Technology vs Photography?

[jamiebonline]

Hi guys,

I have been thinking about this one for a while now. Especially as I am currently using older cameras with no or only single point AF, no option to change types of metering, no in-body stabilization and so on and yet of course a good image can be obtained from such a camera. It was many years ago and can be now. My belief is that the advancement of tech primarily makes it easier to do things. Like take pictures. Easier if you have fast AF and don't have to manually focus. Easier to get a shot if you have more fps and shoot sport. Easier if you can go to really high ISOs in dark conditions and get usable images. Easier if you can fit all of it in a smaller body (like mirrorless). Easier if you can see the picture in an EVF before you even take it. Well it's about ease but also about potential. Giving you possibilities you didn't have before. It works on those two principles. Maybe most tech does. But as this technological growth continues without stopping... to get better and better with increasing speed, there are still limitations. No machine, no matter what you paid for it, is limitless. So you have to work within those limitations and that is the beauty of it and frankly, the skill of it too, at times.

Photography is quite unique in being so tied to technology. I mean, it is a creative endeavour but it is wrapped up with technological advancement in a way that painting, composing music, writing, and so on, for the most part, are not. This is nice if you like to play with toys. ( I quite like to myself ) but can be a major distraction. We all know about gear acquisition syndrome where people spend more time reading about and buying gear than really developing themselves as photographers with what they have at hand. But we live in a consumer age and the machines we use are being updated so often it is becoming almost like a race not without its snobs too.

I am sure there are people earning good money from photography who will disagree with me, saying they need to deliver fast and of a certain grade and maybe some well-off people who can afford to spend tons on gear and enjoy it too, but for most of us, I think we are being led down a road we don't really need to go down. A road which is really more about making money for the companies. (without sounding too much like an activist ) The need to make the buyer think they need stuff they don't. The magazines are full of ads for gear and though they are attractive, they can also be a distraction from more important things. I honestly quite like the limitations of the machines I use right now, as primitive as they are and as a portrait photographer (and a little bit street photographer) maybe these limitations enhance rather than curtail what I do. I am not saying people should shoot with 1970s cameras. That's not my point but I think you can see what I mean. All the options in some modern cameras. All the options in menus I never use. So much fiddling around at times. Of course you can approach the latest machine the way you like but I wanted to share what I have learned. How stepping back made me slow down, think, look at the light more. Really compose the shot. That's what I love about it.

Any thoughts or feelings on this?

 

[RichardTaylor]

I would never ever go back to the days of:
No in camera exposure meter. Lots of exposure problems when you do not estimate the scene well with the exposure description on the film box.
No in camera range finder (let alone autofocus). Estimating the subject distance, or using a tape measure can be a real problem at times.
Fast lenses, at least "standard" primes, have been around since i started shooting. There were no zooms
Missing shots because you are fiddeling with you camera.

I do like having good, "fast" zooms and even faster long primes.
I do like having fast, responsive, autofocus sytems, including lenses.
I do like being free of the tyranny of shooting film, especially for motor sport..
I do like great high ISO performance. I can now shoot events that I could only dream of back in the "olden" days.
I do like having a live histogram in the viewfinder or even a histogram on playback.
I do like having TTL flash metering sytems.

You do not have to be a slave to updating your cameras. Just becuse a new model comes out it doesn't mean the old one is no good if it still does the job, and meets your needs (not "marketing" wants).

What stops you slowing down, and taking time to observe things, when using a "modern" camera. Only the person behind the camera. Not the camera.

On a personal note I do not buy many photography magazines, especially those that push the ideas of spending more money to solve a "problem" or to improve your photography.
Once you have reasonable gear you can forget about upgrading all the time.
I went from 2008 to 2014 before replacing one a DSLR, that was because it was making "funny" noises after very heavy use. Admiitedly I added mirrorless sytem about 5 months ago to help with my classical concert photography for a "client". I cannot see myself buying any major new gear for a very long time.



.

 

[redsnappa]

The OP is 100% right. I'm seeing more and more often on this forum that photography is becoming more about the technology. There are too many posts about micro adjusting lenses. I've seen camera reviews where a camera is marked down because it does not have wireless or geo-tagging. There was a thread on here recently and the topic of discussion was the merits of having a camera that has 54 focus points and one only has 39 focus points.

 

[KIPAX]

To the OP .. If I go to my local basketball game at the weekend in a dark halll.. shoot at F2 and 256000 iso to get a 800 shutter speed in order to capture action.. I will get all the slam dunks and running with ball I need... given those conditions how much do you think you would get... is it easier for me with up to date equipment or esential...

an old ford populor car will get you from A to B by the way... so wil a push bike..

