Have digital cameras destroyed photography?

ShutterNot said:

To get a correct exposure in manual mode, you will still need to use the built in meter. Yes you can lighten and darken, but that is still relative to the exposure meter determining the correct exposure.

So I am not sure just exactly what your saying here.

Click to expand...

Ah, I wasn't talking about any concepts of "correct exposure" other that what you can see with your eye; aligning what you see with Mk I Eyeball with what the EVF is telling you. In low light, the metering in auto modes will often push the image 3 stops higher than what you're seeing. Aye, it'll fill the histogram but it'll be nothing like what your mind was captured by.

Has autofocus destroyed photography?

Only when it focuses on the wrong thing than what you intended.

ddtan said:

Only when it focuses on the wrong thing than what you intended.

Click to expand...

A resounding "Yes!"

What do you mean (OP) exactly by the term 'destroyed photography'?

well. I use Auto-focus very sparingly. When I shoot Landscapes, I manual focus all the time.

I want to feel like I've done something with the camera! I don't get many blurred images using manual focus, I do use auto-focus If I'm shooting family, B-Day parties, that kind of stuff.

To be honest, I miss the old depth of field scale on the lens's of the past.

Digital Shutterbug said:

I think we are essentially saying the same thing. My point was that because it no longer costs vast amounts of money to practice and hone your skills, it is in the realm of capability for most people to financially afford that effort.

I didn't shoot anywhere near the amount I would have liked to have when I was starting out. I simply could not afford to. It made the learning curve more difficult than being able to shoot thousands of frames for little more than the cost of batteries (beyond initial investment). Now, you can experiment to your hearts desire, look at them on the computer, and toss them out when you have learned what worked and what didn't.

Click to expand...

Speaking of learning curve. Sure in camera preview would have been a HUGE luxury on a location assignment using studio lights. Digital could have eliminated the anxiety while waiting for the film to return from the lab to see all went right or wrong then to the editors. Plus it could have enhanced the on scene creative process.

But even with that in mind, and maybe because I came from that era, I have found the learning curve so much steeper now comprehending and memorizing all the camera manuals, PP software manuals and the necessary 3rd party guide books to cover the manual deficiencies, calibrations and profiles and on and on. With film, much was more basic. I mainly shot transparencies. You had the option of push and pull, dodge and burn even with color filters to help correct crossover when printing. It didn't take a ton of reading and memorizing. For me the digital learning is not much more fascinating then having to read up on how it was to set up the VCR, just many times more complicated. I just always want to get back to the fascination of capturing the image then seeing and sharing the results. In the darkroom there were less complexing variables though that obviously meant you had less control.

I don't regret the change and I wouldn't return now that I have jumped that hurdle. I'm not so sure it is so much more affordable now. Depends on to what level you take it. You could go jpg and load it up to your computer and there it is. If you want to continue in the same level of quality that I demanded with film then it is far from being thrifty. I welcome all the bells and whistles and even automated options. More tools the better as long as you can default to the basics when desired. For much of my shooting I'm in manual but relish the sophisticated advancements of all these tools like the histogram and blinkies to aid my settings.

It's not so bad when people come onto forums complaining about why their particular camera won't produce the results they expect thinking it's got to be the machine. Many know even phones can create great looking images. There will be plenty that will be happy to share solutions with them hopefully in a non condescending manner. At least they are inquiring which is a good thing. They will be advised to research and learn further if they want better results. In so doing we all can pick up a few more tips. I learn a ton from forums and I am one of those that picks up books. Right now I'm in possession of three books on Photoshop CS6. Got to love the public library!

I'm spoiled. I complain quite a bit, mostly to myself, about my X-E1 handling. I don't like some of it's point and shoot characteristics that I feel conflict with how I want to control it's functions but as you say I work around it and let Fuji know of my thoughts. There are just some functions that are worth complaining about that the only solution is to live with it or find another camera.

From my experience, I have the impression that the film process was cheaper. It created a discipline not to go trigger happy. This did cause the need to know more of what you are doing before you hit the shutter button. After that it was fairly basic, send the original off to be printed or do it yourself at home or at a rented DIY lab. Now, computers packed with ram, countless software applications, monitors with various color gamut, calibration tools, printers inks and not to mention the camera that is now a computer. I am not complaining here, just pointing out the differences. Like I said I wouldn't give up this luxury now. But being cheaper, maybe I could concede that it might be a wash...Nah, I don't think so.

