Are new cameras making us lazy?

lawrie29

lawrie29

Balloons! Yay!
Messages
5,051
Name
Lawrie
Edit My Images
Yes
I have been thinking about this for a while.

My camera is a Fuji S9600, a 9mp bridge, with a 300mm fixed zoom lens. It cannot compete with a more recent DSLR in some areas, low light, FPS etc, and there fore I have to work within the limits it presents me.

I know that I need flash for low light, or to work to get more light into a shot.

I know I don't have a fixed aperture, so shooting at the long end can be tricky, likewise there is no IS, so I need to ensure I am supporting the camera properly.

I don't have a compatible flash, so have the do things manually and experiment.

But if I had a new top of the range DSLR, and a couple of the right lenses, I could shoot in lower light without thinking, The IS would help on long shots, and a fixed aperture zoom makes it easier at the long end.
And a camera and flash that talked to each other with TTL would make the flash shots easier.

And don't even start with PP......

I appreciate that the advances in technology have meant that more and more people are out togging than ever before, and the cost of this is cheaper now than ever before which is definately a good thing, and that the advances in technology will never stop, again a good thing.

So my question is this, are we taking better shots than before because of the advances in technology, or are we just getting lazy and shooting what we see and the technology is making it work? And is this a good or a bad thing?
 
Interesting question,
does having all this automation and extras make us lazy?

well, ive thought and thought about it and every time I think I have an answer I put the question in a different situation and the answer changes again!

if I put it in a context where you are using studio lights things haven't actually changed, you meter the lights, and adjust the camera settings to suit.

on weddings where the lighting conditions are forever changing and the settings, and the location, etc etc.
I see it more as a means to be more creative as the automation runs with you

when I think of on camera strobes, I remember manual ones where I had to change it every time the situation changed, TTL may automate it but I still have a lot of say in what it does as like before I adjust it to achieve what ime after.

So I suppose, the original factors that used to influence a shot are still a big part of taking a photo, but having that technology there means it takes a lesser part and allows for us to have the flexibility to be more creative
 
I don't think new cameras are making us lazy. What they do do is make pictures that were almost impossible to get a few years ago possible (or at least make the results useable!). Features like IS/VR only help too - they can't help us get a faster shutter speed to freeze movement, they just allow us to get away with using a slower one when necessary.

I suppose that modern metering systems make it easier - we can generally trust them to get it pretty close to correct and should be able to add a little tweak in whichever direction necessary when we feel it'll be needed. Of course, TTL and iTTL flashes have made it a lot easier and faster but again, that just speeds up the process rather than us having to look at the table on the back of the gun and dial in the flash level etc.

The only way in which modern kit may have made us lazy is in zoom lens design which can make the old fashionned foot-zoom less popular than it used to be. Of course, footzooming is the only way to get the perspective we want but if a twist of a ring (or a push/pull) can get us closer (or further) then we may well take the easy option. :blush:
 
I'm quite sure this question has been asked since the dawn of photography - no more coating tin plates? We're getting lazy! A roll of film? With 36 exposures? We're getting lazy! In camera metering? We're getting lazy!, etc.

I think each advance in photography is making the actual act of making a well exposed, in focus image easier. Are people making better photographs - not neccesarily, they could still be poorly composed and inappropriately lit as they have always been, that has nothing to do with technology.
 
I sometimes think all the technology gets in the way of people taking good pictures. (Things like wildlife and sport excepted where the tech is absolutely necessary)

How many times do we see shots where the photographer has employed all sort of tech to get a sharp image that is exposed all the way from the deepest/darkness to the highest of highlights and yet it fails to communicate, fails to speak to you in any meaningful way?

It might just be me but I think as we get more and more technology we get less and less art.
 
lawrie29 said:
...So my question is this, are we taking better shots than before because of the advances in technology,[/bold] or are we just getting lazy and shooting what we see and the technology is making it work? And is this a good or a bad thing?
Click to expand...


Better pictures now? Emphatically not! :eek:

Most people are still taking rubbish photos, and the only difference is that a greater proportion are sharp and correctly exposed than before.

Proof, if ever it was needed, that people make good pictures, not cameras.

Having said that, most folks are very happy with the images they produce, even if photo snobs like me don't think much of them. Friends, family, places, things - memories to share on Facebook. That's what people want, not technical excellence or great art. Who are we to judge or criticise?
 
Having the top camera doesnt mean great pictures, but it makes us easier to get them. All these new cameras arnt making us lazy just skint.
 
I guess technology is always going to improve the results we are able to produce...and make those results achievable for even people who dont understand quite as well...we are edging closer and closer to automation...soon maybe we wont even need the human on the other side of the camera to press the "shoot" button???
 
