How has technology improved your pictures?

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Somebody remarked to me that technology must have really improved photography over the last 10 years. It got me thinking: Has it? It may have made it more convenient and faster, especially for professionals. But are pictures actually any better? Some of my all-time favorite pictures were taken by clever photographers with very simple gear -- they depend more on composition and lighting than the latest technology. In one office recently I saw a print of a French country lane by Henri Cartier-Bresson; in another, Half Dome by Ansel Adams. Both B+W, both 50+ years old.

 

I am writing this because I think we are often hoodwinked by technology: newer is always better, we always need more features, new products. What technology do we really need to make better pictures? Here are my votes for "technology that makes a real difference."

 

1) Improved recording media, film or digital: better, faster films; better sensors.

 

2) Optics: higher-resolution lenses. Improves the technical, if not the aesthetic quality of a photograph.

 

3) Better exposure meters.

 

4) Ergonomics: size, shape, handling. Important because you will take good pictures only if you take the camera with you and know how to use it.

 

And the rest? Zooms? Well, you can use only one lens at a time, much like you can wear only one shirt at a time or drive only one car at a time. Autofocus? Maybe for sports. As for multi modes (baby, fireworks, soft skin) -- who ever uses them? Add GPS and cell phones -- just gimmicks. Even the ability to take more and more pictures without incurring extra cost doesn't improve the final photograph. I read this in a book on "digital scrapbooking":

 

"...simply click and keep clicking. The more photos I take the more chance I have of taking a few that really captivate me."

 

Photographers are told they can always correct exposure errors in Photoshop. Seems to me this just encourages a lazy approach. Once again, the actual pictures seem no better!

[Advertisement]

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

[dpattinson]

1. Digital post production and printing has improved my photography. I never had a colour darkroom (and rarely access to a B&W one), and without doubt my ability to produce finished output that matches my expectations has increased dramatically.

2. Instant review, being able to review images immediately after shooting has shortened the feedback cycle for some kinds of photography. It also reduces the number of shots I need to take in some scenarios, because I already know I have 'the shot' and I don't need to buy insurance by taking more.

3. Better 'quality' at higher ISO - allows photographs with more detail and/or without motion blur to be taken in low light. Has opened up new opportunities for images.

 

Lighting, subject and composition will always trump technology in my opinion. But perhaps technology can help us to make the most of the opportunities that are presented to us.

[alun]

No, I don't think technology has improved *my* pictures -- but then I am only now really embracing the self-same technology (film, M6/M7) which, thirty to forty years ago, I couldn't afford. IN that sense, perhaps better 'old' technology (and my better understanding of it) *has* improved my picture-taking.

 

I think it is probably more the case that those who have embraced digital photography to the full can perhaps now take challenging pictures (difficult lighting, speed and the need for fast focusing etc) with greater technical ease than might have been the case thirty years ago... But 'better' photographs? I don't really think 'better' is a technical issue.

[stuny]

David -

 

When I first got serious about photography I was lucky enough to have two colleagues who were very good photographers, and who were willing to mercilessly critique my photos. I learned a lot. Independently of one another they both encouraged me to shoot a lot more, and made their point by stating that film is the cheapest thing about photography. So at least in that sense, technology has given people serious about learning to make good photos an advantage of even cheaper “film.”

 

Regarding zoom lenses, the good ones have been very good for several years, and the convenience and speed of changing focal lengths without changing lenses has allowed me to capture some things that I would have missed if I had to change lenses.

 

As David P. suggests, post processing has allowed me to improve the results, and I consider what I do with digital post processing to be very much like what I used to do in my black & white darkroom, but with better work lighting and less exposure for me and the environment to chemicals. I still need to develop more techniques since I have yet to match some things I did with my Durst enlarger and El Nikor lens, paper grades, etc.

[pgk]

IMHO most photos have three main attributes: technical quality, lighting and composition. Undoubtedly the last few years has seen vast improvements in technical quality which in turn has lead to an increased awareness (via instant review) in the other two areas - or at least it has in my case - I consider that digital technology has improved my own photography. But if you are considering the very top echelons of imagery, as always its is the image content which is of prime importance and no amount of technology can 'improve' any photographer's ability to 'see' the shot although it might result in the shot being of a higher technical standard.

 

Lastly, optics have undoubtedly improved - if that is the usual characteristics of sharpness, resolution resistance to flare, etc, and accepted as improvements - personally I quite like some older lens's characteristics.

[earleygallery]

Stuart, good question.

 

My answer in short is no. A well composed, well exposed, interesting image is the same regardless.

 

Digital cameras have made life easier for a lot of people, certainly, as has Photoshop type software. Convenience over quality?

 

Before fast AF, high quality zooms, high ISO digital capture, and matrix metering, sports photographers & photojournalists - for example - had to use the equipment they had, and still produced superb results.

[woody]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting topic. If 'better' means *technically* better, then certainly the films, lenses, digital sensors, etc, have made making 'better' photos easier, from sheets to 6x7 to 35mm to digital. But is a photo of Yosemite with a MF digital camera really better than an Ansel Adams?

 

But I think that technical advances have resulted in a lot more photos we like just because there are a lot more photos. A photo can be good due to its technical features, but also because of the subject, whether it be something interesting that caught the photog's eye or great moment frozen in a 3x2 box.

[tobey bilek]

Technology has helped those who depend on quick aquisition of subject, AF, and exposure .Photojournalists and sports photogs fall in this realm.

