Is technology taking our photographic creativity away?

<p>

<h2 > </h2>

<a name="6814087644958734501"></a><br /><br /><br /></p>

 

 

 

 

 

<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_EO9piAKCkcU/TKGK-8tYzrI/AAAAAAAAGXQ/YdEaTuN5s5k/s1600/Pentax-K-51.jpg"><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_EO9piAKCkcU/TKGK-8tYzrI/AAAAAAAAGXQ/YdEaTuN5s5k/s320/Pentax-K-51.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="320" height="312" /></a>

<br />

Are we better photographers now that we have Digital SLRs that shoot good images in practically total darkness? (<em>The K-5 ISO goes up to 51,200</em>) Nowadays, everything is programmable, from scenes to portraits, from fully auto to fully manual, from fastest to slowest shutter speed, from largest to smallest aperture. Most new DSLRs have shake reduction, live-view, some have lens correction, scene recognition, self-cleaning sensor, etc.

Before giving my opinion on this, I would like to cite a comparison I experienced myself years ago, actually ten years ago. That seems like old school stuff now, but anyway...here goes;<br /><br />Although photography is my passion now, there was a time when music had priority over my photography. Like many of you readers, I'm a guitar player. I'm not bad, but I'm not about to replace Santana or Eric Clapton. Anyway, about ten years ago, I invested in a home recording studio. I had a couple of keyboards, drum machines, digital recording console, mixers, sound modules, MIDI interfaced Computers and Software and a recording room dedicated to my music projects.

<br /><strong>Music:</strong> You see, when I was in my late teens / early twenties, I played in a band, back in Montreal. It was great back then. It was during the British invasion, (<em>for those that don't know what that is, it's when the Beatles and Rolling Stones and a plethora of British groups took over the world with their music</em>). Our group had two guitar players (lead and rhythm), a bass guitar player, a keyboard player and a drummer. We all sang, but I was the lead singer and lead guitarist. We traveled all around the Province, on weekends, and played in front of excited and sometimes out-of-control teenagers. Oh! that was the good old days.<br /><br />

<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_EO9piAKCkcU/TKGLwXkYJkI/AAAAAAAAGXU/8blL8Ku3xXk/s1600/Fender+American+Deluxe+Telecaster.jpg"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_EO9piAKCkcU/TKGLwXkYJkI/AAAAAAAAGXU/8blL8Ku3xXk/s400/Fender+American+Deluxe+Telecaster.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="400" height="137" /></a>

<br />...So back to ten years ago, I wanted to recreate that music we played, but I then lived in Oregon and the band members were and still are scattered all over. There were no chances of getting back together. So...I figured that by getting a recording studio, with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_Instrument_Digital_Interface">MIDI </a>instruments, I would be able to recreate each musician's part and blend my voice and guitar parts into the mix. It worked pretty well. I'm not a keyboard player, but with digital keyboards, I was able to play the parts slowly and then bring that up to tempo and pitch using software, similarly to using a word processor package like Microsoft Words. To be precise, I was using a software package called "Cakewalk". I programmed the drum parts and even "humanized" the drums so it wouldn't sound so "digitally-perfect". While recording, I never worried about mistakes and bad notes. Those were corrected after the fact, by inserting the proper notes or licks in just the right place. As for the voice parts, using multi-tracks, I was able to recreate the main voice and add harmony on other tracks. All this led to the grand finale, where I would play my guitar lead part. It was like having my band with me all over again, or so I thought. <br /><br />I enjoyed doing that for about a year, cutting better and better tracks and programming spectacular music arrangements until one day...I realised I wasn't enjoying playing guitar as much as I wanted to. I was spending most of my time laying down tracks of other instruments parts, correcting the parts, harmonizing, arranging drum tracks, etc. All this programming for weeks on end, to finally playing my guitar part. <br /><br /><em>I WAS NOT PLAYING MUSIC ANYMORE, I WAS PROGRAMMING MUSIC.</em><br /><br /> The digital revolution has changed everything we do for the better! Huh...Maybe not. I eventually sold all of my recording equipment and instruments, except for my guitars. I still have many guitars. I don't often have a chance to play with other musicians, but when I play one of my guitar, it's not some kind of programming. My fingers do the playing and the feel comes from my soul. I hope that by now you see the correlation between my musical endeavors and my photographic endeavors.<br /><br /><strong>Photography: </strong>I used to have a fully manual Pentax Spotmatic. I had to decide what the aperture was going to be, according to what I wanted to create. I had to measure light with a handheld light meter. Depending on what film I was using, I would set the shutter speed for action or long exposure. There was no anti-shake, no auto-everything. Color films at ISO 400 ( <em>back then is was called ASA</em>) was about as fast you could get. Yet, I enjoyed every seconds I was out taking or should I say making pictures. I got good at it to the point I wouldn't wonder what the images were going to look like after processing, I knew ahead, by intuition and experience.There was no instant viewing and films came in cartridges of 12, 24 or 36 exposures. I would get up at 5:00 A.M and go shoot wildlife in the natural morning golden light and fog. My heart would beat so fast when I knew I had taken a good shot. I couldn't waste any film, so I would meticulously chose my subjects and surroundings. I would come back home around mid-day and develop my color <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversal_film">reversal film</a> strips (<em>transparencies, diapositives or slides, as called back then</em>) with E-6 chemical and then, I would enlarge my best images using my Beseler <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_enlarger">enlarger</a>,with the advanced <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichroic_filter">Dichroic</a> head. I would make 8 x 10 enlargements with <a href="http://www.horvath.ca/final/cibachrome.html">cibachrome</a> paper and chemical for better color rendition. My best images were sold at Arts and Craft events and local stores. I lived in Alabama by that time.<br /><br />

