Is technology taking our photographic creativity away?

<p>First (and, admittedly, I speak as one for whom photography was an unconsummated desire before the advent of digital technology ) I certainly agree with Robin: the answer is "no." In fact, I think digital photography greatly enhances a photographer's creative control and creative opportunities. </p>

<p>Second, I'm really ambivalent about the emphasis on intentionality. I understand what you mean about mastering the craft and there are certainly times when I do have a vision of what I'm trying to achieve and proceed accordingly: shooting and re-shooting until I get what I want (or quit in frustration.) Just as often though, I'll shoot out of curiosity about how a a shot of a given subject or scene will look or what it would look like if I did this or that in PP. That's partly a process of exploring the creative possibilities of the medium but also because, in a more fundamental sense, photography for me is a way of exploring the visual world and the world of meaning.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Edit, first comment removed. Duh wrong thread....<br /> <br /> I dunno Yvon, reading your last post, I think you may have a different point of view than most of us. Sure people use the auto features and may not learn the basics like they did 30 years ago. As time passes, if they keep the interest up in this hobby, I think many do start experimenting with different ways to expose a shot or set it up. I think that's why I get asked so often about what I'm doing when I'm working. The question I get asked the most is about the display on my LCD. It's not the photo but the RGB histogram and they want to know what and why.<br /> <br /> Hand in hand with all that great technology are forums, web sites, magazines, books and ebooks that have ballooned in recent years. On top f that are colleges and community schools offering courses in any town big enough to host a class. Professional photographers are offering seminars every week to supplement their studio incomes. Technology has expanded and so has the information available to use it.<br /> <br /> So yes, many people will rely on the auto technology and fix things in PS after they get home. Many will chase the next holy grail of faster AF, better low light, higher DR sensors or whatever. That's normal and to be expected. Some manufacturer is always raising the bar. Consumers are always looking at the next latest and greatest.<br /> A fair percentage will explore the features and join a photo club, take a course or read a forum. When you think about it, hasn't it always been this way? When cameras were totally manual, didn't have light meters and any automation, the hobby was practiced by a very small group of enthusiasts. As cameras got easier to use, could meter a scene without using an exposure wheel and a hand-held meter, more people bought cameras. When Kodak introduced Instamatics, SLR companies Like Pentax added cameras with built in metering and an "A" setting, the hobby exploded.<br /> <br /> Each technological addition increased the number of people who were interested. Many just because it was easier to shoot reasonably well with out going to art college.<br /> <br /> In some ways this discussion is like the old math teacher who laments that no one knows how to use a slide rule because calculators then later computers and now some app on their phone can do advanced calculus. Really it isn't relevant. Technology will march on and we either exploit it fully and embrace it or stand on the curb while the world drives by us.<br /> <br /> </p>

<p>Well if you really want to do things old school why do you not coat your own plates, and use math formulas to arrive at exposure settings, then print use candle light. Point is we all have the choice to accept and use what ever technological advances that we want. If you don't want to do it that way no one is forcing you, but you don't have the right to decide what is right for others. Technology isn't the bad guy there are folks taking bad pictures with new cameras and folks taking pictures with old cameras.<br /> Photography is really just a craft much like wood working. Most wood working is done with electric tools these days(technology), in the hands of a skilled craftsman they produce fantastic pieces, but put those tools in the hands of someone who does not know the craft and they will only turn out junk. Same thing in photography. Taking photos is based on math, science, and technology and anyone can do it, but it takes someone with a knowledge of the craft to make good photos. Get off the high horse that we are great artist, we are just good craftsmen not artist.<br>

PS. I'm also a musician that spends a lot of time programming and recording using the computer. Same thing, without a knowledge of music I could only produce junk. If I wanted to I could try to learn to play all the instruments, but I choose to use the technology around me.</p>

 

