What technology do you accept, love, hate?

[LWW]

I've wondered how many people feel like I do on this issue and what others feel in general who are at least serious hobbyists and not tyros who do nothing but point and shoot, like a person I met not long ago who had a Nikon F4 because it was the best camera he could buy at the time buy had never changed a control since the store put it on full auto for him.


These are my feelings and mine only, you may agree, disagree, or a little of both as you see fit, I just would like to know your thoughts...and why.

AE: I use it a lot, especially matrix metering. I also still like to get out my older stuff and count on my own eye and experience. I'm glad I learned the game before such luxuries exist.

I do check the exposure in the viewfinder as I shoot. The camera ALMOST always will give me what I wanted...but sometimes I do have to exercise my veto power.

Without learning photography from an all manual POV I don't know how you could use different modes such as aperture priority effectively unless you just accept whatever the camera gives you and accept that a certain percent of your photos will be not what you imagined.

AF: I use it on lenses that are AF but have a wealth of MF lenses that I will not replace just so I don't have to turn my wrist.

I also turn off AF when I'm shooting things such as birds/planes in flight as I can discern far quicker than the camera's brain what is going on.

Fast moving fairly close action such as baseball/football/basketball I find AF an amazing piece of technology.

With scenics I also turn off AF as I guarantee you I can more criticly focus than any camera ever made, I'm sure many here can also.

Digital: I love to hate it. I hate to love it. I've never owned more than a point and shoot digital but eventually will break down and buy a digital SLR, and it will have to be a Nikon with the investment in Nikon glass that I have.

I love the idea that for a grand my 300 f4 becomes a 450 f4. My 400 f5.6 becomes a 600 f5.6. My 80-200 f2.8 becomes a 120-300 f2.8. For half the cost of a 300 f.28 alone I have the lens I've lusted for and several more all with ED glas plus I have all my film cams. Looked at in this light I can't believe I haven't already done it.

The strengths of digital as I see are it's abilities in good light and it's instant gratification. As far as cost I'm not convinced that it is or isn't cheaper on a per print basis, but it certainly is faser and simpler.

It's weakness is the lack of wide angle capability compared to film and it just lacks something in depth. I can't explain exactly what it is but I can almost always look at a digital and a film pic and tell you which is which.

That and there is NO original negative to verify the existence of the actual original image. I've never been called upon to provide proof a pic was real but that for some reason bothers me.

I've often wondered if digital pics are admissable as evidence.

Digital darkrooms: I absolutely love Adobe Photo Deluxe. i can scan in a pic and adjust for development and do cropping work that would have been expensive and time consuming to do in a traditional darkroom.

Beyond that I don't like manipulation to do a pic that could not have been created in camera.

TechnoGeeWhizCameras: HATE THEM! I don't need nor want a video screen, or multi layer electronic displays.

The thing I love about my F4 is it has every modern, except digital, feature built in and all are controlled by one movement of a knob/switch/lever.

If I have to go thru multiple screens and gyrations, or much less dig out a manual, the function is pretty useless as by the time I can gain the function I don't need it anymore.

Similar to car radios things pack features just to pack features and are generally unuseable. I truly love high fidelity music and my car audio system is an Eclipse. It has all the features in other machines and is operated by...GASP...two knobs. The elegance is amazing.

How as a society we escaped inderstanding that machines are designed for people I will never know but thank God we still have elegant and relatively intuitive products on the market such as Nikons, Eclipse, and the Apple Macintosh.

Now if somebody can build a remote control that will REALLY work all the functions that a HDTV and a DVD and CD and a tuner/amp possess I will buy one. Is anyone in Cupertino or at Nippon Kogaku listening???

LWW

 

[danalec99]

These are my feelings and mine only.

Metering: I use the Evaluative Metering on my 10D. And I mostly shoot on the Manual mode. But during pressured scenarios I switch it to Av. I'm not really techy. I give more thoughts to composition and emotions.

AF: I was a MF zealot until recently when I discovered the joys of AF. I would not however rely on AF during tricky lighting conditions.

Digital: Started with a Canon point and shoot. Crossed over to 10D. Love it! I agree, it is not cheaper. I am soon adding a 20D body just for its high ISO performance. (Leica can wait! )

Film: Love the look of it. Admire the exposure latitude. But I am not too keen about the hybrid process. That is, shoot, scan, PS (Photoshop). No, I'm not against it. Its just that if I'm using film I would like to go the traditional route to post process/print it. Nothing is however set in stone. Terri is a bad influence. :mrgreen:

Digital darkrooms: I work on PS-CS. And I like the term post processing as opposed to manipulation. But, I do not believe in 'fixing it in Photoshop'. As voodoocat beautifully puts it, you can't polish a turd.

TechnoGeeWhizCameras: What are technogeewhiz cameras? I find my 10D limiting when I shoot multiple frames (not the machine gun mode!). I want stellar performers like 1DMII or DX2. I do not want to worry about the lag in between. I want to concentrate on the image rather than the stoopid technology!

Cheerio!

 

[darin3200]

AE/AF: I have recently bought two cameras, one can do AE, the other can do AE and AF. Before this I never had either availabe. These are great tools that help in the process of making a picture but I also think people shouldn't soley rely on those features, that you should be able to use camera and understand how it works.

Digital: I have a digital camera that is in between a DSLR and a point and shoot, and the technology has a lot of benefits, however I don't have any compelling reasons to give up film and switch. With film you tend of have more cameras as well.

