Are you as good a photographer, as you once were

I met some fellow Nikon, and a Canon, users for lunch today and a

interesting topic of conversation developed. Nothing bad, but it did

make me think

 

A simple question was asked. With out the Aperture and shutter

priority, Program Mode, matrix metering, Spot metering, Auto focus,

matrix metered flash, computer controlled operation, VR, "D" and the

other little goodies that the "Auto Everything Cameras" do, could

you take the same quality of photos?

 

In essence, do you think you be able to produce the same quality of

work with a Nikkormat, as you can with a F100(F5, N80 etc.)?

 

My first response was: Of course. But then I wondered If I really

could. Or did I get too "use" to letting the camer do most of the

work for me. I do use spot metering more than Matrix, but I can't

remember when I used Center weighted on my F100 (If I ever did).

 

Does that mean my F100 basically a point and shoot, with

interchagable lens? Does it make photopgraphy too easy? Does it

actually make you a "worse" photographer, because we don't actually

do the "work"? Has my "skill" advanced, or just my technology?

 

Anyway I thought it was an interesting conversation and I'd share it

with the group and see what you thought

 

Rob

I guess the answer depends on how you use your camera and to what extent do you allow the automation to make choices for you. Autofocus just means that the camera selectively focus on what you want instead of taking the extra time to do it by hand. Using aperture and shutter priority just "matches the needles" without you having to do it. You can still dial in exposure compensation if you want.<P>It is a different story, however, if you always had your camera set to closest-subject priority (where the autofocus just focuses on the closest item one of the sensors is on) and if you use P mode all of the time. For those of us who exert control over the camera's automation, however, the automation just makes taking pictures easier. It doesn't make decisions for us.<P>Hm. I guess the camera feature that does the most thinking for me would be the TTL flash metering. TTL flash exposure makes me a MUCH better photographer when it comes to flash photography, I admit that. It takes the calculations out of flash photography, and all you have to do is set the aperture and shutter speed for ambient or whatever it is you want to do.

I can totally see your point Rob. All the modern gizmos added to cameras without question makes taking perfectly exposed and sharp photos easier. Matrix metering, VR lenses and such are tools that when used at the right moment in time can get you a shot you might otherwise not have gotten. But I still like to believe it takes a good photographer to have the right "eye" to see the photo in front of them. However, it is important to know how to use all of your cameras functions (particularly how to use the differant metering systems). But I think using these newer tools only increases your odds getting the shot that you, and only you, see. I do think to many people spend a lot of money on very good camera equipment ony to leave it in Program mode all the time. Pitty, many photos that look "good" might have looked "great" if only they used the spot meter or aperature priority or exposure bracketing and so on and so on. Great question Rob, gets you thining!

I shoot with an F100 as well as more 'primitive' tools. I think I still have the basic skills I had 20 years ago, but they maybe aren't quite as 'honed' as they used to be. Manual focus is a 'muscle' that needs to be exercised.

 

More than automation, I think what is damaging me is 'choice'. I'm a gear hound. I have so much stuff, I no longer know my two or three 'best lenses' inside out like I used to.

Yes, I am. But I eschew most of the modern whizzy gizmos, with the exception of electronic shutters and aperture priority automation. Most of my 35mm work is done with an F3 or an Olympus OM-1n, and most of my Medium format work is done with either a Rolleiflex 6001 or a Rollei 2.8D or a Mamiya RZ67.

 

I've made a conscious decision that autofocus, programmed automated exposure, and matrix metering are detrimental to my work, so I never use them.

That is a great question. One I've thought about many times since getting an "operators" manul with my F90X. I too have an F100, as well as the F90X, F3, Pentacon TL6, and a Hasseblad. They're all used in different situations, so i'd have to say in part, no; I could still take the same photos if this was 1976. But also say yes; because in 1976 I couldn't ride no hands on my bicycle with a 10 second exposure, burning in the street neon and lamps and then have rear curtain sync freezeing my girlfriend in front of me on her bike. My imagination is coupled with the tools. Great question Rob.