<p>I can't draw or paint worth a darn, but the technology of photography allows me to capture images I enjoy and that my family value. I don't have time to be in a band right now, but I have used Cakewalk to record a few songs. I can shoot all manual, but I never do. I even sold my K1000, would rather use a more modern body for the instances I shoot film.</p>

<p>Technology allows me to express my creativity.</p>

<p>Lewis: You write:<em>"Photography is really just a craft much like wood working. Most wood working is done with electric tools these days(technology), in the hands of a skilled craftsman they produce fantastic pieces, but put those tools in the hands of someone who does not know the craft and they will only turn out junk. Same thing in photography."</em><br>

That's what I'm saying.<br>

Learn the basics and use technology to your advantage. Don't learn the basics, and the camera will do the shooting for you, sort off.</p>

 

<p>I think in some cases a high end DSLR with a top notch lens can allow an unskilled user to make some very nice pictures, using auto modes. Sometimes my wife would pick up my K100d, "put it on portrait!" I would tell her. We have some nice shots from that - again, technology is enhancing, or helping to bring to life, her creativity.</p>

<p>Technology may be killing technical skill... that's a discussion I could agree with.. but I think creativity is doing fine, flourishing even.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is technology taking our photographic creativity away?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not mine. Don't know about yours.</p>

 

<h1>Is technology taking our photographic creativity away?</h1>

 

<p>I don't think it's taking our creativity away. If anything, our new technology facilitates the development of creativity. When I was starting out, a roll of film cost a lot of money to develop, so I had to make each one count. <br>

If it's taking away anything, it's skill. Holding a camera steady was a skill, but now we have image stabilization. Determining exposure was a skill, but now we have auto exposure; and autofocus. Printing is still a skill, and so is developing film.<br>

What bothers me (still) is how some of us are led to believe that a better camera will make us better photographers. And I don't like the overemphasis on image manipulation.</p>

<p>I don't believe we're slaves to technology. We make our own choices as to what we're willing to do to achieve the results we desire. That said, modern DSLR's are complex computers and are much more difficult to learn than say a Pentax K1000. Looking at the manuals make for ponderous reading. Same to be said for Photoshop. They almost seem like trying to read the tax code. They're wonderful and once learned though and can help us create amazing images, like many seen here on P/N. I believe it's more a case of being overwhelmed by the steep learning curves, and basic laziness that prevents people from progressing past the green mode. I myself am guilty of that. When I first got into photography in the early 80's, I bought a Canon AE1-Program and for quite a while the green mode was my friend. Eventually, I took the effort to manualy use the camera and now I use my Rolleiflex and RB67 more than any others because to me anyway, I find they're ease of use liberating. I do understand why people are reluctant to learn how to use their new cameras and feel like slaves, but the right motivation and practice can free them from the bond of the green mode. </p>

<p>I am not surprised a blank look greets the suggestion of using a manual mode. I have to say I am not sure why that would be necessary. I think we all feel threatened by new technology however much we say otherwise. It threatens our established way of working as well as our lifestyles and employment.</p>

<p>These cameras enable us to get excellent pictures much more reliably and easier than with film - that is why we use them. Strictly speaking, we all agree that creativity cannot be impacted but, as stated by other people above, it does mean that the required skill level is less than it used to be. Most of us are not really creative anyway (most of us recycle old ideas all the time), so the net result is it makes our pictures better and easier to get.</p>

<p>Personally, I do not think that there is much more to learning how to use DSLRs compared to the old days - they have the buttons, but the concepts are exactly the same (mirror lockup, camera shake, shutter speed/aperture etc etc). Processing images has changed - but again there is a lot of recondite information buried in Luddite's heads which new people had to learn in "the old days". It is only "simple" because you already knew it. What people find annoying is that it is no longer is so applicable. You just have to learn the new stuff. This is the story of technological development is it not? But I think it is very natural to not enjoy having to do it.</p>

<p>Nope. Not for me. If anything technology has given me more ways to be creative.<br>

