Reading mode: Light Dark

My opinion as a complete newbie, for what it's worth - art or science?

Go to last post
R

Robinson13

Member
Messages
47
Reaction score
4
I've read so much over the last couple of weeks and watched so many videos, my brain hurts! I started out looking to make a first step into the overly (?) complicated world of photography and here's what I found...by the way, I just made an offer of £500 on a mint Ricoh GRIII on ebay...fingers crossed. I think?

Like almost everyone else I know, I use my smartphone (iphone8 in my case) to take pictures/video. I know that the photos could be so much better using a premium camera but, to be honest, just visiting sites like this, the language used is, in my opinion, intimidating, to say the least. ISO, EVF, F2.0, 35mm or 28mm, blah, blah. This is a world where I can tell a device in the corner of my room to play a song, answer my questions, turn on the lights, run the bath and change the channel on my tele. We have driverless cars and all pilots need to do nowadays is take off and land, the planes fly themselves.

Yet I'm here being totally baffled about taking good photographs. It seems to me that there is a desire to maintain a shroud of secrecy, like the Magic Circle, about the art of photography. The mechanics, the science, seems to be more important to people than the actual art itself - surely the composition, the 'accident', the moment, matters more than with what, or how, the picture was taken? Artistically, creatively, I'm a musician, a guitarist, and I've been learning for 48 years now. I own 15 guitars but, d'you know what, I can only play one at a time and guess what - I gravitate to one guitar most of the time. A Fender Strat, 30 years old. My other Fenders, Gibsons, Guilds and Takamines sit in the corner in their cases and rarely come out at all. Sentimentality stops me from selling them all and just keeping the Strat. I play by ear and I have never had any lessons and have absolutely no music theory whatsoever.

I guess what I'm saying is that, by now, in this digital, computer driven age. there should be a camera that automatically takes the photos that I want it to take. There should be a chip that 'knows' what photo I want when I point the lens in any given scenario - my contribution should be in the 'accident', the moment, the fluke, the experience...only when you can prove to the owner of the latest smartphone that there is a camera that is 10 x better than the camera in the smartphone but that doesn't require a diploma in photography to achieve great results, will people return to buying cameras in any great numbers. What's more important - the science or the art? Shouldn't I be able to say to my camera - take the best photo you can 'of that'!
 
Robinson13 said:
I've read so much over the last couple of weeks and watched so many videos, my brain hurts! I started out looking to make a first step into the overly (?) complicated world of photography and here's what I found...by the way, I just made an offer of £500 on a mint Ricoh GRIII on ebay...fingers crossed. I think?

Like almost everyone else I know, I use my smartphone (iphone8 in my case) to take pictures/video. I know that the photos could be so much better using a premium camera but, to be honest, just visiting sites like this, the language used is, in my opinion, intimidating, to say the least. ISO, EVF, F2.0, 35mm or 28mm, blah, blah. This is a world where I can tell a device in the corner of my room to play a song, answer my questions, turn on the lights, run the bath and change the channel on my tele. We have driverless cars and all pilots need to do nowadays is take off and land, the planes fly themselves.

Yet I'm here being totally baffled about taking good photographs. It seems to me that there is a desire to maintain a shroud of secrecy, like the Magic Circle, about the art of photography. The mechanics, the science, seems to be more important to people than the actual art itself - surely the composition, the 'accident', the moment, matters more than with what, or how, the picture was taken? Artistically, creatively, I'm a musician, a guitarist, and I've been learning for 48 years now. I own 15 guitars but, d'you know what, I can only play one at a time and guess what - I gravitate to one guitar most of the time. A Fender Strat, 30 years old. My other Fenders, Gibsons, Guilds and Takamines sit in the corner in their cases and rarely come out at all. Sentimentality stops me from selling them all and just keeping the Strat. I play by ear and I have never had any lessons and have absolutely no music theory whatsoever.