Digital Darkrooms: This is a messy debate. I think that post processing is important and can sometime be an equalizer. If someone can't afford to buy filters to get the results, they can make up for it later. Most photos are going to be good or bad and there is a limit to how much photoshop can do. I'm a little uncomfortable about heavy manipulation. One article in April Photography Monthly showed a streetscape and then they removed the sky and added a dramatic sky to make the picture look better. The reasons I didn't like that is because photos are held to be proof of something, a truth. People should be able to do that, but maybe just call it 'digital art'

 

[danalec99]

I'm a little uncomfortable about heavy manipulation. One article in April Photography Monthly showed a streetscape and then they removed the sky and added a dramatic sky to make the picture look better. The reasons I didn't like that is because photos are held to be proof of something, a truth. People should be able to do that, but maybe just call it 'digital art'

I agree!

 

[craig]

I embrace current technology. Matt has a tag that seems appropriate "Somebody let the rabble in."
-Lewis Carroll, Upon the introduction of negatives and subsequent demise of colliodian plates.

On one hand the work of handling these plates was an art in it's self. On the other hand I feel that photography is part science and or CRAFT. Why not embrace current technology. I am psyched if technology makes it easier for people to take photos. It is a great art form. I wish the whole world would get into it. I have definitely diverted from the the topic, but I needed a prelude.

I use every single one of the features and modes on my D1 daily. I am a little unclear about you AE idea. To me; putting the needle in the center constitutes auto exposure. Modern technology has provided matrix metering. I also enjoy selective metering. I have to admit that I rarely use center weighted.

I love auto focus. Mostly because there is no split screen on my camera. Manual produces fuzzy shots. The five point focus or selective is fast. I have figured out which to use when and where. I question if it is faster than manual because back in the day I would pull focus and then pull out about 20 times before I was convinced it was tight.

The 90 second photo lab is digi's strongest point. Technology in this field gets stronger daily. Photoshop provides options that are not available in a traditional darkroom. Each pixel can be manipulated. That is very exciting.

Film is a beautiful medium. The quality is always going to be a hard thing to beat. I still shoot it for a couple of clients. Have a fun time getting it processed here in the high country. I REALLY miss the anticipation of picking up my film.

My biggest gripe about digital is the web. Posting poop has become way to easy. Again; on one hand it seems cool that the pics are getting out there. On the other hand make a print first people!!!

 

[LWW]

I am a little unclear about you AE idea. To me; putting the needle in the center constitutes auto exposure.

OK. AE might give me f8 at 1/250 when my vision is f4. Maybe at f4 1/1,000 doesn't work so I need a ND filter to get a longer shutter.

Aperture priority and shutter priority I use most often as I maintain control and only have to make 1 choice in most situations. Too many people, IMHO, use fully auto program modes and de facto have very expensive point and shoots.

I guess my little rant was a way of saying the features are nice but only exploitable if you understand their meaning on a deeper level. I am very glad that I learned photography when if you had AE of any type it was big time and a centerweighted meter was industry standard, or IOW the camera would merely confirm that your exposure choices would probably work but it wouldn't try to decide for you the way to take the picture.

Put in another way if I set my F4 to fully auto and take 100 pictures and then retake the same exact 100 pictures maintaining creative control myself the auto method will generate 1-5 rotten shots and 1-5 great shots and the rest acceptable. Maintaining control on the fly I will come up with more bad shots, but I will come up with many more outstanding shots.

Another good example, and I'm sure this has happened to all of us, is when you meet the person who has a superior gear setup but can't come close in results.

Sadly I see a future where photographers become rarer and point and clickers more common than they already are.

LWW

 

[Middlemarch]

It's weakness is the lack of wide angle capability compared to film and it just lacks something in depth. I can't explain exactly what it is but I can almost always look at a digital and a film pic and tell you which is which.

It seems the same as with music. Though I record digitally for ease of use, I prefer the sound of analog recording. There is a warmth there, as there is in film, that is missing in anything digital. Also, though I am new to photography, it has been surprisingly clear for me to tell which pics are digital and which are film (I may be way off, but it seems easy to tell in a lot of situations).

 

[danalec99]

So, which camera did you use to take God's Hands?

 

[Nikon Fan]

So, which camera did you use to take God's Hands?

:lmao: :hail: :hail: :lmao:

 

[LWW]

Read the reply before you make accusations.

LWW

 

[danalec99]

Assuming it was directed to me, which part of my question seemed to you as an accusation?

You did claim that it was real and not a PS creation.
The scene would have been different if you had mentioned it was someone else's print.

I'm sorry if my words might have have offended you. Have a good afternoon!

 

[LWW]

I'll rephrase that I did not do a Photochop.

LWW

 

[Vmann]

I would have to say I'm all for the technology. No matter how far it progresses it will still always be up to the few creative and understanding people who have taken the time to learn there craft. Yes there are more point and shooters out there but there work reflects it. I feel blessed that I was forced to learn before digital. Putting long hours in a dark room after trying so hard to capture what you saw with your manual camera definatelly teaches you patiance and what to look for in a print before wasting your time trying to fix it. Photoshop is a wonderful tool put it still cant correct poor creativity and really poor photos. It does lend itself to the lets push some buttons and my photo will instantly look better, but so be it. There work will reflect it...

I still pick up the old AE-1 or holga and head out to test/sharpen my skills. I dont want to fall into the crap in good looking crap out catagory.

 

[ksmattfish]

I like it all when it's working.

The fancier it gets, the more things there are to go wrong, so I find find sort of a sense of serenity in using older, simpler gear. When all I can adjust is shutter, aperture, focus, and where the camera is pointing I can concentrate more on the scene in front of me.

On the other hand whiz bang, 1001 button cameras are fun too! 'Til the batteries die, and then the party is over.