Where do we draw the line of too much? After scratching images in the dirt? Cave paintings? Watercolor? Oil paint? Acrylics? Camera obscura? Glass plates? Film? Smaller film? digital sensors? Bigger digital sensors?<br>

It seems most people have a comfort level with technology. If you don't want to challenge your use of technology, just stick to where you are comfortable. As for me, I like figuring out new tech, but that doesn't mean I rely on it to make all my decisions.<br>

But each to his own.</p>

<p>Javier wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have personally landed on the capture an image side. I guess this is why I like dirty, gritty, grainy street shots.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same here. And I agree there's nothing wrong with creating images either, but I think it's worth distinguishing between the two and this distinction is more blurred in photography than in literature, for example.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So the question I brought up a few months back is. When does a photograph become art?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, but that would require defining art first. I don't think such questions are productive - better to think of art as skillful performance of a craft and just focus on gaining skills.</p>

<p>Yvon,<br>

I totally get where you're coming from. But, I have a slightly different take on it. I think the technology has made it too easy for people to become lazy with their photography. Photoshop becomes the answer for everything. Sadly, there are many who wear photoshop as a badge of honor and actually look down upon those who do it "in-camera" whenever possible. Why spend hours fixing things in photoshop that should have been correct when you shot it "in-camera". Obviously, this doesn't apply everywhere or for every shot. But it should be mark that we all aim for and the result will be of higher quality.<br>

I second Yvon's encouragement to put your camera in full manual mode. You should be able to at least equal your camera's quality (program mode) when you shoot in manual mode. If you can't yet do this, then you need to up your skill level. The reason? This forces you to learn about F-stops and shutter speed and their relationship with depth of field. Master these and you can get any shot anywhere.<br>

Mel</p>

<p>Let's look at it another way;<br>

You could give the best racing car in the world, with all of the new technology and automatic transmission, to a person that just got their drivers permit, that doesn't mean that he or she would win the race. To be a good and winning race car driver, you need practice, you need to know about mechanic, you need to know about a lot of stuff. Once you learn the skills, automatic transmission or manual transmission are all about the same. You still will lose some but you will win some.</p>

<p>I think new technology inevitably changes the techniques that you use to obtain shots and has overall made many situations more accessible. Ie slow shutter speed shots. Whether or not people choose to be creative in how they use new technologies is, I think, dependant on the individual, what type of person they are, not on cam technology. I know for myself that I find myself being able to try out a lot <em>more</em> stuff that I wouldn't have 30 years ago because back in the day film, development and printing were so time consuming and expensive. But it's also true that ebcause of that back in the day we used to make individual images count for a lot more. If I were an "average" youngster picking up a camera today I think sure, I might rely on many of the auto tools on the cam, and sure, I suspect I'd be missing out on things that I didn't know were possible.But then the average youngster, even 30 years ago, has always stuck with the mundane and been satisfied with the mediocre, and it's really us photography nerds who went beyond.</p>

<p>Case in point, by and large I also suspect the shots by mr "average" youngster would be a lot better than my first shots ever were with my dad's light-meter less Practika, trust me. None of us were born photographers. I think maybe it all boils down to the fact that people in their 40s and up had to learn photography in a much more longwinded way than people in their 20s today, so there's a noticeable generation gap. If you're in the older generation and know what you're doing then you'll know a lot more than the youngsters today do, but that's because of you, who you are, your passion/interest. Point being if you're the creative type in your 20s, pushing your gear and software to the limit you'll also know what you're doing in a similar way.</p>

<p>Hmm, quite an undirectional rambled mutteration that was.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Let's look at it another way;<br /> You could give the best racing car in the world, with all of the new technology and automatic transmission, to a person that just got their drivers permit, that doesn't mean that he or she would win the race.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While it is true, 99% of the drivers aren't going into Nascar nor Formula One racing...same with photographers. Most aren't thinking of joining Magnum nor VII or evening going into the photo business. They just want decent pics of family and friends... </p>