John R

MonochromeSet said:

What do you mean (OP) exactly by the term 'destroyed photography'?

Click to expand...

That was an unfortunate choice of words for what I was really trying to ask. No doubt, it has stirred some emotions.

What I was really suggesting is that perhaps the advancement in camera features, and the relatively low cost of equipment, has caused people to lean on that technology as a crutch. They become so convinced that the camera should be capable of doing everything for them, that they never make the effort to learn the fundamentals of photographic equipment. Obviously, the necessity to learn good composition, lighting, and so forth apply to digital as much as it did film.

As much as the equipment has advanced over what we used 30 plus years ago, modern cameras are still pretty stupid devices compared to the human mind. If you understand the basics, you can force the camera to do just about anything you want. When you have no understanding of the basic concepts, you have little to draw upon in situations where the camera simply cannot make the right decisions.

As an example that we see all the time, watch a football/soccer/baseball game. Observe all the flashes firing in the stadium seats. Admittedly, many of those may be little point 'n shoot cameras that have no manual overrides. But, there are also many with much better equipment that simply stick the camera in automatic mode, and expect the camera to take a great picture. Hey, the flash fired. How come I've got a black picture? I must have bought a bad camera. The person that has studied the craft a bit immediately understands that the flash is going to light up the backs of the heads of the people in a few rows ahead. Nothing else. They know to turn off the flash and adjust the ISO, shutter speed and aperture to the appropriate settings to have at least a chance of getting the shot. They may still not be able to get a really great picture in this scenario. But, they have a far better chance than the guy next to them that has an even better setup and no clue how to use it beyond turning the dial to the green mode setting.

My thoughts are that in the film era, the cost of a decent camera, combined with the ongoing cost of film and processing/printing, caused people to not take thousands of mediocre photos and never make an effort to understand their equipment and the very basics of what it takes to actually capture a viewable image. Never mind the knowledge required to compose a real attention grabbing photo. Just get something that is recognizable.

Steve

Do you think the same is true of ... say, motor cars? Originally those that learned double-declutch gear changing and changing a tyre themselves and on-the road engine repairs and really got to know how to treat and drive a car ... . Do people today with automatic gearbox, power-steering, rear-view parking sensors, run-flat tyres, engine management systems, etc., etc. Have all those 'destroyed motoring'?

Mediocre photos are taken with every sort of camera imaginable, as are superb ones. That more and more people are taking photos is a good thing, surely?

My advice would be, don't box yourself into an 'elitist' corner because the world and his wife are now enjoying 'your' specialist hobby

MonochromeSet said:

Do you think the same is true of ... say, motor cars? Originally those that learned double-declutch gear changing and changing a tyre themselves and on-the road engine repairs and really got to know how to treat and drive a car ... . Do people today with automatic gearbox, power-steering, rear-view parking sensors, run-flat tyres, engine management systems, etc., etc. Have all those 'destroyed motoring'?

Mediocre photos are taken with every sort of camera imaginable, as are superb ones. That more and more people are taking photos is a good thing, surely?

My advice would be, don't box yourself into an 'elitist' corner because the world and his wife are now enjoying 'your' specialist hobby

Click to expand...

Yes, you're right. I now understand your point. Education on any given subject is completely useless and a total waste of time. It's been replaced by modern equipment that transforms users into professionals that don't need to know anything at all about their subject of interest. Go forth and be happy in your ignorance.

Steve

Not really

Digital Shutterbug said:

Yes, you're right. I now understand your point. Education on any given subject is completely useless and a total waste of time. It's been replaced by modern equipment that transforms users into professionals that don't need to know anything at all about their subject of interest. Go forth and be happy in your ignorance.

Steve

Click to expand...

No, that's not what I said. Those skilled practitioners who can eke out every ounce of performance/technique from their equipment/knowledge/skillset are not negated by 'the masses' clicking away on 'P' for Professional all the time.

80/20 rule - 80% use 20% of the features of a product; 20% use 80% of the features. Or, 20% of photographers know 80% of technique, equipment selection and usage, composition, manipulation of light.

Yes, in the very beginning of Digital the results were awful and film was so much better.

And

No, the photographer would destroy photography by taking out of focus images.

Digital has a advantage over film on a basic level, changing ISO with every shot, changing from color to B&W with every shot with no need for multiple camera bodies.

AND

Yes, if the computer never existed you can not even imagine what the world of photography would be like today.