Depends what we mean in terms of better quality though. Medium format film still produces better landscape images than digital manages and (to my eye) street shots look better on black and white film than on a digital file. The ability to produce pin-sharp reportage sports or wildlife shots is one thing - and better ISOs, faster focusing really are making shots that were impossible pretty straightforward - but there's still a role for illuminating a 'story' in ways that require imagination that no camera is going to provide.

And also pin-sharp, correctly focused and exposed images are all well and good but row upon row of them is just dull, dull, dull ...
 
BouncyMelons said:
How many times do we see shots where the photographer has employed all sort of tech to get a sharp image that is exposed all the way from the deepest/darkness to the highest of highlights and yet it fails to communicate, fails to speak to you in any meaningful way?

It might just be me but I think as we get more and more technology we get less and less art.
Click to expand...

I think I agree with you on this. Maybe it's because there are many more photographers out there than before.

Have to admit though, thanks to the advances in technology, many more people have access to cameras for taking pictures (hobby wise).
 
lawrie29 said:
I have been thinking about this for a while.

My camera is a Fuji S9600, a 9mp bridge, with a 300mm fixed zoom lens. It cannot compete with a more recent DSLR in some areas, low light, FPS etc, and there fore I have to work within the limits it presents me.

I know that I need flash for low light, or to work to get more light into a shot.

I know I don't have a fixed aperture, so shooting at the long end can be tricky, likewise there is no IS, so I need to ensure I am supporting the camera properly.

I don't have a compatible flash, so have the do things manually and experiment.

But if I had a new top of the range DSLR, and a couple of the right lenses, I could shoot in lower light without thinking, The IS would help on long shots, and a fixed aperture zoom makes it easier at the long end.
And a camera and flash that talked to each other with TTL would make the flash shots easier.

And don't even start with PP......

I appreciate that the advances in technology have meant that more and more people are out togging than ever before, and the cost of this is cheaper now than ever before which is definately a good thing, and that the advances in technology will never stop, again a good thing.

So my question is this, are we taking better shots than before because of the advances in technology, or are we just getting lazy and shooting what we see and the technology is making it work? And is this a good or a bad thing?
Click to expand...

they are certainly asking a lot of questions about the hi tech stuff...

maybe not lazy...just following stars
 
Digital, in my opinion, has made us, myself included, inherantly lazy.

I remember the days when I would turn up to shoot a wedding with a fixed amount of rolls of film. When they were gone, they were gone so every shot had to count. Now with digital you know that you have the luxury of chimping and if you didn't nail the shot then you simply retake it in the blink of an eye.

I personally think that the "skill" in photography has been dwindling sharply with the arrival of digital resulting in a lowering of the overall standard of quality.

It's as if the meaning of photography has shifted since it has become accessable to the masses and not just the few.

When you look at all the old Masters in photography, they didn't take photographs, they made works of art that had impact, told a story, captured a unique moment in time. With then THEY made the image NOT the camera and this has changed over the last few years.

Now, the image in many cases isn't created in camera, it is created after the shot using Photoshop and the like. Yes, I do admit that in days gone by, a good print lab could turn a good image into a stunning image if you got someone who had the skills and knowledge when developing film, but that in itself was a skill that took years to hone and perfect.

Many people take amazing images on digital but for me it seems that the overall quality of a lot of images produced today is below comparable images taken say 20 years ago.

Yes, styles change, technology moves on but at the end of the day it is the person that crafts the image not the camera.

A classic example is the arrival of better glass. My Tutor many, many years ago quoted me quite a famous phrase "Get as close as you can then take one step closer" and in the early years, I stuck ridgedly to it, always choosing the right lens for the job. Now, it is a different story and I, like many, simple don't get as close as we can and take that extra step, we get lazy and stick a different lens on.

Just my musings :)
 
Oh and to add to the above, I forgot to mention the scope of choice now available. That surely has to impact in general overall quality. With so many different bodies, so many different lens, often it is hard to choose the right tool for the job.

Manufacturers release now models year after year, often confusing people as to what the actual benefit is of buying the latest, newest version and many of us just get confused.

When you put into the pot as well that over the last few years there seems to have been a consistant year on year drop in real, quality affordable training available, it is no wonder that standards seem to be slipping.

Yes there are good trainers and excellant training courses out there but I have noticed over that last years in particular that there seems to be a plethera of people offering photographic training who themselves have only been on one or two training course themselves and have then set their cart out as photography gurus.

This can only dilute the skills set overall as the basic skills, i.e knowing your camera, are diluted with many of the decisions taken by the camera itself.

Hope that makes sense!
 
Not so sure about modern cameras making us lazy.
Having owned a few film SLR's, they were easy to learn how to use compared with DSLR's which are incredibly complex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top