<blockquote>

<p>To be a good and winning race car driver, you need practice, you need to know about mechanic, you need to know about a lot of stuff. Once you learn the skills, automatic transmission or manual transmission are all about the same</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Race car drivers aren't pro mechanics and great mechanics aren't pro drivers. Software programmers and hardware guys require two separate skills. Knowing how to ride a bicycle doesn't necessarily means one can fix, say, a chain ring or broken brake caliper. Furthermore, let me remind you, your original OP is: "Is technology taking our photographic creativity away?." Creativity, again, is not a direct function of camera technology. And knowing the inner workings of a camera doesn't mean one can shoot creatively. Even knowing the zone system doesn't mean one can shoot a creative landscape...</p>

 

<p>Yvon,<br>

I could not disagree with you more....There is an old but very true saying in motorsports....<br>

A good driver can make a bad engine or car look real good, but a bad driver can't make a good engine or car look good....This is so true....<br>

Simply look at Hendrick Motorsport. Dale Jr is likely getting the best equipment Hendrick has, yet his three teammates are kicking his butt...Even if they had the same equipment, the cream is still rising to the top....So again, I respectfully disagree with you on this. </p>

<p>Yvon Bourque: I have a few comments on your original post.<br>

You have chosen a very good time to post. Digital is mature and there are fewer questions on where it stands next to film.<br>

Much depends upon ones age, outlook and background. Overall, I have to agree with you. Till 2008, I used two MX bodies since 1981. I still have all the SMCP-M lenses, six in all ranging from 28 to 400mm. Now I use them with the K200D and GX20 together with the 12-24 and 16-45 Schneider/Pentax zooms.<br>

The film results, though quite dependent upon the studio, were more satisfying than JPEGs right out the box, in which latter we are told that several settings have to be done right than just the three settings of focus, aperture and shutter required in the past; occasionally, there was the film speed to push for transparencies. Sometimes we are told to shoot in RAW/DNG and adjust later.<br>

We are told by assorted Pentax knight-errants how wonderful either their obsolescent or their latest Pentax DSLR is, how wrong we have been with our settings and how Pentax is always right because it makes you <em>work </em>for your photograph. <br>

Pentax boasts that almost every Pentax lens ever made works with every Pentax digital camera. It is not an idle boast. But do these older lenses meter properly with Pentax DSLRs? I am afraid not. It is an eternal guessing game with most manual lenses where the lens meters differently at different apertures. What a riddle, unless one changes the focussing screen and invalidates the warranty on the Samsung. Even when the focussing screen is changed, some apertures are still hide-and-seek. <br>

I did tolerably well with the SMCP-M 400mm f5.6 with the MX. For flying birds against the sky I overexposed by two stops on the metered exposure for the sky. Nothing exceptional but I had a predictable result. If the battery failed I guessed and often got it right. In the digital age I am completely unable to get a predictable result. I sometimes feel that I have dropped my lens on a rock. A Pentax aficionado has said on Flickr, unless I have misunderstood him, that there is nothing wrong with the 400mm f5.6 lens, there is something wrong with him: it does very well from f11 onwards. This might be acceptable to him, but any telephoto which does well at f11 is hardly a wonderful lens. I have practically no shots on film at f11, except landscapes against the sun. What happened? I understand that I can boost to about ISO 1600 with the GX20 but can I get to f11 with 1000/sec for a flying bird? Probably not, except in the Indian or African mid-summer.<br>

Viewfinders for DSLRs, not only Pentax but others as well, are quite substandard; not that the MX viewfinders were that good. Much of the problem lies with these digital viewfinders: mirror boxes or pentaprisms are equally unresponsive.<br>

On the other hand, I <em>can</em> try for a better white balance with DNG pictures. I <em>can</em> fill foreground without overexposing the sky. I <em>can sometimes</em> use layers to keep contrasted foreground and background intact. Such tricks are possible in the darkroom as well, but in digital pictures, they are <em>that</em> much easier.<br>

