on Af these days, is this an area where improvements on new DSLR's could be made... please.
 
artyman said:
Manual focus with modern viewfinders is not as easy as it was when using my OM1n, hence I place more reliance on Af these days, is this an area where improvements on new DSLR's could be made... please.
Click to expand...

I'd like to think so. I've read various explanations why this isn't possible - technically - but I'm still convinced that the manufacturers could overcome the problems if they really wanted to. I suspect they realise that there's not that many of us who remember/have used the brilliant VFs on the old mechanical SLRs, and most buyers are only familiar with the dim little apologies they fit on crop cameras.
 
artyman said:
Manual focus with modern viewfinders is not as easy as it was when using my OM1n, hence I place more reliance on Af these days, is this an area where improvements on new DSLR's could be made... please.
Click to expand...

Actually I find manual focusing with the standard matt focusing screen in my D7000 dead easy. It's not as "in your face" as a split prism but once you've got the viewfinder diopter set right and know what you're looking for you can nail it virtually every time, without having to look at the rangefinder dot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top