Its not clever living in the past.. certainly doesn't impress me

 

[sirch]

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...ind-the-lens-2015-winner.605370/#post-7090998

 

[jamiebonline]

To the OP .. If I go to my local basketball game at the weekend in a dark halll.. shoot at F2 and 256000 iso to get a 800 shutter speed in order to capture action.. I will get all the slam dunks and running with ball I need... given those conditions how much do you think you would get... is it easier for me with up to date equipment or esential...

an old ford populor car will get you from A to B by the way... so wil a push bike..

Its not clever living in the past.. certainly doesn't impress me

I mentioned sport not being a good example of my point.
I don't think I am living in the past at all or trying to impress you
Car analogy is interesting except photography is not about getting from A to B, it is creative. And you surely don't deny the creative genius of photographers from 50 years ago, for example.
Most of the post is about the relationship between tech and photography and gear acquisition. It's not telling people new cameras are worse than old cameras. I was hoping people would not think that.

 

[snooks]

Just got back into photography after a gap of about 30 years,
I bought a Nikon 3200 and from a technical point of view it is light years in front of the Minolta x700 which was my last camera (first one was a PracticaMPL5).First time out with the Nikon I was firing off shots like a mad man, changing iso with the turn of a dial, no need to focus the camera does it for me, all the metering done in the camera. When I got home loaded the images onto my computer( no messing about with a developing tank) and what I saw was at best a load of snap shots.
When I go out now I think as if there is film in the camera and think about the photograph I want to take rather than just firing off a load of shots. As for the new technology if it makes taking better photographs easier then I'm all for it.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

I would never ever go back to the days of…

•
… me neither!
The technique!
Mind you, one still has to master the techniques, even with auto-everything!
This auto-everything has to be configured the right way for the right results,
and often tweaked to achieve the tiny differences one is after. Ain't that the
main reason for the four menu memory banks aboard my single digits? So
much for the technique.

Now, the photography!
All these auto-everything, once masterly set up, will give you the opportunity to
be the hunter you always wanted to be: an IMAGE HUNTER and no longer will
you have to be an excuse finder. ONE GOT THAT GIVEN SHOT BECAUSE ONE
WAS AT THE RIGHT TIME DOING THE RIGHT THING! and that was not fiddling
some controls or what not!

I would never ever go back to the days of…

 

[boliston]

I think a lot depends on if you are a hobby or commercial photographer - i am only a hobbyist so like the fact that i have a very low tech camera with no af, no reliable "in camera" metering so it's basically ME deciding how the photo is taken rather than the camera. A commercial photographer is taking photos for their client rather than themselves so "getting the shot" is the main aim so this is where the high tech route wins.

 

[jamiebonline]

Just to say again, I am really not some kind of elitist who thinks film and analogue is the best. I know many like that. That's the same as elitists for new tech. Not at all. I am new to it. I just enjoy it these days. It gives me something I lost or miss and I have learned something from it.

Of course with some types of photography, pretty much ''faster everything'', is better, especially if you have a deadline to deliver pro grade pictures. Although again, I don't think you need this months latest release to do that.

The other points I made: focusing too much on gear is not good and an awareness of the market and its manipulative behaviour is important. That's a summary

 

[Kodiak Qc]

I think a lot depends on if you are a hobby or commercial photographer.

•
"OBJECTION YOUR HONOUR…"
Whether for me or a client, I use the same cameras, with the same minding
and most certainly the same passion!

 

[DG Phototraining]

I love the techie advances that allow me to shoot what I want to shoot & in the way I want to do it

Most of my latest camera's settings are the same as the ones I used years ago, and to an extent I still use them in the same way I did my old Chinons. I'm one of the few that actually reads the Manual, but I'm just looking for the odd useful thing and especially what I can ignore the most - Live View for instance, very clever never used it to take a 'real' photo; nor any of those focus tracking options; CLS etc.

That I can capture more now with a higher success rate because of techie stuff just makes me happier

When they finally release a DR that can capture everything I'll be happier still - techie stuff rocks lol

Dave

 

[Ed Sutton]

Anything that takes care of the boring technical crap for me and lets me get on with making pictures is good in my book.

 

[DemiLion]

The other points I made: focusing too much on gear is not good and an awareness of the market and its manipulative behaviour is important. That's a summary

Read any advert for a staff photographer, photo editor or member of the picture desk. I can guarantee you that 'staying abreast of modern technology and developments' is one of the required skills.