I guess what I'm saying is that, by now, in this digital, computer driven age. there should be a camera that automatically takes the photos that I want it to take. There should be a chip that 'knows' what photo I want when I point the lens in any given scenario - my contribution should be in the 'accident', the moment, the fluke, the experience...only when you can prove to the owner of the latest smartphone that there is a camera that is 10 x better than the camera in the smartphone but that doesn't require a diploma in photography to achieve great results, will people return to buying cameras in any great numbers. What's more important - the science or the art? Shouldn't I be able to say to my camera - take the best photo you can 'of that'!
Click to expand...
If you can tell a device to play a song, why did you bother learning to play the Fender Strat?

Stick with the phone. If you don't want to learn, your photos won't be any better.
 
The science side of things allows me to understand what my camera can or can't do under the existing circumstances - the art side is me struggling to frame something that I would like to look at later, or maybe to show other folks.

So the science is needed to allow the art to flourish.

Go back 60 years when I first decided to get interested in photography. I knew nothing, so thought the best idea would be to borrow every library book about photography and learn what it was all about. After doing that I could understand what the aperture and shutter speed etc did for me. At that point I was then ready to go buy a camera.

That is all why the hobby is so interesting to me, the science side keeps the technology juices flowing, and the art (when I get it right) keeps the other side of the brain happy.
 
Robinson13 said:
Artistically, creatively, I'm a musician, a guitarist, and I've been learning for 48 years now ...

I guess what I'm saying is that, by now, in this digital, computer driven age. there should be a camera that automatically takes the photos that I want it to take.
Click to expand...
Sure, I get it ... just like you have a guitar that automatically plays the music you want to create.
 
Last edited:
Robinson13 said:
there should be a camera that automatically takes the photos that I want it to take. There should be a chip that 'knows' what photo I want when I point the lens in any given scenario - my contribution should be in the 'accident', the moment, the fluke, the experience...
Click to expand...
Seems to me you should just Google the image you want and download it.
 
It may seem arcane from the outside, but the basic principles of photography are hardly a a secret. You can learn them from a book, any number of places on the internet, or (probably best) from any photographer. I had the basics explained to me in half an hour, sitting down with a friend with a camera and several lenses between us. I've done the same for others.

For what it's worth, learning now is easier than it ever was. A modern camera shows you everything it is doing as it does it. Even the simplest modern camera has an auto mode where it makes all the decisions and a program mode where you can shift one parameter and watch the others change in real time. It also records the settings used for every shot you take. (Back in the day you took notes in a little notebook.). Everything you need to know is right there, handed to you.

I never had a an automated camera on film. Everything I know about digital photography and modern cameras I learned from my own camera. It's a great teacher if you are willing to learn.
 
You can approach it in a trial and error way like you did with the guitar. And until you're good, you can always use auto mode.

At some point you'll likely want more control over the results, or you'll give it up. Or maybe you'll buy 11 more cameras to see if they can give you what you want.
 
“I guess what I'm saying is that, by now, in this digital, computer driven age. there should be a camera that automatically takes the photos that I want it to take.”


in other words: you want a camera that can read your mind and see into your imagination. That camera has not been invented yet.

Tell me: how did it take for your guitar to know where to go to get the note you wanted, to make that note sound the way you wanted it to? Or how, in the words of Lucinda Williams in “Drunken Angel”, how did it take for your fingers to automatically find “the worn out places in the wood /The ones that make you feel so good”?
 
“I've read so much over the last couple of weeks and watched so many videos, my brain hurts!”

Word to the wise: most so-called experts on the Internet , aren’t.
 
Last edited:
Robinson13 said:
I've read so much over the last couple of weeks and watched so many videos, my brain hurts! I started out looking to make a first step into the overly (?) complicated world of photography and here's what I found...by the way, I just made an offer of £500 on a mint Ricoh GRIII on ebay...fingers crossed. I think?