Back in high school I shot basketball games and such with a Yashica MAT-124. I zone focused, in fact I could focus without looking just by the amount the knob was "off the stop". I used the look-thru sports finder. I got great, sharp, wonderful, published, paid for, shots. I recently got another TLR and concluded that I must have been superman or insane. I can't imagine doing the same work today without some degree of automation. I also used to use a simple F body with no meter. I mean *no* meter. I looked, I used rules of thumb, I exposed. Mostly, I was right on. I can still do that, but not with the confidence I had 30 years ago. It isn't rose colored glasses- I can go look at the negs and prints today, and they really were what I remember. The key is practice. I can't shoot nearly the amount of film now that I did then, nor do I have the subject matter and time freedom I did back then. I don't have the energy I did then. My eyes aren't what they were then. Depending on the subject, some degree of automation makes up for fading physical skills. Wanna really challange yourself? See if you can pick up a 4x5 Speed Graphic and shoot like they did in the '50s!

The last weekend was 'spent' shooting 35 or 36 rolls of film at a local festival (a.k.a. The Mullet Festival) and came up with 1,285 good images. I, for one, would not have wanted to try manual focus (and figuring out the fill-flash ratios) of all those shots. Some were in sunlight, and some were at night. The manual focus method is fine for landscapes, but for producing images for a customer (sort of a historical collection,) no way for this photographer. (And I've been shooting off and on since 1970, so my eyesight may be getting on in years, but auto-focus takes credit for good results.)

 

 

 

We used to have DC-3 aircraft for 'all' our aviation needs (military and airline use) -- anyone want to go back to that?

I agree with Glenn B's opinion. Technology absolutely helps me taking better pictures. I am very fortunate to live in auto-focus technology era. Thanks God!

I'm with Conrad, who said "the key is practice."

 

My three Nikons all operate differently from each other in just enough ways that I can screw up photos using any of the three.

 

There aren't many buttons or switches to set wrong on the EM, but since my other bodies have DX coding I can forget that my EM requires me to set film speed. Also, the switch between the aperture preferred auto mode and the M90 manual 1/90 sec shutter mode is easy to overlook.

 

On my FM3A I can take a few shots in manual exposure mode and then forget, an hour or two later, that I'm not set up for the luxurious cruise control of aperture priority auto.

 

And I have lost count of the innovative ways I've messed up pictures by failing to check the settings on my N90s after any quiet interval.

 

Practice... practice... practice... if any of the three were my ONLY camera I'd be ever in practice on that body's quirks and my errors would decrease in frequency.

 

When I'm (temporarily) in the groove with a given body, I get delightful results from it so in that sense I'm at least as good today as I was, even absent the fancy schmancy electronics of the N90s.

 

Have fun...

Yep. Just as good, no better.

Somehow in this forum, people tend to emphasis that they can do things manually, thus making them "better" photographers. If this fourm existed, say, 35+ years ago when cameras started having TTL meters, people would probably dismiss them and suggest that they could do a better job estimating exposure with their eyes and brain, without using a meter.

 

I have little doubt that I am a better photographer today than I was 5 years ago, more so than I was 10 years ago, etc. My composition and control of light are far better. I feel embarrassed when I look at some of my old slides. Automation takes care of a lot of mechanical stuffs so that I can concentrate on the creative part of photography. Case of point is that 20 years ago I had to pay attention every time I loaded a new roll of film on my FE to make sure that the lead catches and the ISO setting was correct. I am sure most of us who were SLR users in that era have shot rolls when no film was advanceing; you only discover the mistake when the folls continues to frame 38, 39, 40 .... Today, a modern electronic SLR would immediately flash an error message if the film leader doesn't catch. In fact, a lot of people don't even use film any more.

One key point. Film is cheap. When I shoot manually, I find that I get around 2-3 outstanding, really memorable images on a roll of 36 exposure film, and around 8-10 more that are acceptable as far as exposure, focus, and composition are concerned. When I shoot with automatic everything, I find that I get 25-30 or so acceptable images, but I'm lucky to get 1 truly outstanding image. To me, that's a step in the wrong direction. But I can also understand that for most people, it would be an improvement.

When I started taking photos back in the late sixties I had a nonmetering Mamiya/Sekon slr, then a Pentax H3v, similarly meter-less. Although I had a handheld light meter (Gossen Pilot), I became VERY good at estimating exposures. I had a light meter "in my head."

