Your camera is better than Ansel Adams'

[chuasam]

Yeah but imagine what he could have gotten if he had modern gear.

 

[stapo49]

Marmite.... is it like Australia's Vegemite?

Yep. But less salty.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[stapo49]

That's an interesting point. I wonder with all the technological wizardy available today if his images would not be as good because he would not have to work as hard or get his hands dirty, so to speak, to create the image?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[dennyr]

It is the same question with all Hobbies/Professions.

Listen to "classic" Blues/Rock of the 1960's and 1970's.
It was "all" played on a 4 string bass. They did not need more strings.

Look at all the photo books, with photos from circa 1920 - 1980.
"All" of those famous -
Landscape
Fashion
Street
War
photos were taken on rather simple (by today's standards) film cameras.
When "You" can take pictures like -
Garry Winogramd
Berenice Abbott
Robert Doisneau
Lee Miller
Margaret White
Lillian Bassman
Etc etc etc
.......Then you can start to worry about needing a new camera or lens.

Needing the latest technology to be profitable in your business is a VERY Different Scenario.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

wonder with all the technological wizardy available today if his images would not be as good because he would not have to work as hard or get his hands dirty, so to speak, to create the image?

This is a *very* interesting question. But the answer is that we simply don't know because there are no Ansel Adams digital images out there. They're all on film and so the opinion is highly subjective. And what I see is that many photographers *invent* this scenario where Ansel Adams would've blitzed the board with digital because of it's technical supremacy. But I think most of them invent this opinion because they wish to believe their cameras are better and therefore take better photos.

But if we actually look at the photos rather than the cameras we find that very little has actually changed. We are still taking images on the whole that are very similar because it is us as humans that the photograph appeals to and we have not changed. Camera technology has changed the way we take photographs and the ease by which we can now do it. But the appeal of the photographs is still controlled by human understanding. It is not dictated by what basically amounts to the implementation of automation and the ever increasing *higher specification numbers* game...

If you look at the facts then the biggest change in content and the way we take and use images has been social media, and it is done on phone screens with phone cameras rather than the latest high IQ tech.

I still take B&W photos with a camera similar to the one AA used alongside a D600 and to be completely honest nobody really cares or has even asked which images are film and which digital.

 

[stapo49]

wonder with all the technological wizardy available today if his images would not be as good because he would not have to work as hard or get his hands dirty, so to speak, to create the image?

This is a *very* interesting question. But the answer is that we simply don't know because there are no Ansel Adams digital images out there. They're all on film and so the opinion is highly subjective. And what I see is that many photographers *invent* this scenario where Ansel Adams would've blitzed the board with digital because of it's technical supremacy. But I think most of them invent this opinion because they wish to believe their cameras are better and therefore take better photos.

But if we actually look at the photos rather than the cameras we find that very little has actually changed. We are still taking images on the whole that are very similar because it is us as humans that the photograph appeals to and we have not changed. Camera technology has changed the way we take photographs and the ease by which we can now do it. But the appeal of the photographs is still controlled by human understanding. It is not dictated by what basically amounts to the implementation of automation and the ever increasing *higher specification numbers* game...

If you look at the facts then the biggest change in content and the way we take and use images has been social media, and it is done on phone screens with phone cameras rather than the latest high IQ tech.

I still take B&W photos with a camera similar to the one AA used alongside a D600 and to be completely honest nobody really cares or has even asked which images are film and which digital.

I love reading your comments. Even if sometimes I have to read them three times slowly to understand them [emoji846]

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[NGH]

Yeah but imagine what he could have gotten if he had modern gear.

I suspect that his images may have been worse. I say that because he learned skills the hard way precisely because the equipment was primitive. For example; when he shot Moon rise over Hernandez, he looked at the moon knew what lux (or whatever) it was putting out and quickly (as he had just spotted the potential shot as he was driving down the road) set up his camera, set the exposure framed it and took the shot. I would argue that had he had modern equipment he wouldn't have been so quick as to decide there was a shot and got the exposure right first time.

But as was already said there's no real way of knowing

 

[Derrel]

In many ways the cameras that were used a long time ago were actually better than what we have today. A camera with even basic movements like a little bit of lens tilt and a little bit of lens rise and a little bit of lens shift is very useful in many real-world picture taking situations. Cameras that have movements allow the photographer to do a lot. My oldest camera is a 1938 Baby Speed Graphic, and it has both a focal plane shutter and a leaf shutter, and it has ground glass viewing, a rangefinder, a viewfinder window, and a pop-up wire Sports finder. So my oldest camera has three ways to compose a picture, and a supremely accurate Kalart rangefinder which is coupled to the lens , which has a built-in Leaf shutter which can take flash pictures at up to 1/400 second, and has the capability to use lenses from perhaps 50 different manufacturers, and it also has the capability to use a 120 roll film back, as well as sheet film. The idea that monorail view and flat bed view and press cameras are inferior tools is completely and totally erroneous, and in fact they are better tools for many types of Photography than any modern digital single-lens reflex. Why? Because these old cameras use a system that allows for movement of the lens and the film plane and typically some or a lot of rear standard or film plane movement/adjustment .


By carefully using the Scheimpflug principle we can achieve incredible depth of field at relatively wide apertures, or we can use tilt and shift to an extreme degree to throw the focus out in a way which is impossible with a fixed body camera. Or we can swing the front standard to get depth of field which runs in a diagonal across the picture plane . The idea that a modern fixed-body digital single-lens reflex is the height of camera technology is frankly wrong. Yes, digital sensors are very good, but the camera bodies themselves today are no better than the press and view cameras which were used so much from the 1890s to the 1950s.

The idea that a modern digital camera is somehow a better Image Maker than a 4 x 5, 5 x7, or an 8x10 View Camera is dumb, and there's not much in the way of tilt-shift lenses, and there is nothing in the way of tilt or rise or fall in backs in any digital camera that I know of. The ability to move the back of the camera allows you to distort willfully or to correct for what would normally be situations that a fixed camera cannot deal with, and Photoshop has a fairly Limited range of Correction that even a simple and cheap 1940s View Camera could easily handle.

 

[Derrel]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Derrel,

That is my favorite quote when it comes to sheer speculation.

No one knows if modern post processing would have been a benefit or disaster to any past artist. But it is safe to say, they new the medium they worked in very well.

 

[Original katomi]

I think it’s safe to say these sort of conversations happen in every sport/aspect of life.
Is what we have now better and what would the old timers been able to do with it.
As I have said digital allows me to push the limits of my ability.
Much the same as sailing. I hold RYA yacht masters, VHF/DSc radio and other sailing qls. But had I had to learn and be acumplished in the old communications eg morse code, signal flags, I would not have got my qls.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Katomi,

You are correct, the question of new technology use by old masters will be an ever present speculation.

I enjoy the work of others and am the first to admit digital enhancement creates great photos, however my bias towards "as shot" limits what I wish to do. I enjoy tinkering in the dark room, rather than sitting in front of a computer screen.

However, whether you are a film fan or a post processing addict, I believe to OPs point was, learn how to use what you have before you move on.

 

[Original katomi]

Agree my policy before upgrading is that I will use what I have until I cant do what I want to do or find a way round the limitation.

 

[Derrel]

I have always felt that about 16 Angels could dance on the head of the average sewing pin.

 

[Derrel]

In the early days of the digital SLR era each new generation of cameras was significantly better than the one prior, but since about 2009 new models are just a little bit better than the previous generation.