<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_EO9piAKCkcU/TKGMbdtpQEI/AAAAAAAAGXY/TEoBiEC9LpI/s1600/954535_74970_e945c9b88a_l.jpg"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_EO9piAKCkcU/TKGMbdtpQEI/AAAAAAAAGXY/TEoBiEC9LpI/s400/954535_74970_e945c9b88a_l.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="400" height="286" /></a>

<br /><br />Back then, I was really making pictures. I was the master of my camera and images. I was composing every image carefully. I had the craft of photography almost mastered. <br /><br />Now...I think the Digital cameras are the masters, along with Photoshop and all of the digital innovations. We are the slaves. Yes, the quality of the images is so much superior. Yes, you can make enlargements "poster size" with exceptional clarity. Yes, yes and yes; everything is better...except creativity. Like with my MIDI recording studio, whereas I was programming music, with my DSLRs, I am programming images. We all are and we don't even realize it. When you look back at your images, are they of what you actually shot or are they of what you imagined the scene to be, after changing it with Photoshop? Do you print your images or do you save them on your hard-drive until your computer crashes? I agree that someone with talent and a photographic background or education, can utilize today's tools to further expand their creativity. The majority of the current generation of photographers want a DSLR that is fully auto-everything and one that does the majority of thinking. They prefer exchanging or posting their images through the internet (at a low resolution) or sending images through their cell phones. It's all fine, but it's the camera that is creating and we take the credit.<br /><br />Go ahead, will you put your DSLR in full manual mode and go create images. <br /><br />Thank you for reading,<br /><br />Yvon Bourque

 

 

 

 

 

<p>It's your choice Yvon. Be a slave if you like, or choose not to be a slave. If you choose to think that "<em>Digital cameras are the masters</em>" Then that's your choice......<br /> Equipment doesn't actually DO anything 'till you tell it to......so.......What the pecking order is in your live is dependent on the choices you make....<br /> But to say that "<em>technology takes our photographic creativity away</em>" is just silly.</p>

<p>When photographs became a viable alternative to good old fashioned painting in the mid 19th century, I'm sure the masters of oil and tempera said the same ... then again when TTL light meters in cameras became common in the 1960s, I think a lot of puritans who could guess exposure by their eyes said the same!<br /> I think what people create is all that really matters, not how they create :-) People have just replaced a lot of work in the darkroom with a lot of work in the computer.</p>

<p>PS: I have generally no hangups about 'programming music'. However, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-Tune">Auto Tune</a> is not my idea of a good singer!</p>

<p>Yvon, I have to disagree with you. Perhaps your DSLR's do everything for you, but last I knew I was out and about with my surgically repaired knee walking at a snails pace making street photographs, adjusting my shutter speed and ISO to eliminate motion blur according the darkening conditions, then setting the lens wide open when I was out of light...Last I knew there was no ''street shooting setting'' on my K-7</p>

<p>Try telling the wedding photographer that his skills don't matter, that you can put a DSLR in anyones hands and it will do all the work. Better yet, try explaining to the bride why her wedding photos are junk. Blame the camera. Sue the camera for not doing it right...So I respectfully disagree with you on this.</p>

<i>We are the slaves.</I><P>

<b>I</b> have as much control over my equipment as <b>I</b> want. Besides, operating a camera is only a small part of being a photographer. If your camera is controlling you, it's your fault, not the camera's.

<p>Javier and Mike,<br>

You must not have read my thread as intended. I am agreeing with you guys. I think we should all use our creativity, like you do Javier, and like you Mike. We all need to get off the "Auto-everything" mode and use the three major ingredients of photography "Aperture, Shutter Speed and Sensitivity". The question I hear the most often is "How do you make the background blurry and the subject clear"? The photographers that don't know the answer to that should definitely get out of the "Auto" and learn how it's done, as well as learning about all the other manual tools of the trade. That's how one learns. Once experienced, there are times that shooting in Auto something makes sense...Sport, Wedding, Street Photography, to name a few.<br>

I'm not slave of my DSLR, I am the master. :-)</p>

<p>A very good reading for an early sunday morning here Yvon, thanks. I'm more concerned with the fact that some photographers seem to get lost collecting immense amounts of equipment instead of using it and as soon as a new body or lens is announced they know immediately that this will be the one to have. Since I combine a digital Pentax K10D body most of the time with Takumar and Pentax A/M/K primes I am still used to do quite a bit on my own but dont mind the camera automatic exposure proposal and sometimes even AF as a starting base and welcome service to change at will and if needed. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>We all need to get off the "Auto-everything" mode and use the three major ingredients of photography "Aperture, Shutter Speed and Sensitivity".</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think these three ingredients are major parts of photography...perhaps, maybe the technical parts. I, myself, am on non manual mode 90% of the time. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The question I hear the most often is "How do you make the background blurry and the subject clear"?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Non competent technical shooters might have more artistic skill...perhaps, learn from each other. Many camera collectors/nuts/tech in these web forums know all too well about the technical parts but can't shoot (a great artistic photo) if their life depended on it...</p>

<p>Of course, most aren't technically competent nor have a photo eye (left brain, right brain etc...). So yeah, there is some truth in your opening post. I do understand your POV...</p>

<p>Yvon, Perhaps I got hung up on this and misunderstood what you where saying along with the previous posters. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now...I think the Digital cameras are the masters, along with Photoshop and all of the digital innovations. We are the slaves. Yes, the quality of the images is so much superior. Yes, you can make enlargements "poster size" with exceptional clarity. Yes, yes and yes; everything is better...<em>except creativity</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought you where being sarcastic, but then I read ''except creativity'' at the end of the sentence and it made the previous part of the sentence emphatic. It seems to be implying that the photographer no longer needs to fiddle with his own settings, but simply put the cam in green mode and your golden. Anyway, sorry for my misunderstanding. Perhaps you can clarify it a little. :) </p>

<p>Yvon,<br>

I have a professional experience I can relate. I am a trained Molecular Biologists. When I was in graduate school ww pretty much had to build everything up from scratch. We had to concentrate on the technique in EXTREME detail to get anything done. To change one DNA base (those A,T,C,and G's you've likely heard of) to another ment detailed knowledge special kinds of bacteria strains top use, classical biochemistry, molecular biology, etc. It would take many months, if not years, to master the techniques. Now, with the avilable kits, you can probably get a trained monkey to do it in less than a week and that monkey will be FAR more productive now than we were in the 1990s.<br>

That said, if there are any problems, the new generation very likely cannot not trouble shoot the problem and gets stuck. The answer? Buy a new kit until it works. But I tell you the science they pump out is the same and there is a lot more of it and it comes out a lot faster.<br>

