The anti-modernism rant- controversy warning!

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What I meant by the genre of award winning images. Starve them, kill them, deprive them

and then walk in with a camera ( leica of course ) and supplies of medical equipment and

each doctor wielding a camera to cature the perfect image.

 

maybe collect a few photographic awards..since I guess the lack of medical

facilities would provide a host of photographic opportunities and of course

a grateful but sick people would be ever so grateful to Bwana.

 

I guess it would not make any difference to the poor souls, but i am sure autofocus

autobracketing and motor drives would get at least one image to make it

all wothwhile.

 

I only ever posted one image in that vein - I did not even take any of the hundreds I could have taken- and not because anybody needed to be grateful - but because the subjects asked me to take it and publicize it. The woman had full-blown aids and was pregnant The sons? nephews? were taking her to a mission post down the road - 30 km. She has covered her head because she was ahshamed of the way she looked. I posted it because this should not be happening. Actually I was angry at the world.

I hope it helps a bit. and gratitude - why? They would help me if the tables were turned, that is more certain than the way it is now. Oh - it did not earn me an award - and I used autofocus.

 

Rural Ambulance - Nothern Malawi

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[fursan]

Well said.

 

 

 

 

Jaapv,

 

I find many of your posts pretty informative normally, then I read this one.

 

Autofocus, Autoexposure and Autobracketing a disservice to serious photography?.....mmmm, I think not...I would call that progress.

I guess I know where you're coming from but I think your points made a bordering on angry, elitist, condescending and purer than pure kind of attitude.

I personally use all of the above functions when needed or appropriate, and sometimes none, its called choice and because I have the choice I am happy.

 

I am constantly impressed when I see superb images being made on P&S, Consumer DSLR's or whatever by people who are very creative but not tecky.The Camera Industry has enabled a much wider audience capable of taking great images without having to worry too much about focus or exposure, I think they deserve some credit.

 

Many of the most famous images made in the last years would not have been made without these features.

 

anyway have a good day and smile...

 

andy

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[tbarker13]

If I am understanding the orginal idea here, it is that certain modern advancements have actually hurt (with a few journalist exceptions) the world of photography.

I guess I tend to see it another way. Some of these things (auto exposure in particular) have simply opened up the world of photography to a body of people who have no desire to be good photographers. What they want is the ability to capture images of places they go and people they know.

 

I'm always reminded of a conversation I have had on multiple occasions with my mother. I'll mention that I shot a bunch of photos of something. And she invariably says: Do you think they'll turn out?

I always think: Of course they will turn out. I long ago passed the point where I had to worry about whether my film/slides/disk would simply be all black or all white because I missed the exposure by a mile.

But hers was a world where she sent film (the 5-6 rolls she would take in a given year) off to be developed and prayed there would be images.

 

I'd argue that auto exposure and autofocus have virtually eliminated the need to utter the phrase "do you think they'll turn out'' for the casual photographer. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

Now, as to the smaller body of people who aspire to be good photographers: I would agree that many of them do themselves a disservice by relying on these modern tools before learning how to do without.

In my perfect world, every serious aspiring photographer would start out with an all manual camera. But then, I think every driver should have to start out with a stick shift, before being allowed to drive a car with an automatic transmission.

[fursan]

I only ever posted one image in that vein - I did not even take any of the hundreds I could have taken- and not because anybody needed to be grateful - but because the subjects asked me to take it and publicize it. The woman had full-blown aids and was pregnant The sons? nephews? were taking her to a mission post down the road - 30 km. She has covered her head because she was ahshamed of the way she looked. I posted it because this should not be happening. Actually I was angry at the world.

I hope it helps a bit. and gratitude - why? They would help me if the tables were turned, that is more certain than the way it is now. Oh - it did not earn me an award - and I used autofocus.

 

Rural Ambulance - Nothern Malawi

 

Jaap, my apologies if it seems my post was directed at you personally. No and no. It might have come out that way, because i quoted your post and then responded. It

was a general comment on what seems to be the images that most likely win awards and

the type of images that pass as great images on the magnum site.

 

Once again, my apologies if I seemed to be out of line. It is unintentional.

 

But I disagree with you on autofocus,autobracketing et all. To have the benefit of

technological advances does not diminish the art and science of photography

or medicine ( or any other field of human endeavor. )

[jaapv]

Jaap, my apologies if it seems my post was directed at you personally. No and no. It might have come out that way, because i quoted your post and then responded. It

was a general comment on what seems to be the images that most likely win awards and

the type of images that pass as great images on the magnum site.

 

Once again, my apologies if I seemed to be out of line. It is unintentional.

 

But I disagree with you on autofocus,autobracketing et all. To have the benefit of

technological advances does not diminish the art and science of photography

or medicine ( or any other field of human endeavor. )

Fahim, don't apologize. We may be in different worlds, but it seems our outlook is the same.

And I agree to disagree. I feel we are creating a generation of photographers that relies solely on automation, without feeling the need to create for themselves.

