Idiot question alert - 52 focus points

Started 8 months ago | Questions thread
olyflyer
Forum ProPosts: 22,835
Like?
Re: Idiot question alert - 52 focus points
In reply to Rservello, 8 months ago

Rservello wrote:

olyflyer wrote:

Modern tools are invented to be used, and by using modern tools one can learn even more, or one can just ignore most and concentrate on the composition and the art part of photography.

If you are on a job and being paid by someone to capture a moment or a product or whatever, I agree. Use the tools that get the job done as easily as possible. But there is so much more to the art of photography than just snapping a cool picture to show off on flickr. There is more to it than just getting the most "keepers".

Again, I disagree. For many people, including most of the pro, a camera is nothing but a tool to capture the moment. I buy the camera I can afford, carry and use and which gives me pleasing images, or if we put it the way you do, the most keepers. However, a "keeper" is not necessarily according to your definition, it does not always have to be technically perfect, it is an image I like.

I buy a camera with certain features and I use most of those features. I use the meter, AWB, Auto ISO, shoot mostly in M or A mode, some times also in S. All those involve some automatic mode, and there is no shame in that. I think it is a bit snobbish to state otherwise. I am also using an external meter if it is possible or I find it necessary, but then again, that's just another tool. I also use flash or flashes, which helps me with additional light if I want it. All that helps me to create the image I want, not just taking a chance and shoot.

A camera is a precise instrument.

Yes.

It is more than just a tool that facilitates the capturing of a moment.

No, actually it is nothing more than a tool, even if it is much more advanced than any film camera I ever used. It does nothing else than captures the light at the moment I push the shutter release.

There is a catharsis to setting your camera up, shooting, and not having that little LCD for instant feedback. You just shoot. If it's not perfect...well sometimes that's better. Some of the best photographs were unintentional.

Yes, well, SOME (very few) of the best photographs were unintentional, but most of them (a great majority) not. Even in the stone age of photography photographers tried to CONTROL their shooting as much as those days technology allowed. That's why flash lights got invented, that's why they used reflectors, diffusers and later also light meters. VERY few famous images are random, not staged or not "designed" by the photographer so that the light and the composition would fit as well calculated as possible.

Today, people (myself included sometimes) are so all about getting "that shot" that they forget that sometimes, accidental greatness occurs when you just look down the barrel and shoot. Forget about...was that composed perfectly...was it perfectly in focus...is the exposure just right. Just shoot. And try to get the best images you can, without having to rely on post process.

Sorry, but this is just nonsense. Why would anyone do that and what would anyone learn from that? Yes, we all take snaps but I compose even my snaps and I think most people do that as well, even if most people are not capable to see the same way the "experts" do.

Also, as far as post process is concerned. I think everyone should have to spend a little time in a dark room before they pick up photoshop or aperture. The tension of rolling your own film into a chem canister and shaking it in the dark and praying something comes out the other end is pretty exhilarating. Shining an enlarger onto paper and then watching the photo magically appear in the fix bath...never gets old!!! And snipping up bits of previous prints into mattes and shaking your dodge and burn to have a perfect final exposure that ONLY exists in your hand...is pretty incredible. I basically spent a year in the mid 90's in a small dark room and loved every minute of it. If I wasn't printing, I was shooting.

Again, I disagree. I think it is great that we don't have to spend time in dark rooms, breathing in dangerous fumes and handle dangerous chemicals. Being able to develop film or enlarging a negative has nothing to do with photography. Most people NEVER developed films, not even during the film ages, and even less people had a chance to enlarge a print. Most people shot images and handed over the rolls to a lab which could do it better than anyone could at home.

I remember one customer tho, owned an F5 and would use it as a point and shoot for vacation photos. The rich point and shooters have always existed.

So what? I wouldn't have spent money on the F5 but if I had enough money in 1980 I would have bought an F3. I did not had enough, so I was happy with my Olympus OM2n. The F5 came long after that, but it is just too large and heavy so I wouldn't have had it even if I could pay for it.

Photography has become so very disposable lately.

Well... that's true. Finally we agree on something.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow