How much do photographers adds to a good cameras ?

A DSLR camera ,anyone from an entry level to a high end one of any brand,fixed on a stand,and by a remote or a

self timer set to capture a nice landscape in the fully automatic ( P ) mode in an average or ordinary light conditions.

How you will compare the very same image taken by a good photographer standing in the same place and using the

same camera with his own tweaking and preferred setting for the shot.

Technology have produced super good cameras capable of self acting intelligently in even some difficult light

situations,and can cope with most if not all well to medium lit situations.

I just want to know how much a good photographers could adds with their own preferred settings to the cameras in

normal ordinary situations.

My own personal and very private opinion that depends entirely on my personal experience would be that of 10

to 30% for the very same example mentioned earlier,what do you think , please?

<p>A good photographer will be taking a great picture. A bad photographer will be not taking a picture at all, or will be taking a picture in a totally different place and time. The camera has very, very little to do with it.</p>

<p>Sometimes having a particular camera allows you to take a particular picture that you couldn't have taken with another camera. A bad photographer won't be trying to take that picture in the first place, so it will make absolutely no difference what camera he is using, because it won't have even occurred to him that he could be taking that picture.</p>

<p>That's the difference between a good photographer and a bad photographer. They will be in two totally different places trying to take different pictures. And even if for some reason they are forced together for a brief moment in time, and seem to be pointing their cameras in more or less the same direction, the good photographer will come out with something totally different from the bad photographer.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The biggest difference in the scenario you mention is that any modern camera, in P mode, will interpret the shot as the people who designed it programmed the parameters it uses when it's all automatic. Unless there is a tricky lighting situation, the picture will probably turn out pretty well, and will look pretty average.</p>

<p>Now if you do it, you have the options of over/under exposing the scene, controlling depth of field, etc. in order to make the final result more your vision instead of that of the camera programmers.</p>

<p>Saad, think of it this way: When you let the camera make the decisions, it is doing so according to its tiny chip & a Nikon Program, in an utterly generic manner. When a photographer makes the decision, s/he's using the big meat-chip between their shoulders and making choices that match their vision. It is a dimensional difference.</p>

<p>Unless you take control of your gear, they're not really your own.</p>

Ted Raper.

instead of that of the camera programmers.

That cameras programmers have depended on in all the history of cameras since their invention,and the expertises of all the good pioneers of the analogue photography and the new current technology to write that programs,wouldn't that contribute to the image of the cameras in their auto mode ?

I think it does ,and you have said it,(will probably turn out pretty well).

in your opinion how much better for that particular situation the good photographer will add to the image?

<p>But taking control of camera settings is maybe 2% of it. Maybe 5%. The other 95% is having the idea for the picture, and actually taking it. A sophisticated camera will never help with this.</p>

<p>Incidentally, many of the very, very best cameras used by the very, very best photographers, are extremely simple cameras. Sophistication in cameras is not necessarily helping the photographer take the picture. As often as not, maybe more often than not, it's doing the opposite. The point of sophistication in cameras is generally not to make it easier to take photos, but to confuse the public and sell cameras.</p>

<p> </p>

Luis G

When you let the camera make the decisions.

that decision is based on a photographers experiences,indeed a lot of great photographer ,but it is done by a certain mechanism in a chip,isnt that same chip we depend on in our great deal of life aspects ?

how much the good photographer is better for that particular example I already mentioned ?

<p>In other words, the thread is a bit like asking 'how much can a good writer add to a good word processor?'</p>

<p>In fact, the fact that the question could even be asked in the first place strikes me as hilarious. This whole conception that it's having a good camera that makes you take a good picture is quite a common one - people think they will get good photos by buying a good camera. I think it's part of this whole western cultural idea that you can solve any problem by throwing money at it.</p>

<p>You can make Microsoft Word as sophisticated as possible, so that it spell checks, corrects grammar etc. But it still takes Shakespeare to write Hamlet. You can buy a piano that allows you to make the most beautiful noises, but that doesn't mean you're going to be able to produce Tchaikovsky's first Piano Concerto.</p>

<p>Photography's the same.</p>

<p>I would think of this question the same way as that of a cinematographer - a modern camera's features and automation takes care of the technical side as much as possible so the cameraman can concentrate on the artistic aspect.</p>

<p>We're a long way from cameras that will enable monkeys to take artistic pictures.</p>

Simon Crofts

You can buy a piano that allows you to make the most beautiful noises, but that doesn't mean you're going to be able to produce Tchaikovsky's first Piano Concerto.

if we fed that piano by a note of that author,and make it self played ,it will play that author symphony,but not as the humans does,my question how much better the human does.

please note that I am not trying to take from the photographers share to add it to the cameras,I just want to know how much technology have evolved to imitates good photographers,thank you so very much.

<p>But maybe the question would make sense if phrased instead as 'how much do bad photographers add to good cameras?'</p>

<p>Is a camera better simply to exist on its own untouched by human hands, or is it better that it be picked up by someone who's going to take some truly awful pictures with it?</p>

Michael Chang.

We're a long way from cameras that will enable monkeys to take artistic pictures.

that way will never be reached at all,I am not asking about artistic photos at all,and even I haven't think of that ,it is a landscape with an ordinary average light,to compare with,and I think any aim and shoot would do that ,and I meant DSLR from an entry level to a high end of any brand.

<blockquote>

<p>if we fed that piano by a note of that author,and make it self played ,it will play that author symphony</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But it will never write a decent piano concerto. A photographer is the composer, not the performer. The performance is the print - and yes you can make a print through a computer. But it takes a photographer to have a brilliant creative idea and go out and take the picture.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just want to know how much technology have evolved to imitates good photographers</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The answer is not at all. The good photographers have creative ideas. Good cameras don't even try. The best they can do is try to help with the mechanics of focus and exposure (which a good photographer can equally do himself, as easily as a writer picks up a pen).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am not asking about artistic photos at all</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that a good photographer will always take artistic photos. So I would think that you're thinking about bad photographers.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"if we fed that piano by a note of that author,and make it self played ,it will play that author symphony,but not as the humans does,my question how much better the human does."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Saad, take a listen to this piece of orchestration made entirely on a computer and midi-controller, composed, arranged, performed in the author's basement. An example of a single person replacing an entire orchestra, conductor, venue, composer, arranger, recording studio, etc.. It's how modern cinematic music is made.<br>

<a href="http://www.guybacos.com/audio/song1-1.mp3">[Link]</a></p>

<p>With all this technology, you still need to know how to use it in order to create beautiful music that is transparent to the listener. In the same way as photography, the artist can not be replaced by machines but what does change is the artist's role.</p>

I have a slow net line ,and I speak English as a second language,from those answers I think I might be misunderstood,

Here it is again:

A DSLR camera ,anyone from an entry level to a high end one of any brand,fixed on a stand,and by a remote or a self timer set to capture a nice landscape in the fully automatic ( P ) mode in an average or ordinary light conditions. How you will compare the very same image taken by a good photographer standing in the same place and using the same camera with his own tweaking and preferred setting for the shot.

HOW MUCH DO YOU COMPARE THE TWO OUTPUT FOR THIS PARTICULAR EXAMPLE ,PLEASE ?

<p>So, let's say the good photographer takes the same picture twice - once using a camera in P mode and autofocus, the other where he/she sets the settings that he/she wants, using exposure compensation, and deciding where to place the focus.</p>

<p>Some of the time, the camera will get a similar result - for example if whatever happened to be in the centre of the image happens to be at the same distance as whatever the photographer wanted to focus on. Sometimes the camera will happen to set the same depth of field that the photographer wanted. Sometimes the camera the camera will set the same exposure value as the good photographer wanted to.</p>

<p>Most of the time, the camera will get one or more of these technical settings 'wrong', to a lesser or a greater extent. Occasionally it will get them all 'right', meaning, the same effect that the good photographer wanted to achieve. Nothing much has changed with digital in this respect - the same applied in the days of film.</p>

<p>One thing that modern technology probably has achieved is to increase the proportion of times when someone who doesn't know what they're doing manages to get something vaguely usable ie. more or less in focus and more or less usable exposure.</p>

<p>On the other hand, increasing sophistication of exposure control means that the public have less idea of what they are doing with the camera, so whether it really does improve their 'hit' rate is highly doubtful.</p>

<p>What digital has achieved is that they are free to take a lot of photos without worrying too much about cost, so you end up with an awful lot more bad pictures being taken. Whether or not there are more good photos being taken as well is a moot point.</p>

Simon Crofts

Thank you so much,your POV is very well understood.

<p>Then there is the question of whether new technology allows good photographers to take better photos. It can certainly sometimes allow them to take photos they couldn't take otherwise. The most obvious example is the ability to take pictures at higher ISO's with less noise/grain. The ability to change ISO from picture to picture that digital brought, and colour balance is also extremely useful. No doubt about it.</p>

<p>As for bells and whistles on cameras - most of them are of marginal use, or positively bad. You can see that from the fact that most of the more fancy ones only appear on bottom of the range cameras. These fancy shooting modes start to disappear as you move further up the chain. 'P' settings are of marginal use - in fact, a positive disadvantage (my opinion), for photographers who know what they are doing - which is why you don't see them on lean and mean picture taking machines like Leica M9's.</p>

<p>Likewise, evaluative/matrix metering - in my opinion (many will disagree) it's a handicap. The best metering modes are the good old traditional spot and centre weighted ones. Using them requires a little knowledge, but people who use 'P' mode and evaluative metering are not going to get that knowledge - so people that use sophisticated automation on their cameras are at a significant disadvantage - in my personal opinion. The very best cameras have aperture, shutter speed, effective focus, and ISO and white balance controls. Most features or sophistication beyond that are a distraction and a disadvantage - just bells and whistles intended to sell cameras to people that like toys that interfere with the picture taking process.</p>

Michael Chang.

the artist can not be replaced by machines.