[guy]

This rant, in variations, has been running even longer in the field of musical composition and recording. Cassette multitrackers were just the tip of the iceberg: soon it was multitrack computers and "virtual studios" that anyone could afford. You didn't have to have talent! The computer "did it for you"! It was the end of civilisation!

 

To which I always used to reply, "Do you think the word processor (or the typewriter) 'writes the novel for you'?"

 

Call it the democratisation of art... I for one am grateful that I got the chance as a teenager to assemble a pretty serious recording studio in my bedroom. That I now have a far, far more sophisticated studio, with top-flight processors and effectively unlimited track count, running entirely in software on my MacBook Pro. That I can take a photograph, check its exposure and framing on the spot, edit and finalise it while lying on my sofa with some astonishingly capable software in one hand and a Chilled Beverage in the other, and print it on an eight-ink printer whose output rivals or surpasses anything HC-B ever got his mitts on. That my word-processor anticipates the character name coming and fills it in for me. (Yes, it really does write some of the stuff for me.) That my washing machine also tumble-dries: you just put dirty clothes in and they come out clean.

 

Now I know that's not the same as doing it with a washboard, a copper of boiling water, and a line, but call me new-fashioned, I prefer things this way.

[fursan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You are generous sir.

 

Have a pleasant evening.

 

 

Fahim, don't apologize. We may be in different worlds, but it seems our outlook is the same.

And I agree to disagree. I feel we are creating a generation of photographers that relies solely on automation, without feeling the need to create for themselves.

[gtmerideth]

Jaap,

While I agree with your premise, I believe that the "digital" invention extends this misery

due to the elimination of reality, i.e. a piece of something you can hold in your hand. It is difficult to accept cyberspace as a reality of value.

g.

[JE]

Jaap,

While I agree with your premise, I believe that the "digital" invention extends this misery

due to the elimination of reality, i.e. a piece of something you can hold in your hand. It is difficult to accept cyberspace as a reality of value.

g.

 

ELIMINATION OF REALITY! Wow, that's some philosophistic speech there. (And, by the way, why the word digital in quotes?)....Things that happen in cyberspace, that are seen in cyberspace, pulled from cyberspace, that are placed in cyberspace are capable of having an impact as strong as things that are able to be held in the palm of your hand. This forum for example and this thread...you are, by your participating here, showing that it is not, in fact, difficult to accept cyberspace as a reality of value...or are you and your 90 posts just testing the unreal "waters" a toe at a time?

[guy]

Jaap,

While I agree with your premise, I believe that the "digital" invention extends this misery

due to the elimination of reality, i.e. a piece of something you can hold in your hand. It is difficult to accept cyberspace as a reality of value.

g.

 

Oh what nonsense. I can get a top-notch photo out of a digital camera and into someone's hands in a fleeting fraction of the time it would take to develop, print, assess, dodge, burn, re-print, re-assess, re-print, fix, dry... Digital makes it *easier* to make prints. Easier to make good prints, too. Easier to cull the duds rather than coming back from SnappySnaps with 24 shots, 19 of which are wasted trees. If what you're saying is that there are people out there who spend thousands and thousands on an M8 and Leica glass and then just keep their shots in iPhoto to look at on screen, well... perhaps there are, but you'd have to consider that a stupidity tax...

[vic vic]

hahahahha imants......

" back up your talks with photos " .............. what exactly do u mean ???? hm... errrrrrrr

 

aperture and lightroom are full with backs-ups.......

and all the great photos are backuped with external hard-disks... apple raid.... and dvds....... u see how serious i am ) back upping all the time.........

clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking

and then backuping backuping backuping backuping backuping backuping .......

 

autoexposure focus aouto pictire...... bad?? stupid elitistic talks..........

"im infantile photographer" and im proud of it. )

leica leica - take as an example a family holliday snaps......... super ....... oh nikon canon AF AE Af***........ a pornography or photography or simply comfortable degeneratography )

[guy]

(And, by the way, why the word digital in quotes?)

 

My read on this is that people often put quotes (and especially air-quotes!) around things when they don't fully understand them but want to disparage them anyway ;-) ... But perhaps I'm wrong here!

 

(This thread did come with a controversy warning, so I'm just keeping the flame alive)

[vic vic]

woooooffffffff.. im primitive like monkey .......

what lens is this ?????

oh of course......... it must be that lens.......

AE in my head

AF in my head

ACAM in my A** )

 

can u imagine how lucky i was....... just one click..... and it came out as i wanted...... amazing isnt it ?

so i made alot of copies of it in aperture so that it will look like "working proffessionally" picture ............. click x100000000000000000000000000

and then back up )

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[george +]

I am not a professional photographer, not even a good photographer. I just like doing it and being in control - so that there is just myself to blame.

 

Autofocus never really worked for me as it seldom figured out what I wanted to focus on. And auto exposure was the same way. This is why I keep harping about the M5 where I could take a spot reading and adjust the needle match in the viewfinder to be exact, above or under.

 

I don't think these made photography worse, I just like manual control better.

