Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Isaac on November 28, 2013, 03:01:33 pm
-
"Instead of teaching people to take better photos, why not teach the camera?"
iPhone 5s advert (http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/10/iphone5scameraadreal.jpg)
-
Auto modes on cameras are getting more sophisticated. It would be interesting to see a properly conducted test on the results of using auto mode versus the settings technically skilled photographers came up with on a given scene.
-
After some time relying on Nikon's Matrix metering in the D700, I wouldn't bet against the cameras!
Okay, I often make fine-tune adjustments on static, tripod subjects, but for action and walkies it's just great, and I'm sure absolutely close enough to make not a jot of difference in the real world.
If Matrix works by making judgement calls from a databank base of thousands of similar subject brightness ranges and proportionate balances of tone blocks, why would anything else defeat the technology?
Rob C
-
I just had the "Ansel Adams" button removed from my camera and added an "Edward Weston" button instead. ???
-
I just got the famous "immediate autocancel" script added to the firmware which activates itself after every shot. :P
-
Not forgetting the key point, that if you point a camera at a pile of poo, the picture will still be a load of sh....
And anyway, if there is no photographer input there is no photographer choices, making the whole exercise fairly futile for most skilled/creative photographers.
Jim
-
Not forgetting the key point, that if you point a camera at a pile of poo, the picture will still be a load of sh....
And anyway, if there is no photographer input there is no photographer choices, making the whole exercise fairly futile for most skilled/creative photographers.
Jim
True, but the camera will still feel smug!
Rob C
-
And anyway, if there is no photographer input there is no photographer choices, making the whole exercise fairly futile for most skilled/creative photographers.
I can see how that would make the photographer redundant, but is that "the whole exercise" or is there some audience apart from the photographer?
-
I can see how that would make the photographer redundant, but is that "the whole exercise" or is there some audience apart from the photographer?
I am supposing that most "skilled/creative photographers" will want to capture their own personal take on a scene, and possibly want to share that with other people after the event. When we introduce more automation we end up reducing the variation.
Jim
-
I'm with Jim. Automation can't produce a "better" photograph, except in a technical sense, which misses the point completely. I always come back to what HCB said:
"I am constantly amused by the notion that some people have about photographic technique – a notion which reveals itself in an insatiable craving for sharpness of images. Is this the passion of an obsession? Or do these people hope, by this trompe l’oeil technique, to get to closer grips with reality? In either case, they are just as far away from the real problem as those of that other generation which used to endow all its photographic anecdotes with an intentional unsharpness such as was deemed to be 'artistic.'"
I'm amused by that kind of diversion from the real problems too.
-
Says the man with the Nikon D800 :-)
-
Right, Isaac. But the D800 takes the place of my old 4 x 5 view. When I'm on the street, I'm carrying an Olympus E-P1 with a 50mm equivalent Summicron and pre-focusing. What do you carry when you're on the street? When you're using a tripod?
-
I am not sure if it is possible to conclude from the HCB quote that he would have had any problem with cameras that reliably automate exposure and focus. He seems to be saying that getting them "right" is trivial and that what matters is what you find in your viewfinder.
-
Getting the proper exposure has little to do with creativity and content.
-
Getting the proper exposure has little to do with creativity and content.
On the contrary, getting the right exposure has a lot to do with creativity and content. So much so in fact, that the difference between a proper exposure and an overexposure could be the difference between a masterpiece and a reject. Overexposure always results in a loss of content. Didn't you realise that, Alan? ;D
Underexposure can also result in a loss of content, particularly in the shadows, although sometimes that defect might not be as serious as overexposure, especially if one is using a modern Nikon DSLR. ;)
-
Well I suppose if you forget to put film in your camera, you can't be creative either. I bracket my shots to assure I get the right exposure. What does that have to do with creativity? You can have a perfectly exposed picture with no content, no creativity. Exposure it's basically a technique, like banging a nail into a piece of wood. But it takes an artisan to produce a beautiful piece of furniture.
I think too many photographers, including me, often get caught up in the technical aspects. How many pixels? What can I pull out its the shadows? What it's the DR of the camera or film? What is the gamut of the printer? These distractions cause us too miss that photos require soul and content to make them valuable to the viewer. The rest is just hitting the nail with a hammer.