Photography is the same, I think anyway. I too started in screwmount bodies (Praticka). Well, actually I had a terrible Kodak Fun-something when I was really young. Like you in the back of my mind there was the price of film, $8 for a roll of Velvia, and then processing, cheaper for others of course. So I carefully studied my subject thought carefully about depth of view, composition, lighting film I was using, before I ever hit the shutter. My moment of satisfaction came often weeks later when that little box showed up and I could admire my work on a light box.If I happened to have the wrong film in the camera we simply shrugged our collective shoulders (I still kick myself the day I was in the North Woods in Minnesota one morning when I had ASA 50 film and I ended up less than 15 feet from a wolf).<br>

So now we take a zillion images and throw out a zillion-1. Somewhere in there will be an image likely every bit as good as the film one, and then some. It is a different experience to be sure. I don't teach photography now (I used to about 10 years ago), but I suppose I would teach the rules of composition, depth of view, etc. Less time would go into the rukes of physics and a lot more of the course would go into what happens after the shutter is hit.<br>

So I don't know. We aren't polluting the world with processing chemicals, (maybe now batteries?), we don't hold the raw product in our hands (it's hard to hold an electron). I now though get to photograph birds successfully; prior to my digital body I likely had less than 2 dozen really great bird images; now I have hundreds. It's a different artistic experience to be sure, some of the pleasentries are gone and new one arise. Listen to the old large format shooters and they always felt the 35mm body wasn't the choice of a 'real' photographer. But we all know there are just somethings you can't photograph with large format.<br>

I'm rabeling. And it almost 5:00 am. Better get back to grading.</p>

<i>You must not have read my thread as intended.</i><P>

You didn't intend to blame the equipment for removing or impeding people's creativity?<P>

<p>I think the central ingredient is here:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would get up at 5:00 A.M and go shoot wildlife in the natural morning golden light and fog. My heart would beat so fast when I knew I had taken a good shot. I couldn't waste any film, so I would meticulously chose my subjects and surroundings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which is in a sense parallel to playing in a band, vs sitting in front of your iMac. The technology cannot really give us the inspiration. But I think Yvon is very right in saying that it can get in our way, since it's now so advanced in itself.</p>

<p>I understand the point of your thread Yvon. I don't completely agree but I do experience this a lot myself. I suspect that were this is coming from is all the action around Photokina. Suddenly all the great cameras we owned last month are no good and every second forum post you read is about someone switching for the latest and greatest camera to fix their photographic issues. I do agree that some allow technology to usurp understand of how to actually take a photo.<br>

Actually at nearly every wedding I shoot (about 35 this year), someone almost always comes up to me with a DSLR in their hands and starts asking questions. I'll look at the camera they are holding and it's almost always on Auto or a factory preset (Same settings the P&S cameras have). My first comments are often to tell them to shoot in manual. Then the looks of puzzlement appear. No clue what shutter speed, ISO and aperture do or the interrelationships are between those 3 essential settings.</p>

<p>Where I disagree is that we, meaning those here reading this, have let cameras strip our creativity. I know that everyone who has replied and many who are just reading and lurking, know how to create their photos instead of having the camera do it all for them. Sure we take lots of test shots and we discard digital images that we would have kept 15-20 years ago in the film days.</p>

<p>No matter how advanced cameras are today, Iso A and S still are the things we need to adjust to create the image.</p>

<p>"Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important." -Henri Cartier Bresson</p>

<p>"...a lot of photographers think that if they buy a better camera they'll be able to take better photographs. A better camera won't do a thing for you if you don't have anything in your head or in your heart. -Arnold Newman</p>

<p>Choose whatever tools and materials you enjoy using. Don't fool yourself for a moment that coming up with creative photos is reliant on the technology. Creativity is in the meaty part of the photographer-camera combo. It is largely unaffected by technology advances.</p>

<p>No. All the new geegaws aren't taking anything away. The problem for most is that there's no creativity to enslave.</p>

<p>To Each His Own, is about all I can say, since I do use DSLR and SLR's depending my Mood:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...a lot of photographers think that if they buy a better camera they'll be able to take better photographs. A better camera won't do a thing for you if you don't have anything in your head or in your heart. -Arnold Newman</p>

