Are clever cameras spoiling photography?

[CT]

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.

Actually I have a Canon F1N which has the biggest brightest laser etched screen with a split image centre spot. It's without doubt the easiest camera to manually focus I've ever used and I really appreciate the benefits of AF needing specs to go to the bogs these days.

Perhaps the focus peaking creeping into modern cameras will be a boon for manual focus - I certainly hope so.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

OP.
Not spoiling but possibly making it easier, which in turn goes to produce more good photos generally which in turn inspires and drives good photographers to produce even better shots than ever before …so its all good.

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.

lol

The triangle exposure thinking used as the norm nowadays has made a change in the way people understand and learn the basics I feel.
Back in those film days, for the amateur photographer especially I’d suggest, it was more of a two way street between the shutter and the aperture. I wonder whether today’s equality with each corner of the triangle approach, is easier or harder to get to grips with than the simplified version of old, forced upon us because of the fixed film speed we had to choose first.

 

[MartynK]

OP.

The triangle exposure thinking used as the norm nowadays has made a change in the way people understand and learn the basics I feel.
Back in those film days, for the amateur photographer especially I’d suggest, it was more of a two way street between the shutter and the aperture. I wonder whether today’s equality with each corner of the triangle approach, is easier or harder to get to grips with than the simplified version of old, forced upon us because of the fixed film speed we had to choose first.

Possibly, although I remember winding film back into the cassette - and leaving the leader out - so that I could change it without wasting the unexposed part. I used to write the number of frames on a piece of paper and attach it to the cassette with a rubber band, then I'd reload and wind on to the same point + 2 and carry on. The range of film speeds was more limited too, although you could use extra development and uprate them.

Digital does make it easier!

 

[CaptainPenguin]

Recently switched back to centre weighted metering and am getting much better exposed shots

 

[Phil V]

OP.
Not spoiling but possibly making it easier, which in turn goes to produce more good photos generally which in turn inspires and drives good photographers to produce even better shots than ever before …so its all good.

lol
.

I disagree! There's much more photography about but the average hasn't improved IMO.
Good photography is as difficult as it ever was, the Internet has shortened the learning curve much more than any other modern technology. So if you have the determination you can improve really quickly.

Others have alluded to this but it's true that the camera only records what it's aimed at. So for landscape photographer the skill is in the location and light. For portraits it's 90% psychology etc.

There are some aspects of photography where the technology has improved the product greatly for good photographers though, brilliant AF and faster drive modes have meant that sports wildlife etc now have keeper rates previously not dreamt of.
Tethered shooting has put artistic directors at the centre of advertising and fashion shoots. Which is maybe not a great thing for those photographers.

 

[NikkiA]

I personally shoot manual 99% of the time, but no, people have been making these 'OMG they're dumbing down photography' claims as long as I remember - they made it about in-camera metering, power-winders, TTL, auto-focus, etc etc

In the end, they're all just tools that you can choose to use or not. (Although I will cede that the lower end of the market with it's 'auto' modes are a different issue, but again, no worse than the instamatics I started on - a 126 with simply a 'sunny/cloudy' switch, and a 110 with a 'normal/tele' switch AND a 'sunny/cloudy' switch)

 

[MartynK]

In the end, they're all just tools that you can choose to use or not. (Although I will cede that the lower end of the market with it's 'auto' modes are a different issue, but again, no worse than the instamatics I started on - a 126 with simply a 'sunny/cloudy' switch, and a 110 with a 'normal/tele' switch AND a 'sunny/cloudy' switch)

I remember those, although I never used them. I had a folding Kodak 120 something then, completely manual and you had to cock the shutter separately. Anyway, I think most of the entry level modern compacts, with AF, A and scene modes are probably a lot better than the Instamatics were.

 

[Craft]

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

So your issue is actually about people who don't take the time to learn the camera properly and from what you say the result suffered.