Digital Shutterbug said:

Today’s cameras have more features, can do more without intervention of the photographer, and are cheaper than anytime in history. But, has that destroyed photography? Steve

Click to expand...

I would agree with the point that we are spoiled. Most of us complain this camera can't do this, or can't do that, does not have this feature or that feature so it's not usable . if only I had that camera then my pictures would sing! I have been guilty of the above also, BUT the reality with any of todays better cameras, it's not the camera that is the limiting factor it's our own skill level or lack there of..

Dave

I also feel that today more people take more photos than ever before, but that less and less people are involved in photography. I think one of the main reasons is that they don't compose an image through an optical viewfinder anymore. They just look at their smartphone or camera screen. Even people owning a DSLR mostly just look at their screen, see a "finished" picture and decide to freeze it.
With an OVF you don't look at an image, but you look at reality. And the process of photographing consists in creating your personal creative interpretation of this reality.
The picure should be conceived in your mind before pressing the shutter.
And yes, I use maybe 1/10th of all the electronic features in my camera.
My screen is in the "off" position, and I only use it sometimes to check the exposure after the picture is taken. After all, it should be my photo and not my camera's photo.

Theofix said:

I also feel that today more people take more photos than ever before, but that less and less people are involved in photography. I think one of the main reasons is that they don't compose an image through an optical viewfinder anymore. They just look at their smartphone or camera screen. Even people owning a DSLR mostly just look at their screen, see a "finished" picture and decide to freeze it.
With an OVF you don't look at an image, but you look at reality. And the process of photographing consists in creating your personal creative interpretation of this reality.
The picure should be conceived in your mind before pressing the shutter.
And yes, I use maybe 1/10th of all the electronic features in my camera.
My screen is in the "off" position, and I only use it sometimes to check the exposure after the picture is taken. After all, it should be my photo and not my camera's photo.

Click to expand...

A good point!

Cadder

Theofix said:

I also feel that today more people take more photos than ever before, but that less and less people are involved in photography. I think one of the main reasons is that they don't compose an image through an optical viewfinder anymore. They just look at their smartphone or camera screen. Even people owning a DSLR mostly just look at their screen, see a "finished" picture and decide to freeze it.
With an OVF you don't look at an image, but you look at reality. And the process of photographing consists in creating your personal creative interpretation of this reality.
The picure should be conceived in your mind before pressing the shutter.
And yes, I use maybe 1/10th of all the electronic features in my camera.
My screen is in the "off" position, and I only use it sometimes to check the exposure after the picture is taken. After all, it should be my photo and not my camera's photo.

Click to expand...

I feel it is elitist to say that since you prefer composing with a viewfinder that anyone doing so on the screen (what about those who use a tilting screen for waist high street shots?) is less involved in the photographic process. For the record, I prefer my viewfinders, both OVF and EVF, to the rear screen.

Otherwise I agree that there are people who are photographers and there are people who just like taking photographs. This was true with film as well; all digital has done is make it cheaper for both types of people to take lots of photos.

Still, your camera's photo doesn't happen on it's own. A person is holding the camera, aiming it, and pressing the shutter. Something they see they wish to capture.

I guess that begs the question, are photos that are just capturing what a person views photography or does there have to be a more creative view involved to label a photo photography ?

We can really start splitting hairs here.

Theofix said:

I also feel that today more people take more photos than ever before, but that less and less people are involved in photography. I think one of the main reasons is that they don't compose an image through an optical viewfinder anymore. They just look at their smartphone or camera screen. Even people owning a DSLR mostly just look at their screen, see a "finished" picture and decide to freeze it.
With an OVF you don't look at an image, but you look at reality. And the process of photographing consists in creating your personal creative interpretation of this reality.
The picure should be conceived in your mind before pressing the shutter.
And yes, I use maybe 1/10th of all the electronic features in my camera.
My screen is in the "off" position, and I only use it sometimes to check the exposure after the picture is taken. After all, it should be my photo and not my camera's photo.

Click to expand...

I guess it's all personal preference, no right or wrong way. I've shot using optical viewfinders, MF and 35mm since the '70's. My last DSLR was a FF Canon with a nice bright OVF. I switched to an X-E2 last year and find no limitations at all with the EVF (I don't use the rear LCD except when stitching many images on a tripod/pano head.)

I actually prefer the advantages of the EVF and the photos are still mine, not the camera's. I would never go back.

Sal