Like almost everyone else I know, I use my smartphone (iphone8 in my case) to take pictures/video. I know that the photos could be so much better using a premium camera but, to be honest, just visiting sites like this, the language used is, in my opinion, intimidating, to say the least. ISO, EVF, F2.0, 35mm or 28mm, blah, blah. This is a world where I can tell a device in the corner of my room to play a song, answer my questions, turn on the lights, run the bath and change the channel on my tele. We have driverless cars and all pilots need to do nowadays is take off and land, the planes fly themselves.

Yet I'm here being totally baffled about taking good photographs. It seems to me that there is a desire to maintain a shroud of secrecy, like the Magic Circle, about the art of photography. The mechanics, the science, seems to be more important to people than the actual art itself - surely the composition, the 'accident', the moment, matters more than with what, or how, the picture was taken? Artistically, creatively, I'm a musician, a guitarist, and I've been learning for 48 years now. I own 15 guitars but, d'you know what, I can only play one at a time and guess what - I gravitate to one guitar most of the time. A Fender Strat, 30 years old. My other Fenders, Gibsons, Guilds and Takamines sit in the corner in their cases and rarely come out at all. Sentimentality stops me from selling them all and just keeping the Strat. I play by ear and I have never had any lessons and have absolutely no music theory whatsoever.

I guess what I'm saying is that, by now, in this digital, computer driven age. there should be a camera that automatically takes the photos that I want it to take. There should be a chip that 'knows' what photo I want when I point the lens in any given scenario - my contribution should be in the 'accident', the moment, the fluke, the experience...only when you can prove to the owner of the latest smartphone that there is a camera that is 10 x better than the camera in the smartphone but that doesn't require a diploma in photography to achieve great results, will people return to buying cameras in any great numbers. What's more important - the science or the art? Shouldn't I be able to say to my camera - take the best photo you can 'of that'!
Click to expand...
Every artistic pursuit requires an understanding of a medium - doesn't matter what it is.

What is your contribution if you just 'say to your camera, take the best photo you can of that'? It it simply being in a certain place at a certain time? What artist gets away with such lazy creativity? I can't point a brush at a canvas and expect a masterpiece. I can't expect Microsoft Word to know my mind and write the next great novel on my behalf.

A camera is a tool - some have more to them than others. Two people can stand in exactly the same spot, see the exact same moment, and through different creative choices - using the tools they have available - realise completely different visions.

You still had to learn to play music - either by ear or by formal education or by osmosis - it's still an essential part. The learning is key.

I'm the least technical person I know - DPReview is full of analytical gear-heads and I'm a Luddite by comparison. Yet, I still managed to learn how to use a camera, take photos over twenty years and create - in my mind - compelling, artistic images. I also get paid for my work, although its not my full-time occupation.

If you're 'baffled about taking good photographs' then learn. Learn by ear if you like - read a book, watch a video, press buttons until you understand what they do. It's a lot of info, it's not always easy. Persevere, or don't.

What is more important, the science or the art? For me, it's the art - but the technology which enables my hobby has to be acknowledged. It doesn't hinder me, it allows me to create the vision I have of a person, setting or scene. I appreciate it, work to understand it and benefit from it.

If a camera just decides on what 'the best' version of anything it photographs then there is no art left, so honestly - just pull you finger out and learn how to use a camera, or don't. You can still use your phone.
 
Last edited:
Robinson13 said:
I guess what I'm saying is that, by now, in this digital, computer driven age. there should be a camera that automatically takes the photos that I want it to take. There should be a chip that 'knows' what photo I want when I point the lens in any given scenario
Click to expand...

Keep dreaming.

--

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
 
I suggest employing a keen youngster to go out and take photos for you.

You can also keep your photographer in constant attendance, like your bodyguard. The President of the USA does this.
 
Robinson13 said:
I've read so much over the last couple of weeks and watched so many videos, my brain hurts! I started out looking to make a first step into the overly (?) complicated world of photography and here's what I found...by the way, I just made an offer of £500 on a mint Ricoh GRIII on ebay...fingers crossed. I think?