-
But the D800 takes the place of my old 4 x 5 view.
"... an insatiable craving for sharpness of images." ;-)
-
What does that have to do with creativity?
What if you underexpose or overexpose to destroy detail you don't want in the picture?
-
Well I suppose if you forget to put film in your camera, you can't be creative either.
There are certain very basic requirements one has to get right before one can begin to make creative pictures using a camera. For a start, one has to have a camera. If it's a film camera, one needs to have film in the camera. It also helps greatly to remove the lens cap before attempting to be creative, although that might not always be absolutely essential. ;D
I bracket my shots to assure I get the right exposure.
Bracketing shots is fine when the subject is static. If the subject is moving, it can be too much of a 'hit and miss' affair. The shot that is preferred with regard to the expression on the subject's face, might be the overexposed shot with blown highlights on the face and/or loss of cloud detail in the background. The ideal exposure might be the last one in the bracketed sequence when the subject just happened to blink and is portrayed with closed eyes.
Alternatively, the best exposure out of the 3 or 5 bracketed shots might be the one with the slowest shutter speed that has resulted in significant blurring.
You can have a perfectly exposed picture with no content, no creativity.
One really can't have a perfectly exposed picture with literally no content. A picture with no content is not a picture. Even a picture taken without the lens cap removed, is still a picture. It's called a black frame. On screen or print it would fit into the category of modern Color Field art, a plain black square with a few bright speckles from stuck pixels and perhaps a hint of banding streaks, all nicely framed to catch the attention of the viewer when mounted on a pale cream wall.
"Wow! Such gorgeous, deep blacks, and those speckles make me think of the outer galaxies and the more distant stars that are hardly visible on a clear night." ;D
-
You're selectively editing what I said. I didn't just say content is important, refering to silver halide in film or digital pixels. I said content that is creative. Let's not play word games.
-
Well I suppose if you forget to put film in your camera, you can't be creative either. I bracket my shots to assure I get the right exposure. What does that have to do with creativity? You can have a perfectly exposed picture with no content, no creativity. Exposure it's basically a technique, like banging a nail into a piece of wood. But it takes an artisan to produce a beautiful piece of furniture.
I think too many photographers, including me, often get caught up in the technical aspects. How many pixels? What can I pull out its the shadows? What it's the DR of the camera or film? What is the gamut of the printer? These distractions cause us too miss that photos require soul and content to make them valuable to the viewer. The rest is just hitting the nail with a hammer.
But now we are changing the topic of the thread and my response to it. The Ad referred to is not just talking about a camera that sorts out the technical aspects of a photograph, but the moment, and choosing which picture is best. The point is that technology will soon be suggesting composition by using 'rules', such as the 'rule of thirds'. And in any case, while I agree that of course content is paramount, for a skilled photographer the control of the technical aspects is critical - otherwise my point was that all photography becomes homogenized. Decisions about what to focus on, the depth of field chosen, the shutter speed, even the choice of ISO , are all decisions that can be reliably taken by modern cameras, but it is the choices by the photographer that can make a picture distinctive. All this even when the framing is identical.
So I do not disagree with your point about content and about photographers obsessing about technicalities above content. But let's not forget that technical mastery allows a photographer to properly exploit the medium. If they know what they are doing. There is also no such thing as 'correct exposure' - exposure is a tool that can be used creatively. And your comparison with an artisan making furniture, the precise point is that they are a craftsmen using the most basic of tools, but each driven nail is a personal choice - otherwise we just design a perfect chair then let a machine make them - that is the equivalent of where current camera technology is taking us. The hammer is the equivalent of a Nikon FM2 - a tool that needs total photographer input.
By the way Alan - I'm sure if we were sat round a table chatting about this we would agree about more than we disagree with here - just that I think it is important to point out that for a truly creative photographer control of and mastery of the tool will always beat automation.
Jim
-
If you want to assert that the photographer will always "beat" the automation, you have to define "beat".
