"A better photographer, built in."

[Jim Pascoe]

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

[amolitor]

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.

[mezzoduomo]

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. 

[Jim Pascoe]

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!

Jim

[Alan Klein]

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 Pascoe]

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!   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

[Justinr]

"Instead of teaching people to take better photos, why not teach the camera?"

iPhone 5s advert

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.

[HSakols]

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.

[Rob C]

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

[Isaac]

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 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 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".

[kencameron]

...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.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Photographers are overrated.
Another 1000 years and we are all machines.

[Rob C]

Photographers are overrated.
Another 1000 years and we are all machines.

Nope, in a thousand years nothing.

Rob C

[Isaac]

Nope, in a thousand years nothing.

For thousands of years, since the Golden Age, there's been someone saying that.

[Jim Pascoe]

✓  "Never miss the perfect moment with Smart Photo Selector"
✓ "Auto Object Framing turns ordinary photos into beautifully balanced compositions 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....!

[Rob C]

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

[Isaac]

But to which GA do you refer?

The myth.

[Isaac]

Crikey - I'm out of a job....!

Now we have drone photography, I guess we could have cameras that re-position themselves to compose a particular kind of photograph.

[Jim Pascoe]

Now we have drone photography, 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

[Rob C]

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