Sir,I am fully aware of what you have said,the cameras can not do an abstract neither in the P mode nor in any in the future invented modes,it will not capture a scene with a message behind,does this prevent us from believing that a good manufactured camera would take a descent or even a fine image in the auto mood for a landscape ?

Simon Crofts.

Likewise, evaluative/matrix metering - in my opinion (many will disagree) it's a handicap.

Yes,I agree with you on this issue,I used the matrix only for testing at first day of buy,never to use it again.

<p>Saad, I think in your example of a well lit landscape (add to that a grand landscape from a bit of altitude where focal point doesn't matter) and with the same camera and lens with the framing identical at the same moment in time, you probably wouldn't be able to tell the great photographer's raw file from the novice/lousy/casual amateur photographer's output in P. In fact, the criteria here, where both would be in the same place at the same time with the same equipment pointed/framed at the same thing even if not elevated (where DOF isn't a factor) and the light a bit more dramatic, you still probably wouldn't see much of a difference in many cases. In reality, in those sort of conditions and with even some of the early automated film cameras, that would be the case.</p>

<p>I say this as someone who has used the zone system for exposure for over 30 years, light is just pretty normal most of the time. The differences are going to come with close subjects and/or very difficult lighting and/or where motion is an element of the intended capture. Then, the differences will start to be further separated.</p>

<p>But the case isn't one of exposure, which is certainly important, but one of artistic abilities, which ranges from intent, seeing, concept and the skill to transact those things. I think you know that already.</p>

<p>Any body can get lucky once in a while and take a good picture or better. The mark of the professionals is that they can do it on demand and consistently.</p>

<p>Besides, a technically perfect (good focus, exposure, etc.) photograph is not at all the same as a good photograph in any meaningful sense (composition, conception, etc.)</p>

John A.

you probably wouldn't be able to tell the great photographer's raw file from the novice/lousy/casual amateur photographer's output in P.

Bless you,this is what I have wanted another photographer or advanced cameras tester to tell me with some confidence.

Sir,I have done the experiment myself,and the outcome is a 30% difference at best circumstances ,most of the times ,there is only simple differences and of not that importance to the image in that particular experiment,let us say it is 10% difference.

I know very well that the cameras manufactures have incorporated the zone system in some way or another in their programs,not to mention the accurate light meters,the autofocus system that most of the photographers depends on,the very good exposure meter,the white balance and so on,All those are not born from nothing,they are the pioneers experiences,plus the technology,all this lead me more confident in my cameras,and let me use the auto more frequently than before ,most of my works are streets,and you know for sure that sometimes you will miss a shot if you were to set the camera according to the surrounding light ,so I just took care of the composition and do the click,most of the times,that small black wonders( Nikon 300D or Canon 5D MII) will do what I expect from them to do.I have never underestimated their capabilities,the soul of some many great photographers are hidden in them.

I am not telling you something strange when I am going to do an abstract,it will not take only the camera setting,but it will take me sometimes lying in the floor ,or standing on one leg ,and that is when I want my camera to capture my vision on an Image.

In either case,I am still confident of my ability as a photographer,and I am not taking from the camera value to adds to mine ,and outcome is the final judge.

thank you Sir so very much,you have given me a cure.

JDM von Weinberg.

Besides, a technically perfect (good focus, exposure, etc.) photograph is not at all the same as a good photograph in any meaningful sense (composition, conception, etc.)

Exactly,like the differences between the image of Sharbat when she was 14 year at the cover of the NG,(June 1985) and the documentary image of her after sixteen years later when she was founded again by Steve Ma Curry.

<blockquote>

<p>I know very well that the cameras manufactures have incorporated the zone system in some way or another in their programs</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is not possible for camera manufacturers to build the zone system into metering. The whole core of the zone system is based around the concept of 'vizualisation'. It is the starting point of the whole approach. A camera cannot visualise. So there is no way that manufacturers can build the zone system into their cameras. The best they can hope to do with a camera in auto is to catch a range of tones and hope that the photographer can rescue something from it. On the whole, camera's auto modes, even the most sophisticated ones, are pretty crap and get it wrong most of the time. They just can't read minds.</p>

<p>What the camera is trying to do in auto mode is pretty basic. Trying to get a 'correct' exposure that captures a range of tones. Trying to get something in focus. Maybe trying to keep a shutter speed above a point where there's likely to be camera shake. A child using a basic manual camera with a basic meter with no experience of photography can quikly learn consistently to get a good exposure and can learn to focus. The most complex camera metering systems available cannot do this yet - they can only get a good exposure some of the time, and can't even start to make conscious decisions about depth of field and shutter speed, so it's not much to write home about.</p>

<p>The photographers skill is in making choices that fulfil some particular kind of vision. The camera cannot make these choices. It is just a dumb instrument, like a pen.</p>