 

[cjevans]

I like the point the OP is making, enjoy the craft, don't get caught up in the gear and remember that it's the final product that really matters. That said I could REALLY do with some better glass....

 

[jamiebonline]

Read any advert for a staff photographer, photo editor or member of the picture desk. I can guarantee you that 'staying abreast of modern technology and developments' is one of the required skills.

Yes as I said before, I am not talking about people making their living from it. I am sure places really require this. Well not all working pros but maybe most.

 

[tijuana taxi]

I enjoy a bit of nostalgia, but also keen on some of the more pleasant aspects of modern life too.

Old steam trains and rolling stock are nice every now and then, but much prefer the rapid clean comfort of an inter city train when travelling long distances

 

[RichardTaylor]

Yes as I said before, I am not talking about people making their living from it. I am sure places really require this. Well not all working pros but maybe most.

Even as a hobbyst you may sometimes have "clients".

They may be family members who want something better than I phone snapshots.
They may be friends of your wife who ask "does any body have a good camera, and know how to use it". This resulted in a lot of classical music, including opera, photography.
They may be car club members who ask if you can take some photographs of the road racing, and provide free tickets, parking, and most importantly a media pass so you can shoot trackside.
I don't like to dissapoint my "clients", or myself, so 1/2 decent gear (including back up gear) is almost a necessity.
Besides I can always use a lot of the gear I have purchased for purely my own photography. Bird photoigraphy and motor sport photography baically uses the same gear.

I am just a hobbyst.

 

[DemiLion]

Yes as I said before, I am not talking about people making their living from it. I am sure places really require this. Well not all working pros but maybe most.

Thread not going quite the way you anticipated? At this rate, if you keep excluding people from your catchment pool, you'll be talking about a representative sample of one; ie yourself.

 

[Phil V]

In exactly the same way that I don't see 'Joe Bloggs photography' as typical of pro photographers, I don't see gearheads as photographers at all. However photography isn't unique IMO, it's similar to music in requiring both technical and artistic talents.

But like Dave, I love the fact that my modern gear allows me to do things that I could never do with my old gear, I shot for nearly 20 years with manual focus cameras, you won't take my AF from me now.

But it'd be nice if the OP decided on his online persona, one minute he's an expert who knows and understands complex techniques but prefers to eschew them, and the next he's just a novice asking naive questions. There's something of a passive aggressive questioning style that I think unnecessary.

 

[snerkler]

I agree with the 'sentiment' of the OP, and there is a lot of that going on. However, we should 'blame' the individual behind the camera not the technology IMO

 

[woof woof]

Just on the point of people talking about the gear, well this shouldn't surprise us as this is the equipment forum. Most of my posts are in this section as I have an interest in the gear and technology in general and frankly I'm not really too interested in taking a picture and having other people comment on it, now and again maybe but mostly I don't really care what others think as IMO once you've mastered pressing the buttons all else is opinion. The vast majority of pictures I've posted are gear related in some way.

I don't think that photography is in any way unique. My background is computers and I've seen big changes. The gear has greatly improved and become easier to use and to obtain good results with and this is true of lots of technology from hifi to cars to home cinema or a hundred other things and we shouldn't be surprised to see new or improved tech being used and talked about and once we've bought our kit someone somewhere will try to persuade us to buy the MK2 and some of us will otherwise the whole thing stops... and if some customers can be persuaded to put their hand in their pocket by more focus points then somone is going to make it and market it. This has always happened and maybe always will.

Imagine blokes sat around a camp fire 100k years ago. Ug says to Grrr "This new spear of mine is ace. It's got one of those new flint tips. I can bring down a Gnu at 60 paces with this beauty" "Hmmm" says Grrr "I might have to get one of those. My knees have gone and I can't run after beasts and club them with this rock any more." Blokes like to compare and talk about stuff and that helps evolution

Having said all that I only moved to digital when the quality of prints I was getting back nosedived. I presume they'd cut costs to compete with the growing threat from digital but whatever the reason it forced me out and I never went back. I like photogrpahy and I like tech. No excuses are necessary

 

[metroman]

.Imagine blokes sat around a camp fire 100k years ago. Ug says to Grrr "This new spear of mine is ace. It's got one of those new flint tips. I can bring down a Gnu at 60 paces with this beauty" "Hmmm" says Grrr "I might have to get one of those. My knees have gone and I can't run after beasts and club them with this rock any more." Blokes like to compare and talk about stuff and that helps evolution

Great analogy

 

[wave01]

To me I am still taking pictures. Today it is easier and faster. I get shots that I would have missed on days gone by. Long live progress.