Like almost everyone else I know, I use my smartphone (iphone8 in my case) to take pictures/video. I know that the photos could be so much better using a premium camera but, to be honest, just visiting sites like this, the language used is, in my opinion, intimidating, to say the least. ISO, EVF, F2.0, 35mm or 28mm, blah, blah. This is a world where I can tell a device in the corner of my room to play a song, answer my questions, turn on the lights, run the bath and change the channel on my tele. We have driverless cars and all pilots need to do nowadays is take off and land, the planes fly themselves.

Yet I'm here being totally baffled about taking good photographs. It seems to me that there is a desire to maintain a shroud of secrecy, like the Magic Circle, about the art of photography. The mechanics, the science, seems to be more important to people than the actual art itself - surely the composition, the 'accident', the moment, matters more than with what, or how, the picture was taken?
Click to expand...
Welcome to the dpreview forums. This is what you're always going to see here -far more people discussing the technical aspects of cameras, and arguing over which is better, and an obvious scarcity of images.

Cameras are machines. Photography is a skill.

The only thing you need to get into the 'game' is cash. Spending a lot of cash, and doing a little internet sleuthing makes it appear that you are a photographer, and because you have an expensive camera, many will make the mistake of thinking that x=y; that because you have a fantastic camera, you must be good, or at the very least, know what you're talking about.

I'm not saying that everyone here with a great camera can't take pictures -I've seen quite a few awesome shots posted here over the years, but there are a lot of posters here who have nothing to show other than graphs and charts.
Robinson13 said:
Artistically, creatively, I'm a musician, a guitarist, and I've been learning for 48 years now. I own 15 guitars but, d'you know what, I can only play one at a time and guess what - I gravitate to one guitar most of the time. A Fender Strat, 30 years old. My other Fenders, Gibsons, Guilds and Takamines sit in the corner in their cases and rarely come out at all. Sentimentality stops me from selling them all and just keeping the Strat. I play by ear and I have never had any lessons and have absolutely no music theory whatsoever.

I guess what I'm saying is that, by now, in this digital, computer driven age. there should be a camera that automatically takes the photos that I want it to take. There should be a chip that 'knows' what photo I want when I point the lens in any given scenario - my contribution should be in the 'accident', the moment, the fluke, the experience...only when you can prove to the owner of the latest smartphone that there is a camera that is 10 x better than the camera in the smartphone but that doesn't require a diploma in photography to achieve great results, will people return to buying cameras in any great numbers. What's more important - the science or the art? Shouldn't I be able to say to my camera - take the best photo you can 'of that'!
Click to expand...
I play guitar as well. I have a couple of teles (my favorites) a strat, a PRS, and a Martin. and as far as I can tell, there is no 'chip' in them. I'm pretty sure that I'm the 'chip,' and I'm glad for it.

Listen, you had to learn how to tune a guitar; how to fret a note properly; how to replace a string, didn't you? Same with a camera. There are few easy to comprehend basics to start you on your way. You can set up most cameras these days to shoot almost everything fully automatic -all you have to do is press the shutter release, but, (to use a guitar analogy) that's like playing everything in open tuning. You're playing, and you're making music, but to broaden your horizons, and to get out the music you're hearing in your head, you've got to take it further. Learn some chords. Learn how to fingerpick? Learn certain scales? The choice is yours, same with a camera.
 
Hi, yes, the wine got the better of me last night, didn't it! Bloody lockdowns...

I see what you're saying. I would point out that your Telecaster and your Martin etc have probably not changed very much since they were first designed. Certain periods were better than others for some of the big manufacturers - lots of people don't like Norlin period 1970s Gibsons, for example. But how much would you give me for my Sony Cybershot point and shoot camera from 1995 or whenever it was I bought it from Comet, for around £150! Camera technology has altered so much over the same period, if you compare a digital camera to a Fender Telecaster. Would I be right in thinking that most early digital cameras would now be classed as junk and not really worth anything, whereas my Gibson ES335 bought in 1991 will have increased in value when I paid £800 for it (probably worth at least double that now). And the guitar will still do exactly what is was intended to do with no hassle whatsoever in terms of technology - the guitar is played in exactly the same way since it was bought and that is never going to change. This camera business is the complete opposite, as far as I can tell.