 

Once I got my first camera with a TTL meter (Nikon F with Ftn finder, which I still own and use) I started to get lazy, often merely lining up the needle and clicking the shutter. Over time, I really lost the ability to accurately figure exposures in my head, just as people lose the ability to do math in their heads if they start using a calculator all the time.

 

Recently, I started using my D100 with some non-CPU lenses which will not "meter" with the camera. Starting first with trial-and-error, I slowly began once again to be able to just look at a potential image and guestimate something close to the proper exposure. It's like riding a bicycle.

 

In other respects, I probably am a better photographer today than I was back then. Practice makes perfect, or at least improvement. I actually think that using the D100 has helped, as I am able to get immediate "feedback" on my photos and I can adjust and change the image immediately, in some cases.

 

Not that I am a "great" photographer, mind you. I'm talking relative quality, then and now.

<i>

Somehow in this forum, people tend to emphasis that they can do things manually, thus making them "better" photographers. </i>

<p>

It's not my place or style to say I'm a better photographer than anybody else, but I am 'better' at it than I would be if I did not have the firm grounding in manual systems that I have.

<p>

A couple years ago I was doing a shoot at work with an N90s. I was wandering around a dirty factory area taking 'inventory' type photos for a presentation on possibly selling off the building. On my second roll of film, I noted that the exposure readings did not 'make sense' to me. I discovered that I had a DX error where my 200 speed film was registering as 1600 (probably dirty contacts). Maybe others who have started out with 'auto everything' bodies develop similar powers of observation, but I think it comes from experience with simpler bodies.

<p>

I had another incident last summer that did not work out as well for me. I was in the garden and there was a dragonfly hanging about. I went into the house and grabbed an F3 w/6x, 180/2.8, and PN-11 tube. I loaded it up in a hurry with some 200. While I was shooting, I checked the meter readings against a mental 'sunny 16' and decided they were fine. Unfortunately, I failed to set the ISO, and it was at its usual 800. The two stop error was neatly masked (in my mind) by the two stops the tube was requiring. If I had a little more experience with tubes (they're relatively new to me) I would have caught myself.

Better than I was, but since I started at zero, that may not say much. To me, I seem not as good because my standards move exponentially as I see more photographs but my skills move incrementally. Good equipment takes away barriers. If you don't work at learning though, the loss of barriers won't matter.

 

Conni

Yes, I was a decent photographer then, continuing now I hope to become a good photographer. For me, part of the excitement is the journey, the struggle to grow as a photographer, doing/creating the images I love and that I can share with others. Like all of us, when I am behind the lens, nothing else exists. Yes current technology is truly amazing but I continue to be a Luddite at heart and prefer the minimalist approach with three basic lenses. I am content...as long as I improve. Continue to shoot with intention. Rick Gray

One thing I will never understand is that modern automatic features will lead to worse photographs. I would never get something like a Nikon EM where there is no way for the user to manually set the exposure or an F75 where you cannot set the film ISO. On any more serious modern SLR such as even the fairly inexpensive F80/N80, you can always override the auto features. In other words, these modern cameras can do everything a Nikkormat can do but a lot more. If the photographer gets lazy because of the modern features and stops thinking and the creative process, IMO it is the photographer's fault, and it is highly unfair to blame the worse images on the modern camera.

 

Todd Peach brings up a good point about film DX encoding. When the F4 first came out, a magazine review immediately pointed out that because of the lack of any LCD display, the F4 cannot provide a readout for the automatically detected ISO (unless you put on an SB-24 flash), something that the F4's much cheaper contemporary F801/N8008 could go. I had that exact problem once I loaded a roll of Ektachrome 64; all the exposure readings were totally off the chart. I mounted an SB-24 and the detected ISO turned out to be 3200. That was why I never used DX on the F4 again. However, I have put hundreds of rolls thru my F5 and F100, both of which have DX ISO feedback on their LCD display. Not once I had another mis-read DX ISO. Meanwhile, just because I don't need to manually set the ISO again every time I change film speed, I am sure DX has saved me many errors.

 

The spot meter and 1/3-stop exposure control have given me much better exposure under difficult conditions. AF has given me far better action shots there were impossible in the MF era. VR, a feature I don't need all that much myself, has given people much better hand-held images at low light .... However, you certainly can get lazy because of auto everything. Just don't blame the camera when it is your fault.