I am practically certain that it's not even particularly hard to automate taking a picture that is more or less universally pleasing. I postulate a system which, when waved around at random, will periodically elect to make an exposure, and possibly employ a culling step to select the best 5 exposures out of 50, say. Or something. Could one build something capable of making pictures which make flickr's "Explore" or whatever your favorite photo sharing site's "trending pictures" equivalent is? Yeah, I'm pretty much certain you could, and I don't think it's even particularly hard. There are computer programs that write pretty good music.
You, in control of the camera, with sufficient skill, practice, and ability, can probably more reliably take pictures that you like.
Lest we get too carried away, recall that chess is essentially a solved problem at this point. You still need an unreasonable number of computrons to beat the best, but beating an average good player is trivial. Your phone can probably beat anyone not in the top 100. The fact that we want, with all our might, we wish very very very hard, for Art to be uncrackable by the computer, has no effect whatsoever on whether it is or is not.
-
Lest we get too carried away, recall that chess is essentially a solved problem at this point. You still need an unreasonable number of computrons to beat the best, but beating an average good player is trivial. Your phone can probably beat anyone not in the top 100. The fact that we want, with all our might, we wish very very very hard, for Art to be uncrackable by the computer, has no effect whatsoever on whether it is or is not.
^ This...
The camera in this phone doesn't point itself at subject matter at a particular (dare I say 'decisive') moment and make exposures all by itself, any more than the prostate-yanking surgery robot goes and picks people upon whom to operate. It's hard for me to see how advanced technology, wielded by the appropriate human hands, is anything but progress.
-
Has anyone else actually read the Ad in the first post? Of course automation can make a better job than the vast majority of photographers - but do we want to be like the vast majority. I quote "....burst mode which takes multiple pictures and suggests the best ones". I am only talking about the best 1% of photographers who want to be in control. The moment the camera makes better decisions than me I think I will give up. And by better I mean better to me - I don't care about the rest of you! ;D
Jim
-
Jim. I looked at your site and you are a wonderful photographer. There's a BW photo of a married couple jumping in the air separating themselves from their shadow on the ground which makes the photo creative and interesting. Almost all cameras today set on auto would nail the exposure and focus with little forethought on the photographers part. But it required someone with creative vision, you, to yell "jump". No camera can do that.
-
Jim. I looked at your site and you are a wonderful photographer. There's a BW photo of a married couple jumping in the air separating themselves from their shadow on the ground which makes the photo creative and interesting. Almost all cameras today set on auto would nail the exposure and focus with little forethought on the photographers part. But it required someone with creative vision, you, to yell "jump". No camera can do that.
Ha - you are right - but you also need an athletic bride too! ;D And I agree here that automation is no bad thing. It's just in general I like to make the decisions. Thank you for the very kind words about my photography - I do try hard.
Best wishes
Jim
-
"Instead of teaching people to take better photos, why not teach the camera?"
iPhone 5s advert (http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/10/iphone5scameraadreal.jpg)
The arrogance of Apple once more to the fore. When will us plebs realise that they have all the answers and we can now officially stop thinking for ourselves.
A camera can still not tell you when to shoot, what to shoot or how to shoot but the people who buy into this sort of nonsense put their love of technology above all else and assume that the Apple is the oracle and so that's photography sorted! They know their market.
-
I still don't own a cell phone. However, I'm planning on getting one after lenses become obsolete. Maybe I should put them up for sale now.
-
I still don't own a cell phone. However, I'm planning on getting one after lenses become obsolete. Maybe I should put them up for sale now.
Too late: somebody just invented the crayon.
Rob C
-
The Ad referred to is not just talking about a camera that sorts out the technical aspects of a photograph, but the moment, and choosing which picture is best.
✓ "Never miss the perfect moment (http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/bodies/j3/features02.htm#a6) with Smart Photo Selector"
The point is that technology will soon be suggesting composition by using 'rules', such as the 'rule of thirds'.
✓ "Auto Object Framing turns ordinary photos into beautifully balanced compositions (http://store.sony.com/sony-alpha-58-camera-and-18-55mm-lens-zid27-SLTA58K/cat-27-catid-All-Alpha-58-Cameras) by automatically recognizing the scene then cropping accordingly. It's an effortless way to achieve perfectly framed photos every time."