How much do 1950s Leica cameras go for, I wonder and would there be any point in buying one if your sole intention is to take photos as easily as possible in a digital age?

I was corresponding with a chap on ebay the other day about his Ricoh GRIII that he was selling and he said that he just simply couldn't get his head around all the technology, and that is the reason for the sale. I suspect it's the same for most of the people who buy this sort of camera. Yes, they mistakenly believe that it's going to work just like their smartphones do, but then they open the box and take out the 'manual of death' (as I called my Boss drum machine manual for Dr. Rhythm - I ended up selling it, as I couldn't use the damn thing properly) and never get passed the first chapter. So the camera goes back on to ebay sharpish, as the camera is never going to be as easy to use as a smartphone. They realise quite quickly that although these cameras will take far better photos than the smartphone, some work is required to get there.

I never bought a guitar that came with a manual!

Anyways, apologies if I came across as an ignorant twit last night - I'm still waiting to see if I've won that GRIII. I've overwhelmed myself with info, probably too much, and I suppose I just want to be able to take photos like Eric Kim from the start! hah!

https://erickimphotography.com/blog/2019/08/07/why-the-ricoh-gr-iii-is-better-than-the-leica-q2/
 
True - but my guitar hasn't changed since I bought it (other than the odd dink here and there), and how I play it hasn't altered. It didn't come with a 100 page manual. It's a guitar - I would probably get my money back - or even make a profit - if I sold them all tomorrow. It goes - guitar-lead-amp and it has been that way since I bought my first electric guitar in 1974, and it has been that way since the first one was invented. I was at someone's house recently playing a 1930s Gibson acoustic. 90 years old. To me, it was an old guitar, sounded like an old guitar, but nice to play. It's probably worth a few quid.

I wonder what hassle you would be having now trying to use a camera made in the 1930s?

All I was trying to say is that these premium cameras should be easier to use. The technology already exists but all the industry seems to want to do is make it look like you need a degree in Photography just to use one. Onwards and upwards, eh! I'm sure that when I get my GRIII it will all become clear!
 
Robinson13 said:
Like almost everyone else I know, I use my smartphone (iphone8 in my case) to take pictures/video. I know that the photos could be so much better using a premium camera but, to be honest, just visiting sites like this, the language used is, in my opinion, intimidating, to say the least. ISO, EVF, F2.0, 35mm or 28mm, blah, blah. This is a world where I can tell a device in the corner of my room to play a song, answer my questions, turn on the lights, run the bath and change the channel on my tele. We have driverless cars and all pilots need to do nowadays is take off and land, the planes fly themselves.
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough cameras once upon a time required users to learn all this jargon to be able to use it. That's what seperates phones from cameras. The language you speak of actually isn't too intimidating at all once you watch one or two YouTube videos expaining how it works. Check out manual mode on YouTube or the exposure triangle.
Robinson13 said:
Yet I'm here being totally baffled about taking good photographs. It seems to me that there is a desire to maintain a shroud of secrecy, like the Magic Circle, about the art of photography. The mechanics, the science, seems to be more important to people than the actual art itself - surely the composition, the 'accident', the moment, matters more than with what, or how, the picture was taken? Artistically, creatively, I'm a musician, a guitarist, and I've been learning for 48 years now. I own 15 guitars but, d'you know what, I can only play one at a time and guess what - I gravitate to one guitar most of the time. A Fender Strat, 30 years old. My other Fenders, Gibsons, Guilds and Takamines sit in the corner in their cases and rarely come out at all. Sentimentality stops me from selling them all and just keeping the Strat. I play by ear and I have never had any lessons and have absolutely no music theory whatsoever.
Click to expand...
It depends on what circle you're apart of. Here in DPReview there's no secret that there's a massive focus on gear and camera science. However, there are subforums and competitions where people post their photographs. Other corners of the internet are all about photography, whereas others completely focus on gear.
Robinson13 said:
I guess what I'm saying is that, by now, in this digital, computer driven age. there should be a camera that automatically takes the photos that I want it to take. There should be a chip that 'knows' what photo I want when I point the lens in any given scenario - my contribution should be in the 'accident', the moment, the fluke, the experience...only when you can prove to the owner of the latest smartphone that there is a camera that is 10 x better than the camera in the smartphone but that doesn't require a diploma in photography to achieve great results, will people return to buying cameras in any great numbers. What's more important - the science or the art? Shouldn't I be able to say to my camera - take the best photo you can 'of that'!
Click to expand...
To me that doesn't really sound fun. The fun part of photography is taking the photograph yourself, sometimes editing it to your perference or using different settings or techniques (e.g. changing picture profiles) to achieve an entirely different look. I like the idea of that way more than having an automated system do the thinking for me.
 