 

[sunnyside_up]

Imagine blokes sat around a camp fire 100k years ago. Ug says to Grrr "This new spear of mine is ace. It's got one of those new flint tips. I can bring down a Gnu at 60 paces with this beauty"

Ultimately, the new spear with flint tips won't do Ug much good if his aim is that poor that he can't even keep from peeing on the toilet seat.

 

[ianp5a]

There are 2 sides to this. A technological enhancement might help a proficient person do what they did before, but with more ease. But it might also enable a non proficient person do something they actually couldn't do before. They are probably more happy that they can suddenly do something, despite the fact that it may not be as perfect as we'd expect it.

It could be the latter that drives product enhancements.

 

[DemiLion]

But it'd be nice if the OP decided on his online persona, one minute he's an expert who knows and understands complex techniques but prefers to eschew them, and the next he's just a novice asking naive questions. There's something of a passive aggressive questioning style that I think unnecessary.

Blimey, I see what you mean. He's a bit of a serial thread starter, isn't he. Well spotted.

 

[jamiebonline]

Blimey, I see what you mean. He's a bit of a serial thread starter, isn't he. Well spotted.

Yeah I am a serial thread starter and someone mentioned me being passive aggressive. I suppose a little. It's defense mechanism. If you want to psychoanalyze it. All of us have it.
I never said I was an expert and I don't think I said anything that shows that I believe this. There are a lot of interesting replies though.

I am not anti-tech advancement at all. I never said that. Just commenting on the fact there is sometimes too much attention to it. I said a simpler device has been nice FOR ME these days. But now I am really repeating myself.
I started the thread to see if others maybe thought the same and some people did. I don't think anyone totally disagreed with my point that gear is over-emphasized a lot and companies are coming out with new tech so fast.

 

[Phil V]

.
I am not anti-tech advancement at all. I never said that. Just commenting on the fact there is sometimes too much attention to it. I said a simpler device has been nice FOR ME these days. But now I am really repeating myself.....

My point though, and a message to you I'll repeat. There's a danger nowadays to see too much of anything because there are so many images out there.

But the photo sharing sites, a lot of the social media groups and sometimes even here are populated by people who are best ignored. I don't see too much PP, fake lens flare, or HDR, not because it doesn't exist, nor because I have a higher tolerance for it than you do, but because I just don't go to the places it hangs out.

Follow the talented to take inspiration, practice your craft and built your confidence rather than worrying about how other people are getting sucked into all that rubbish.

The photographers I see use PP subtly to produce gorgeous images, I don't see a reliance on technology, I see some brilliantly talented image makers.

 

[XA2inmypocket]

Most of us here are amateur photographers. We are enthusiastic about photography - some more about the images, some more about the technologies. We use our cameras to capture either or / and a record, or a creation. Mostly, it is a record with little creativity.

Yes, the international photography industry wants us to spend more of our hard earned money on their upgrades. They do influence magazines to encourage us in that pursuit. That's Capitalism. They'll create a demand, even where no demand previously existed. Marketing. This did not suddenly occur with the digitalisation of cameras. It's been going on since the beginning of photography - photographic equipment suppliers have been convincing punters to spend more money. To buy upgrades by convincing consumers that they cannot enjoy photography without doing so. The cameras that I enjoy using, are the results of marketing some 30 - 50 years ago. I'm enjoying their fruits, long after their Best Before date. I'd guess that some camera marketers would love to stamp their products with a best before date.

Therefore, it could be argued that it is wrong to criticise 21st Century marketing, and consuming, of the latest technologies. At least this is what I've been told, and I can't really argue against it. However, I do feel that it is a worthy message to pass around, that people should now and then stop and think before they feel that their gear is inferior, "entry level", or out-of-date. They should really consider if buying new gear makes them happier - to the value of that cost. For an amateur - it's all about happiness.

I've used this example before, and I apologise, but over the past few years, I've used a little snapshot camera, 35 years old, that I bought at a car boot sale for 50p. Sure, I've used film, but either Poundland, or cheaply home developed. I've had tremendous enjoyment with it. No more enjoyment then perhaps some people have had with a new full frame DSLR, but perhaps not much less. I've tried creating a bit with it. I wanted to see what I could do. The results are low fi compared with a sharp perfectly exposed mainstream full digital image (I prefer to call my technology hybrid film, as I intend to digitally scan), but I love some of the images, some surprises, enough to print. I'm proud of some of them.