I want to add one other thing.

 

Although like most people I am a sucker for autofocus, particularly in low light or other situations where manual focus is difficult, I ultimately have found that using AF for the bird photography I do is often counter-productive. The AF will focus on "the bird," but what I want is precise focus on the bird's eye, and AF may or may not accomplish this, depending on the angle at which the bird is posed and where I am able to put the AF sensors. I have a lot of shots of birds where the focus (always shallow, shallow DOF) is just behind or in front of where I want it to be. Not good. I know that the most high-tech AF systems now allow rapid manual override of autofocus, but the cameras and lenses I use aren't convenient in that respect.

It was clear that I had become "lazy" about focus because of the convenience of AF, and this sloppiness showed in many of my photographs.

 

For this reason, I use manual focus almost exclusively for my bird photography (except for flight shots) and felt VERY good about my recent purchase of a high-quality MF Nikon 500mm. f4 P telephoto, which I got for a terrific price via ebay.

"Somehow in this forum, people tend to emphasis that they can do things manually,

thus making them "better" photographers."

 

You aren't the only one to notice this. I would hope that the more experience one

gains the better they become.

 

It is just a fact of life that if you don't do something on a regular basis, your abilitiy to

go back and do it after a proplonged absence, is not at the same level as it was. What

does this mean in everyday life? Not a great deal, in most cases. Can all of us still

pass all of the course questions that we confronted in high school or college? How's

your algebra, Latin, logic, maybe a bit rusty? If you own a calculator, you don't really

need to manually do math, etc.. But, if need be, one can refresh themselves without a

great deal of effort. So, the question is, which answer is more correct, the math

problem doen manually, or the answer arrived at by using the calculator? One may

swell your head with pride at being a mathematical genius, but the other is just as

valid, and usually a lot faster.

 

What counts is the finished image, not how you took it. Today's cameras are better at

some things than some people can accomplish manually. While we can all come up

with a situation that automation is poorer at than manual control, those situations are

becoming rarer and rarer. As Shun said, modern cameras free the photogapher from

worrying over some of the things that manual operation demands, and allows them to

concentrate on composition, light, and so on. There are enough things to attract a

photographers attention, that the ability to eliminate some of them is indeed a

welcome ability.

 

I've noticed that some of the folks that are the most supportive of full manual control

are also the folks that complain the loudest about G lenses, and that they can't use

them. Go figure.

Guys, you can disagree with me all you want, but please don't go to G lenses again.

"I've noticed that some of the folks that are the most supportive of full manual control are also the folks that complain the loudest about G lenses, and that they can't use them. Go figure."

 

Well, it does make a lot of sense for these types of shooters, doesn't it Carl? If my camera maker changed their policy and started releasing lenses I couldn't use, I would complain. I'm sure if you were in the same situation you would complain too.

Sorry Shun, my apologies, that was just meant as an analogy, albeit a poor one. I

should know better than to mention those, and drag up that old conundrum again.

My point was that while some swear by full manual control, they do selectively use

automation when it suits their purpose. Which really is a case of the pot calling the

kettle black, in some cases, and I'm sure that they also have nothing good to say

about teflon coated cooking equipment, which many term as some sort of upstart.

 

Our lifespan is longer today because of technological progress, and the physical

demands that have been eliminated because of it.

"My point was that while some swear by full manual control, they do selectively use automation when it suits their purpose."

 

But this doesn't have anything to do specifically with "G" lenses. Those same photographers can use full automation with "D" lenses, or semi automation with any other kind of lens, aside from "G", and with any camera body, aside from those that cater to the "G".

But, they aren't being denied ANY focal length by not using G lenses. And there are

lenses that my F100 can't use, like the new 12-24 DX, so what? G's weren't designed

for manual cameras, just like the DX lenses weren't designed for film cameras. None

of that has restricted anyone's abilities, as those focal lenghts are available in the

older full manual lenses that you guys love so much.

 

I am not going to continue down this road into another useless argument over G

lenses, and I accept full responsibility for opening the door due to a lack of diligence

on my part. However, it's now closed as far as i'm concerned.