Think of it this way. You can buy a basic loaf of bread anywhere food is sold. If you go to an artisan bakery, you can buy a loaf of almost any kind of bread, perfectly baked. But it will always be the bread the baker decided to make.

The phone camera is the bakery. It gives you the photographs the computer programmer decided to make, using algorithms designed to appeal to as many people as possible.

Getting a dedicated camera is like deciding to learn to bake your own bread. This is not easy. There are processes to learn and you will make mistakes. The first loaves of bread you bake will not be as good as the ones from the bakery. But if you stick with it and practice, try different recipes and take tips from other bakers, you will improve. In the end you will have bread made exactly the way you like it, sometimes with textures and flavor combinations that might not sell at the commercial bakery. Plus you will have had the fun of making it yourself.

Using a 50s Leica today is like baking bread in a woodfired oven. Interesting results and a lot of fun to do, but not practical for day to day unless you make a large investment in equipment and knowledge.

(The Ricoh GR is not a camera generally recommended to beginners! It's a specialty camera for street photographers, though it has a following among others, and is not considered particularly easy to use. Its virtues are based in getting a big sensor in a very small space, and that means compromises in other areas. It's like learning to bake bread in the tiny kitchen in an RV.)

--
Instagram: @yardcoyote
 
Last edited:
What you ask for exists. It is called "Google" and is available on your smartphone. Whenever you want a photo of something just search and you will find myriads of photos taken from every possible angle. Those complicated cameras are only intended for people who want to put something of themselves into their photos.
 
Robinson13 said:
True - but my guitar hasn't changed since I bought it (other than the odd dink here and there), and how I play it hasn't altered. It didn't come with a 100 page manual. It's a guitar - I would probably get my money back - or even make a profit - if I sold them all tomorrow. It goes - guitar-lead-amp and it has been that way since I bought my first electric guitar in 1974, and it has been that way since the first one was invented. I was at someone's house recently playing a 1930s Gibson acoustic. 90 years old. To me, it was an old guitar, sounded like an old guitar, but nice to play. It's probably worth a few quid.

I wonder what hassle you would be having now trying to use a camera made in the 1930s?

All I was trying to say is that these premium cameras should be easier to use. The technology already exists but all the industry seems to want to do is make it look like you need a degree in Photography just to use one. Onwards and upwards, eh! I'm sure that when I get my GRIII it will all become clear!
Click to expand...
I think the only reason why you think these cameras are too complicated is because you haven't tried to learn how to use them. There are also video tutorials for specific camera models that make it easy to learn whichever one you have or want to get.

Similarly, anyone who has never picked up a guitar before will probably say the exact same thing you're saying right now. Except I'm pretty sure it's much easier to learn how to use a camera than a guitar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top