I think that is what Jamie is trying to raise really. I don't think that anywhere that he said that new technologies or mainstream photographers are inferior. But that people should be aware of alternatives, and to really consider if they need that new cutting edge gear upgrade.

The 50p Camera Project on Flickr

 

[shaylou]

I don't know if I would use the word easier because there are some situations that older cameras just are not going to pull off at all. I mean isn't that the reason we upgrade, when your camera can not do all of the things you need it to do.

 

[ianp5a]

Yes, I just changed the ISO(ASA) mid roll. Now that was a scream!

 

[mike weeks]

Blimey, I see what you mean. He's a bit of a serial thread starter, isn't he. Well spotted.

But it is better than that, we have anti-lighting in the talk lighting section, now anti-equipment in the talk equipment section, what next, anti-photography in the Talk Photography section ?

First camera a Prinz 126 and aint no way I am going back to that

Mike

 

[sk66]

It's attitude/approach, not equipment. My digital gear doesn't give me better results easier (except for action/AF)... what it does give me is instant feedback as to what I've messed up.

And no, I wouldn't go back...

 

[woof woof]

It's attitude/approach, not equipment. My digital gear doesn't give me better results easier (except for action/AF)... what it does give me is instant feedback as to what I've messed up.

And no, I wouldn't go back...

I think I disagree... I think gear does both make things easier and give better results.

Back when I had my first SLR I shot with the only lens I had and its max aperture was f4. I shot mostly at gigs in dingy venues with ISO 1600 film and often with shutter speeds that were too slow. No one ever complained about the results and indeed there was much praise from all concerned and much beaming from me What saved the shots was the fact that the pints were just standard sized, quite small really, and people never viewed them with a magnifying glass. These days people pixel peep on screen at 100% plus. If people had looked very closely at my f4, ISO 1600 slow shutter speed shots or if the prints had been bigger the noise and motion blur would have been quite visible and my supply of free drinks and stuff might have been in jeopardy.

These days I can shoot with a f1.2 lens at ISO 25,600 if needs be and more likely I can shoot at f4 but with a high ISO so that I can achieve a reasonable shutter speed to prevent the motion blur (unless I want some in the shot) and the results will be better than I ever got with that f4 lens and ISO 1600 film and they'll stand up to pixel peeping on screen or close viewing of larger prints better than the results I got back then.

 

[sk66]

I think I disagree... I think gear does both make things easier and give better results.

One could consider low light gig work "action," and yes, better gear makes it easier to get "a shot." There is a reason I own a D4 & 400/2.8 . But IMO it doesn't really make it easier to get "a great shot." Most of that comes from knowledge (knowing the subject/situation/optimal settings), experience (same), and most importantly time (timing/setup/preparation/etc).

 

[Ross_Curtis]

I use my 6D to only a fraction of its capability (it's hardly cutting edge) but for me, I only use centre focus, average metering and aperture priority. That's it. FPS aren't a worry either. People might say it's a dated camera but it's all I need. I'm a huge fan of manual control and often use my Zeiss ZE lens but do admit it isn't always the right or the easiest lens to use so will more often than not go to an AF lens.
If I were a sports photographer or someone who relies upon certain aspects then I would have a different opinion.
I often consider a move to Leica and probably would if they weren't so expensive.
I keep looking at sonys new A7.....
I couldn't go back to film and have come to appreciate digital (I didn't for s long time) the advancement in high ISO is hugely impressive.

 

[TareqPhoto]

I have a lot of gear, with every gear i upgrade with i was upgrading my skills too, and if you tell me go and use older cameras to take photos as good as newer cameras then i will say sorry, i can't, if i get nice amazing photos with older cameras it means i can have blown away unbelievable shots with newer cameras, and if i compare both then the newer shots will win, that if we look at pixel peeper and ISO capability and DR and whatever it is.

I was shooting with 1D MarkII n, but when i've got 1D3 and nowadays since 3 years 1DX i sold my 1D2n without regret, i don't care what many will say about 1D2n being an amazing camera, yes it was but not anymore, because when i used 1DX i forgot about how good that 1D2n was, and honestly speaking, i feel even 1DX is not great if i will use a new camera in the future which will put this current 1DX in shame, so technology is there to improve the way of doing photography, even the quality became better, and i will not listen to those who don't feel/see that technology effect, some just don't want to keep on upgrade or improvement, even some don't try to do different way of photography and keep old compositions or perspective.

Large format is still the strong old technology nowadays, even most film medium format, but digital is a strong virus in the world that people are sick with and don't want to heal from it and use film, i hope i can get back to film even i didn't shoot much and just get into it recently years.