[Guest tummydoc]

True, Vinay, But, the original focus function is usually not very impressive on cameras where it can be switched off.

 

I have no problem with my D200 nor the D70 before it nor the F100 before that. In fact I find the older manual-focus SLRs by comparison dim and lacking contrast (there being a few notable exceptions including Leica's own redoubtable SL and SL2).

 

Regarding your analogy to medicine, well, I travel a lot in the third world and I run a foundation that sends surgeons into rural Malawi. It is amazing what is possible with very rudimentary equipment. Not even a fridge in the "lab"....

 

Yes, but I'm sure you recognise and acknowledge the difference between acceptance and preference. Surely your physicians and surgeons do not purposely refuse modern medical technology and would prefer and gladly welcome it if it were placed at their disposal. I doubt they would express doubts as to the efficacy and advantage of imaging and other diagnostic and treatment modalities or shun it from an ego-driven need to boast of their personal skill.

 

That said, there is currently a controversy raging between robotic vs traditional surgical techniques that most closely parallels what we're discussing here. In that case on the one side there are a lot of surgeons who dislike robotics because they deny the operator feel and sensation and because at this point the robotic arm has a less delicate touch than many humans. Others feel that it's being used as a marketing tool and a too-rosy picture is being painted for patients regarding things like pain and recovery time. All legitimate concerns. OTOH there are also those who simply fear that the technology will help those with lesser hand skill achieve greater results and thus create more competition. Still others fear the loss of covet and accolade if their skill is no longer as elite. As usual the truth is often muffled by the cacaphony of personal agendas. Many very skilled and experienced surgeons are finding that the robot has capabilities far beyond the best human hands, but it's hardly "the great equalizer" and the results tend to remain proportional to the innate skill of the surgeon. A reasonable analogy to our discussion, although with photography of course there's an amateur constituency and no lives are at stake (unless one counts being flamed to death on a forum )

[AlanG]

It all started when dry plates first became available. I can't make out all of this interest in miniature photography anyway. Where's the skill and quality in that?

[dist]

Not quite sure what you are getting at here.

The content of this forum is provided by the users, of course. You seem to be saying that most users expect to read snotty statements.

 

I meant to say that many forum users can't even be bothered to get angry at statements like that because too much of that RF supremacy talk has already been around (as another user put it: incredibly boring). Hence, "to be expected", "nothing out of the ordinary". Hope to have made myself clear.

Cheers,

[jaapv]

woooooffffffff.. im primitive like monkey .......

what lens is this ?????

oh of course......... it must be that lens.......

AE in my head

AF in my head

ACAM in my A** )

 

can u imagine how lucky i was....... just one click..... and it came out as i wanted...... amazing isnt it ?

so i made alot of copies of it in aperture so that it will look like "working proffessionally" picture ............. click x100000000000000000000000000

and then back up )

 

That one I like, Victor. It made me wonder what those shapes behind the fence are.

[GarethC]

aaahhhhhhhhh................ welcome to DP Review

 

Whatever your thoughts on the OP's comments, let's keep it civil.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[blakley]

Jaap's point is the best one here so far: "the original focus function is usually not very impressive on cameras where it can be switched off".

 

On most autofocus, autoexposure cameras the manual focus and exposure controls are ergonomically inferior to those on purpose-built manual cameras. So when you turn the automation off, you're essentially using a second-rate manual camera, which sucks.

 

This is not generally true of top-of-the-line professional cameras, but these have a different problem: complexity. Professional DSLRs from Nikon and Canon have ergonomically excellent controls (though the lenses aren't as easy to use in manual-focus mode as older lenses are because they're lighter and thus have less tactile feedback due to "heft", they often have shorter focus throw, and they usually have narrower focus rings), ...

 

But!!! in addition to excellent manual focus and aperture controls, they have zillions of other buttons controlling other functions. Probably others have no problem with this, but for me the cognitive load is so great that I find it much harder to use the focus and aperture controls because (1) it's harder to find them amongst the thicket of buttons, and (2) my mind keeps wanting to think about whether I should be doing something with the other features.

 

Finally, the "auto" cameras used in "auto" mode have another problem, which I think of as "time-of-check-to-time-of-use", or "creativity recycling". When I set an automatic camera in a particular mode (say, shutter-priority AE with autofocus), I'm doing that in anticipation of taking a particular kind of photo (in this case probably something in which I want a moving subject to be sharp).

 

If I take a bunch of similar photos, the settings I chose will probably still be appropriate. But I encounter two problems:

 

1. I am less likely to think about the creative choice I'm making with EACH INDIVIDUAL PHOTO than I do if I have to choose my settings manually, and

 

2. I may forget to think about changing the settings - and therefore making a new creative choice - when the situation I'm photographing changes.

 

This isn't exactly a limitation of the equipment, of course; it's more like a limitation of the photographer. Still, there is something to be said for equipment designers taking into account their users' cognitive limitations and designing something appropriate to the task, and I do think that auto-everything cameras sometimes stifle creativity by automating laziness.