 

I recently attended a class from a PJ for the Chicago Sun Times. Many of his pics were made easier with technology, but he never mentioned it. He used 3 Nikons with 4 zooms as standard kit.

 

My family pics, portrait, and landscape work are not helped one bit at the capture stage by auto anything. It is never as good as what I can do. My opinion is for my work, auto anything is an interference to creativity as there are added steps to the process. I must select an auto something mode, then figure how much compensation to dial in, a calculation that is usually wrong. Just set the the thing correctly manually and be done.

 

I just use the big M setting and get more correct pics than auto provides.

 

I am using Nikon digi for now waiting patiently for Leica to issue an R 10 so I can go back to my R lenses 100 %.

 

The M bodies are still fed bulk film from Leica brass film cassettes. I tried an M8, but the small sensor leaves me cold as does small sensor Nikon. The full frame Nikon is a joy. Still waiting R10. Now if Leica has a D3 sensor that could work with short register rangfinder lenses, I could couple it with the amazing M lenses. Dreams.

 

My darkroom is still up and running mostly for black and white. Scanned color film or a digi file in a computer are a thing to behold. I can do things I never dreamed of doing in the dark and it does it reliably and repeatedly. Kudos for tecknology here.

 

Tech has not helped the photfinishing business on the consumer lever. It is as crappy as it ever was. I give them a good perfect file and it comes back wrong. They still insist on tweeking every photo when it is right to begin with. I just can`t get them to keep their hands off the buttons and just print the pictures the way I gave it to them.

 

The next step for me will be to put photos on DVD and show them on my high def television. I bought two a month ago. This is way better than a slide projector and I get the ability to use photoshop on the image. Digital projectors are pure junk because there is simply not enough resolution for anything but large room display.

 

That`s my take on the whole thing.

[TimF]

Instant review, being able to review images immediately after shooting has shortened the feedback cycle for some kinds of photography. It also reduces the number of shots I need to take in some scenarios, because I already know I have 'the shot' and I don't need to buy insurance by taking more.

In a way this is just a different way of saying that digital technology has allowed amateurs to shoot as much as many professionals always have, because the cost factor of d&p is no longer a bar. It doesn't however, mean that the individual's photography has improved. That is only true once the tog consistently nails the shot inside the first few frames as David suggests.

[Guest flatfour]

I don't think tecnology can improve pictures but it can improve images. That is to say the human eye constructs the required picture but technology creates the image i.e the image that others see. ther is no doubt that images have improved dramatically over recent years but in many ways I think pictures have deteriorated.

[farnz]

David,

 

Short answer: no.

 

I'm still struggling to achieve the level of satisfaction produced by my fully manual 6x7 medium format camera with Velvia 50 on Cibachrome. I'm getting closer I think but I doubt that my M8 will manage to match the output; perhaps in more skilled hands than mine ...

 

In another way, technology, in the form of the M8, has broadened my photographic horizons by encouraging me to 'see' and shoot new styles of subject - so in another sense I could say that technology has improved my photography. Then again, perhaps it's the M that's improved it because I would have walked the same path with a film M.

 

Pete.

[atournas]

Interesting thread, David, but allow me to comment indirectly.

 

I wish all the digital-technology-dependent photographers many beautiful images! Thanks, I won't try it myself. I prefer using my old, time-long-tested film M and R gear. I enjoy looking at good digital images, but I envy them not.

 

I strive for better composition, more consistent exposure, and more soul-touching photographs and I only wish technology found a way to guarantee that film and chemicals will always be available.

 

Paul

[dcoombs]

It's a good question, but I think you have to ask the audiences for our photos. In my case the response would probably be - Same old dross, just more of it!

[earleygallery]

Ask David Hockney David Hockney uses Photoshop to create amazing new paintings | thelondonpaper.com

[Michael Hiles]

The last technological introduction that improved my pictures was the viewfinder/rangefinder of the M3 and M2. It is still the best way of helping ME to make a picture, rather than helping me direct a camera to record something. There is an infinite and very important difference.

 

All the rest is, frankly, BS. My pictures do not get better or worse because they are recorded on silicon or silver, or whether I use a Summicron or Summilux, or whether there are aspherical surfaces in my lenses, or not. I have two cameras, six old-ish lenses and two films that work very well, never let me down, and do everything I ask of them. After that, it is up to me. Technical advances are very common, but useful ones are very rare, and ones that improve pictures come along almost never.

[NZDavid]

Some thoughtful comments here. I agree that computers and post-processing have opened up a huge range of opportunities, especially for viewing, printing and sharing. So that definitely widens the enjoyment level of photography. For me, it has helped to tweak pictures to get better prints. Much less hassle than a darkroom, but I still really admire handprinted B+W.

 

I get the feeling many forum members would still be quite happy toting around their film Ms and shooting K25. I still get immense pleasure from seeing my travel slides projected.

 

As part of my job, I get to see readers' photos submitted for an antiques column in the newspaper features section I edit. They are just record shots, so nothing to speak about aesthetically. When they were submitted as prints, many were muddy because of wrong exposure or bad processing, or out of focus (even in the era of autofocus). Now they are submitted digitally they tend to be much better exposed, but still sometimes out of focus, and often at small file size.

 

So yes, technical quality may have improved -- but I suspect a lot less than widely believed -- while aesthetic quality is a whole other question.