Of course automation can make a better job than the vast majority of photographers - but do we want to be like the vast majority.
Which is to say, automation can make a better job of formulaic responses to varying situations.
iirc there's an old anecdote about a National Geographic photo editor selecting Galen Rowell's photos partly because they were not "rule of thirds".
-
...for a truly creative photographer control of and mastery of the tool will always beat automation.
Sure. But that isn't to say that a creative photographer might not sometimes choose to use the auto setting on her camera. Having controlled and mastered her tool, she would fully understand what results the auto setting would produce, and might choose to use it in appropriate circumstances. These days, creative musicians don't insist on playing every note themselves.
-
Photographers are overrated.
Another 1000 years and we are all machines.
:P
-
Photographers are overrated.
Another 1000 years and we are all machines.
:P
Nope, in a thousand years nothing.
Rob C
-
Nope, in a thousand years nothing.
For thousands of years, since the Golden Age, there's been someone saying that.
-
✓ "Never miss the perfect moment (http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/bodies/j3/features02.htm#a6) with Smart Photo Selector"
✓ "Auto Object Framing turns ordinary photos into beautifully balanced compositions (http://store.sony.com/sony-alpha-58-camera-and-18-55mm-lens-zid27-SLTA58K/cat-27-catid-All-Alpha-58-Cameras) by automatically recognizing the scene then cropping accordingly. It's an effortless way to achieve perfectly framed photos every time."
Which is to say, automation can make a better job of formulaic responses to varying situations.
Crikey - I'm out of a job....!
-
For thousands of years, since the Golden Age, there's been someone saying that.
Heysoos, Isaac, that's some memory you've got there!
But to which GA do you refer?
;-)
Rob C
-
But to which GA do you refer?
The myth.
-
Crikey - I'm out of a job....!
Now we have drone photography (http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/2013/10/they-wrote-the-book-on-drone-photography-in-baltimore-and-beyond), I guess we could have cameras that re-position themselves to compose a particular kind of photograph.
-
Now we have drone photography (http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/2013/10/they-wrote-the-book-on-drone-photography-in-baltimore-and-beyond), I guess we could have cameras that re-position themselves to compose a particular kind of photograph.
Now we're talking. I have long thought that for wedding photography a drone would be perfect for 75% of the shots. I could sit in a comfy chair and remotely pilot my drone around the guests to get great candid shots. Aerial views would be a cinch and if it was quiet even the church service could be done, allowing me to squeeze into otherwise unlikely spots.
Jim
-
Now we're talking. I have long thought that for wedding photography a drone would be perfect for 75% of the shots. I could sit in a comfy chair and remotely pilot my drone around the guests to get great candid shots. Aerial views would be a cinch and if it was quiet even the church service could be done, allowing me to squeeze into otherwise unlikely spots.
Jim
Bad idea: some might think they'd just had a visitation from angels. It could become wetter than a teeny rock concert.
Rob C
-
Photographers are overrated.
Another 1000 years and we are all machines.
:P
Why wait a thousand years? A UK based writing magazine has this to say to budding writers -
Why not take your own pictures? You think you need to be a pro with an expensive camera? Think again... we are of course talking about the camera phone.... etc etc.
I have paraphrased but you get the idea. The article is accompanied by two shots of the same subject, one from a D90 the other from a mobile. The mobile one has as much subtlety and dynamic range as a dead dog on the road yet we are told it's 'good enough'.
Their website is here - https://www.writers-online.co.uk/ (https://www.writers-online.co.uk/)
-
Their website is here
But where's the passage you paraphrased?
Your search - D90 site:https://www.writers-online.co.uk - did not match any documents.
-
But where's the passage you paraphrased?
Your search - D90 site:https://www.writers-online.co.uk - did not match any documents.
My apologies, I posted in a hurry, the magazine contents are not actually online, I'll try and get round to quoting the whole passage later. Unfortunately I won't be able to show the two photos they used as an example of a mobile being 'good enough' which is a shame as the one taken on a cell phone was quite dreadful when set against the same scene taken with a consumer dSLR, they just hadn't a clue.