So with film cameras no-one took technically "bad" pictures ? blown whites and the like ? No-one got high ISO film and used it for everything ?

I could sort of see your point if people picked up a camera, didn't learn how to use it and got really impressive pictures, but I don't think that happens, at least not consistently.

I think modern camera features can help experienced and rookie photographers alike, but if you don't learn how to use the camera its going to make your life much harder.

 

[srichards]

There's much less excuse for blown highlights these days as you have the lcd review which shows you the histogram so you can see any highlights that are blown.

Centre weighted metering seems to be more reliable than matrix. The latter is bonkers half the time. If you divide the scene up and calculate exposure it should be more accurate than a basic average. It isn't. I'd love to know why.

Surely any metering system should think what is the longest exposure you'd need to expose this scene without blowing high lights so the shadows are still exposed properly. Instead it seems to do the reverse and find out the shortest exposure where the shadows are exposed properly but highlights are often blown to bits. A boffin needs to work on this...

 

[Musicman]

Every once in a while I fantasise about a 'back to basics' digital body that just has three controls: ISO and shutter speed as rotary dials and an on/off switch; stripping it to the essence of a camera which is a box within which to expose light for a specified amount of time, just digital capture.

Possibly an SLR design with an adaptable mount upon which that you could chuck any sort of legacy manual-focus glass. Alternatively, I'd settle for a mirrorless design with a useable EVF, which would help with using stopped-down lenses, though you'd want a dedicated extra button for enlarging the EVF image for accurate focus. APS-C sensor to help keep the costs down (though full frame would be nice).

Perhaps it wouldn't even have a built in meter, or just a simple, centre-weighted match-needle affair. Rear playback screen optional. You can find out what you've got on the card when you get home. However if it possessed an EVF, then it would be largely superfluous. Essentially I guess I'm thinking of something like a digital version of the early 1970s Canon EF or many similar film cameras of the era.

Probably not enough demand out there for such a thing to make it cheap enough, unfortunately.

 

[MartynK]

The FM3D would come close, if it actually existed - Thom Hogan thought it did - and had gone into production.

 

[boliston]

I have never seen the appeal of scene modes or auto focus, and luckily the D700 does not have scene modes and is very easy to manually focus.

The D700 has a superb P mode so I just tend to use that, and auto iso also works very well and I can set the exact shutter speed that activates it (i set it at 1/125s).

 

[PDub]

I personally think most people on here use at some point at least one auto feature on a daily basis. Aperture priority is one, which I'm I'm most of the time, I often use auto ISO but specify the limits so i don't introduce noise but mostly I'll set that scene dependant. Always auto white balance as I shoot raw as well.

You can keep your scene modes, auto mode, and p mode, find them more frustrating and inconsistant than anything else to be honest now I've learnt the basics.

 

[CT]

So your issue is actually about people who don't take the time to learn the camera properly and from what you say the result suffered.

So with film cameras no-one took technically "bad" pictures ? blown whites and the like ? No-one got high ISO film and used it for everything ?

I could sort of see your point if people picked up a camera, didn't learn how to use it and got really impressive pictures, but I don't think that happens, at least not consistently.

I think modern camera features can help experienced and rookie photographers alike, but if you don't learn how to use the camera its going to make your life much harder.

The thing is things have changed a bit since then. If you saw someone else with an SLR - particularly before camera metering started to creep in, it would definitely be another enthusiast - people just wouldn't buy an SLR if they didn't know how to use it and there was less demand for them so in real money they were more expensive than they are today. The only way to learn was via books and camera mags.- no internet.

There isn't much out there that's more of an appealing hi tech gizmo than a modern SLR and nowadays people buy them without having a clue or making any effort to learn the basics before they buy. The truth is that wonderful things though they are, they're a far more complicated and bewildering thing to be confronted with by a rank newby than a film SLR ever was. The few basic principles you really need to grasp are complicated by all those modes and menus.