Just because a camera offers autoexposure doesn't mean you have to use it. The guy who set aside his OM-4 is missing out on the best manual exposure metering system ever put into a 35mm camera. I use my three OM-4T bodies on manual only with magnificent results.
Digital cameras do tend to have crappy viewfinders, so unfortunately autofocus is often a necessity with them. I could never accurately focus the Nikon D-SLRs I owned, but I always used them in manual exposure with great results.
Shot with a Kodak 14n digital SLR. On manual with a tripod, exposure with handheld meter.
My point is that if you're a good photographer, you'll get good results with or without technology. Photography itself is a very technology-dependent art, even with film. The camera draws the photograph, your hand does not. That's something a lot of people here have not come to terms with. A lot of people here are desperate to find the most primitive processes so that they can claim that they're doing 'art' on a level with that created by painters or sculptors. That debate was settled a century ago. Shoot film or do historic processes because you like the look of the image, not because you think a photo is not 'real' or 'art' if it was shot with a digital camera, or the film was scanned, or the camera offered an auto mode.
Shot on film. Leica M6, Zeiss 35mm f2.8 C-Biogon on Tri-X
[QUOTE=waltereegho;1113285]When I was shooting digital, my photos were awful. Shooting thousands of frames, I didn't manage to make one memorable picture.
Moving to an advanced analog SLR, my photos suddenly started getting better. I actually liked the results I was getting. I guess the greatest thing about analog is that you cannot evaluate your shots immediately after taking them.
Then, recently, I acquired an all-mechanical Minolta 7s. I threw out the battery and guessposured everything. Not every picture I take is well-exposed, but I am finally making photographs that I would dare to show to other people.
What I'm saying is: it seems that the less technology is involved, the more I like my photographs. I was wondering, am I the only one who has experienced this? It doesn't make sense, and yet it's true. I'm not a purist who despises technology and I love my Canon Eos SLR, but my all-mechanical 7s with fixed lens makes better photos! How is this possible, and does this mean I should revert to neolithic drawings in order to fully express myself artistically?
I fully agree, I have never used digital, but 3 years ago I was using modern, autofocus, programe exposure, all the most up to date,modern cameras,both mf and 35mm, but 3 years ago I was at a car boot sale and bought an old agfa sillite, thought it might look good on the shelf, and then decided to put a film though and wow,then I started collecting working classic cameras, folders,riged body,tlr,fro 1938 to 1960 and I am producing some of the best work I have ever done on these old uns, and would not go back,Richard
I have to agree with this. Photography as we know it is an industrial-era art, and the camera is a sophisticated machine. There's no getting around this, no matter how "simple" or "primitive" you get. But, whatever tools you choose, if you want something good, you have to apply Mr. Brain to the task, to get the device to give you the results you want. Sometimes it is easier with less automation, because it forces Mr. Brain into action. If you were not getting good results before, it means you were letting the machine control the process, rather than you.
Originally Posted by chriscrawfordphoto
"People get bumped off." -- Weegee
This is true, but I would point out that it's part of the human mindset to take the easier path. Without that built in we'd probably still be in caves, but someone figured out fire, cooking, exploiting dogs (wolves) to help hunt, farming, road building, ya-da, ya-da, ya-da, and every easier softer path got adopted.
Originally Posted by chriscrawfordphoto
With a whizz-bang do it all for you techno-marvel you expect *IT* to do the work. So you let it.
With a less automated approach, the human mind kicks in and says, "Whoa, I'd better pay attention here."
But once someone is trained to pay attention, it's easier to second guess the machine.
I concur that technology itself doesn't detract from the quality of the work. But until one actually learns the underlying processes the technology makes it easy to ignore those processes, and the work suffers. In other words, I think it's easier to become a good photographer without a lot of the gizzmos, and once you are a decent photographer you know how to exploit those gizzmos to your advantage.
Picture quality has NOTHING to do with shooting film or digital.
The composition has NOTHING to do with shooting film or digital.
What makes a great picture has NOTHING to do with technology.
To make a great picture, one must envision and capture a great composition. How one does this, what one uses to capture the light is irrelevent.
Only the closed minded, ignorant, religious, subjective, and xenophobic think the media matters.
If you make a bad picture, it is all your fault and never technology's , nor the media you use.
You can make great art with very low and very high technology.
It seems people are dead set on demonizing technology, digital, or anything they don't like or understand.
IT'S ALL GOOD....It's about the COMPOSITION! Nothing else....
Here: Tri-X, 35mm, Canon 1V SLR, 35mm F1.4 prime lens....
Coming back home to my film roots. Canon EOS-3 SLR, Canon EOS 1V SLR, 580ex flash, and 5D DSLR shooter. Prime lens only shooter.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The relationship between technology and good images is like relationship between lingerie and good sex.
I don't take part in the conservative crusade against technology. I think digital is great, I'm just bad at it. And I think the medium does matter. Even though the difference is in your mind, it is a difference nonetheless. It's like eating a turkey you shot yourself on a hunt (not that I would, poor animal) versus eating a supermarket turkey. Even if they -objectively- should taste the same, the one you worked your ass off for tastes better! I feel like that with photography: if the camera does the focusing, the exposure and even the film advance, it takes away part of the enjoyment. No, the picture won't be better and is even likely to deteriorate because the electronics in your camera are more accurate than your eye. And yet I like it better.
On an objective level, I think that less technology can be a real benefit too. When I walk around with my SLR, I look at things differently: will this look good with my 50mm? Or should I mount my 20mm and go closer? Or perhaps step back and take out my tele? Should I do spot metering, matrix metering, partial metering?
With a manual camera like the 7s, everything is much more basic: compose, expose, wind. It has less potential and is therefore easier to overview.
If you are an experienced photographer, you can judge more complex situations, so you can take full advantage of technology. If, like me, you haven't been in the business for decades, simplicity is the key.
That's how I feel. I realise now that I made a poor choice with the wording of the first post: I mean automation instead of technology.
I agree with this. I think that maybe with more tech it is simply easier to take more images. So those "good" moments are totally watered down by the frames leading up to and after it. Just a thought.
Originally Posted by Hikari
If you set your exposure mode on "M", set your focus to "Manual", and use single-shot mode, how is your d***** camera different from your old mechanical SLR, aside from how the image is stored?
Originally Posted by waltereegho
Technology and sex
Technology has also enabled sex toys and birth control. Don't know if it's a good thing or not just like digital cameras. Like it or not, we have to live with it. Am I way off here?
Originally Posted by Hikari