Is technology taking our photographic creativity away?

<p>Yvon, I'm not offended at all and your English is just fine. But I think it's over the top to suggest that people can't be creative image-makers if they don't understand all of camera technology.</p>

<p>Zane, I think that a lot of people can be perfectly creative on their own, with or without a camera. I would love to learn how to draw (on paper) all of the creative ideas that I see in my head, but I have no idea how to actually draw. I'm still creative, but my <em>execution</em> is the problem. Stick figures aren't generally considered art, and definitely not what my intentions were when I started with a blank sheet of paper in front of me. The fanciest paper and pencil in the world won't help me not suck at drawing.</p>

<p>I think photography is the same way. The tools people use to photograph could be the easiest tools in the world to use, but if the shot comes out of the camera and isn't what they intended, than they need to learn more about the tool and it's potential before they could attempt to realize their own potential.</p>

<p>Anyone can learn to draw, but I've determined that some people are content with stick figures. If they're happy with what they've created it's their right to remain happy. :-)</p>

<p>' '"not that the MX viewfinders were that good"<br>

???<br>

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.'<br>

I forgot to mention that I still have the two MX bodies and I had a look through their viewfinders. They are better than the DSLRs, certainly, and the coverage is very good, but the view through them was nowhere near that through the Nikon F2AS or the Canon F1n and even the Nikon FE (at a more approachable price) gave a clearer view with better contrast. This was particularly true with super-telephotos. I have the relevant focussing screens for use with the long lenses and they are simply not as good as their Nikon counterparts of the time. I used both under difficult field conditions, not against a chart.</p>

 

<p>Thanks DC, that is interesting. I had a Nikon F for a while, but none of the bodies you mention. Maybe I will get a chance to peak through one at some point! Although I rarely shoot with long lenses, so maybe the difference would be lost on me.</p>

<p>I did think about the Olympus OM1 when I bought the MX. The fit and finish were better, the British fashion professionals Lichfield, Bailey <em>et al</em>, were promoting Olympus and, more importantly for me, the bird photographer, Eric Hosking, chose Olympus besides his medium format work. I nearly bought an olive green Canon F1 (the circs. are described elsewhere on photo.net). Eventually, I chose Pentax because it had the cheapest 400mm, and was almost fully modular. Although not foreseeable then, it was a better choice than Olympus or Canon in the digital age with a bunch of old lenses.<br>

I have reviewed the MX in Pentaxforums. It is not an unfavourable review, but the limitations have to be stated, especially by a long-term user.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The answer is no. And you were close to reaching this answer when you remarked on how widespread the use of cameras is today. That is the key. Several decades ago, if you saw a guy with a camera, it was a pretty safe thing to call him or her a photographer because only people with an interest in photography would be willing to deal with the steep learning curve necessary to operate a camera. Now that cameras are easier to use and even available at lower prices, they've become a commodity. In turn, you can no longer assume that a guy with a camera is a photographer preoccupied with questions about the nature of art and the boundaries of creativity. If you stop assuming that "a guy with a camera = a photographer", then you'll realize that little has actually changed and creativity is not affected - it's just that you will have to distinguish photographers by other criteria than the ownership of a camera.</p>

<p>Addendum: I'd actually argue that creativity is enhanced by digital cameras, not just because they are easier to use, but because they shorten the feedback loop that is necessary for learning - you no longer have to wait to develop film, you can see the results right away - this makes it much easier to get quick feedback on what you're doing wrong and to try and rectify it. By speeding this feedback process and by encouraging experimentation, digital cameras encourage creativity more than film cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Addendum: I'd actually argue that creativity is enhanced by digital cameras, not just because they are easier to use, but because they shorten the feedback loop that is necessary for learning - you no longer have to wait to develop film, you can see the results right away - this makes it much easier to get quick feedback on what you're doing wrong and to try and rectify it. By speeding this feedback process and by encouraging experimentation, digital cameras encourage creativity more than film cameras.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. That and cost of mistakes, negligible with digital. Exhorbitant with film & prints. And we all make mistakes when learning, don't we?</p>

<p>I humbly disagree that the creativity is being taken away.<br>

Technology has opened up more creativity possibilities now than ever before.<br>

HOWEVER<br>

It does not replace vision and technical skills to use them properly. It also decrease the need to learn the technical aspect as 90%+ of the time the automation could get something decent looking.</p>

<p>Interesting post Yvon... 8-)</p>

<p>Perhaps I am out of line with this: the last class I taught a while back - Basics of Digital Photography - I challenged the students by the second class to shoot in M mode exclusively. The next class they brought much better images. The digital camera allowed them a quicker learning curve in terms of instant feedback and better understanding, no question. It's as if the light came on (albeit dimmer for some) and they began to understand the relationship between exposure time, ISO and aperture values. Yes, it's not a revelation, but it's a start to help them be more competent with image capture in difficult lighting situations.</p>

<p>Yes, I shoot almost exclusively in M mode or AV mode, due to the subject type that I am photographing most of the time. This also allows me much, much greater creativity in controlling DOF and hence the final image result. I do not consider that old school, I consider it exercising my creativity over a image capturing tool. It's my vision that matters, not what the camera's electronics think is best - although sometimes a compromise is required.</p>

<p>Regards,<br />Marc</p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>No, no, they can't take that away from me</p>