So it's a mix. But those who knew how to take pictures with fully manual cameras will often feel dissatisfied with the digital age. It is a more democratic but more difficult age where you are laid off without it being your fault. The 1929 Depression is a long time away but the confusion carries forward.</p>

 

<p>It's only October, but here we have the most successful troll of 2010.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's only October, but here we have the most successful troll of 2010.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Zane, While I may not agree with Yvon on this particular issue, I can assure you that he is no troll. Quite the opposite. He is a well respected really nice guy. He has some very helpful posts and tools on his sight. I believe most will agree with me on this. I for one have really enjoyed this thread. But again, he is no troll. </p>

<p>I'm well aware of Yvon's postings and writings, and enjoy them as much as anyone. But this premise is silly, and coming from someone who does have an in-depth understanding of camera tech makes it all the more troll-ish.</p>

<p>Unless the camera makers are now installing wireless mind control circuits in their products...the tech is there to assist when needed. Don't use it if you don't want the assistance.</p>

<p>Zane, I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else. This post seems to be misunderstood by many readers. Maybe It's my fault as, being French, sometimes I have a hard time translating my thoughts or emotions to English. I'll try again:<br>

<br />The DSLRs of nowadays are very advanced, render the best images ever, facilitate the process of taking photographs, have wonderful innovations like Auto Focus, Shake Reduction, High ISO capabilities, all of which makes photography enjoyable by a lot more of people. A good image is a good image, regardless how you get it, and sometimes made even better with digital imaging software such as the Adobe family of Photoshop. HDR photography comes to my mind and I don't think I would have been able to make such well balanced pictures with film.<br>

<br />No-one has to know how the camera is built or how to repair it, in order to take great pictures. The instant viewing of the images on the LCD screen and the ever expanding number of pictures one can store on a SDHC card makes the process of getting great images easier than it ever was. Because of the new technical advancements, photography has grown exponentially in the last decade and that is the greatest thing that could ever have happened to photography.<br>

<br />Now, because digital photography is so much better and easier, and available to the masses without much of a learning curve (<em>One can start taking great pictures immediately with the Pentax Green button</em>) aren't some of the basic of photography being lost? However, Is it still important for a photographer to know the relationship between the aperture, shutter speed and sensitivity or is it just as good to put the camera in portrait mode, landscape mode, vibrant mode, heck...there are even modes to take pictures of your dog or your cat. In those cases, the manufacturer has already programmed the settings best suited for the type of images you are capturing. So back to my question, Is technology taking our photographic creativity away? or I should add does it improve our creativity instead?<br>

<br />I don't think that manual photography is better than Auto-everything photography, and I don't think that Auto-everything photography is better than manual photography. It's obviously a personal choice and I use both methods. I'm just not sure about the creativity part based on my own experiences and was wondering what other photographers were thinking.</p>

<p>For Yvonne Bourque:<br>

Your English is quite comprehensible. No-one should be dismissive of a viewpoint genuinely held. I responded at such length because I thought you had something to say and, should the need arise, shall do so again.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"not that the MX viewfinders were that good"</p>

<p>???</p>

<p>I hear the OM-1 had a better viewfinder, and maybe medium and large format cameras; but the MX had/has one of the best 35mm viewfinders available. 0.97 magnification, 95% coverage... pretty darn good.</p>

<p>Yvonne, I am wondering about your definition of creativity compared to mine. With regard to photography, I think of it as the ability to imagine a unique finished image, and then to make it happen. If modern technology allows a camera user to make that image with minimal or no understanding of aperture, shutter speed, etc, I would argue that it enhances creativity for that user.</p>

<p>Adding technical skill will further expand one's ability to create, so I suppose if technology becomes a crutch which prevents development of those skills it might be said to hinder the process. But I doubt that happens too often, as other facets of technology (the infinite erasable images) also enhance learning the skills.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And obviously, the "quote" technology is beyond me. :-)</p>