</blockquote>

<p>... or in your viewfinder.</p>

<p>Yvon seems to be echoing some of my thoughts. I agree that technological crutches can cripple those that become dependent on them. I also think there is a difference between someone using a camera to capture an image and one that uses it to make an image, so this statement attracted my attention:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When you look back at your images, are they of what you actually shot or are they of what you imagined the scene to be, after changing it with Photoshop?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is a photographer defined by his mere use of a photographic camera or by their intent in using it?</p>

<p>To some extent, this is similar to the difference between a real story and a story of fiction. Both are recorded in writing, but one relates events, while another imagines them. Drawing and painting have been similar - they either depicted real entities or their source came from the author's imagination. I guess photography was a bit more special because for quite some time, there were no tools allowing its users to manipulate the results, so photographs came to be seen as pretty accurate depictions of reality. What we're now seeing is that like all the other recording techniques, photography has also become an adequate tool for producing fictional results. I guess this result is inevitable.</p>

<p>I also wondered at what point will camera technology change so much that we no longer can call its users photographers. What is it that defines photography? There's some part of it that must have to do with the process being used. I imagine that if all I did was to extract still shots from a video, it wouldn't be appropriate to call myself a photographer. If cameras end up being capable of shooting at 30 fps until storage fills up, what will be the difference from video? Just some ending questions :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also think there is a difference between someone using a camera to capture an image and one that uses it to make an image, so this statement attracted my attention:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>L.C. This is the very thing I have been going back and forth on for years. I have personally landed on the capture an image side. I guess this is why I like dirty, gritty, grainy street shots. They seem to reflect more of what I really see. I try and leave PS out as much as I can. Having said this, there are folks who are gifted with photoshop skills and I can only wish I had those. So the question I brought up a few months back is. When does a photograph become art? I have determined for myself that a photograph made into art is still a photograph. </p>

<p>Answer: No.</p>

<p>Next question? <em>Please?</em></p>

I did weddings with Bronicas. I computed my fill flash. I used an external incident meter. I had my own darkroom. I printed color. I focused manually. I also spent hundreds of hours in my darkroom developing my and the local newspaper's pictures. I printed my own wedding black and white. When you are doing a wedding or two a week in season all this is a pain in the butt. I hated to have to load MF backs in the middle of a wedding. I understand the basics and in fact I teach them to newcomers. I now do digital and have for eight years. . My pictures are better because I never had time or the real capability to do things in the darkroom for hours that now take me minutes in Lightroom and CS5. If I have improved over the years it is because I have taken few thousand pictures and have developed some kind of an imperfect innate sense of what makes a usable picture through the view finder of my camera. Anyone of the cameras that I have owned that have made good or a least salable pictures. This equipment has included; eight Canon EF and DSLR bodies, numerous lenses, a point and shoot, a full array of Bronicas, a couple of Minolta SRT 101s, studio lightws plus other stuff that I can't recall. The best technical improvements for me have been with the acquisition of good lenses and in developing facility in digital processing because of the vast capability it offers over redoing darkroom prints where when I screwed up the color balance I had do a reprint or two or three. I don't have to shoot in manual. I know how to do it. I do have to monitor ISO, exposure and shutter speed to see if I agree with it. That however is a quick check. Still, in my somewhat cynical and jaded opinion it is what is between the photographers ears that counts. i just read the a lengthy hair splitting thread about the subtleties between a variety of lenses that fit on Leica cameras. I just wondered about the actual visible differnence between pictures from these lenses and, to me, more importantly, if the quality of the actual photographic product justified the high costs of some of this hardware. It is still the photographer in my limited view. Times change, technology changes and I believe one has to adapt. The nice thing about photography is that I make my own rules. I don't have to conform to anything except the limitiations of good taste, of my own skill and my equipment.

<p>I remeber well being 7 years old,walking in the winter blizzard at night ,on icy road with few coins in the fist to buy some chimicals for film to develop . What can be wrong today ,if we can understand only.</p>

<p>My answer at least in the area of intuitive focus tracking (for Pentax) is no. Still a big no notwithstanding the recent development<br>

<a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/28170-impossible-auto-focus-shots.html">http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/28170-impossible-auto-focus-shots.html</a><br>

Manualfocus.org (there is such a site for MF guys) has listed area where MF is still preferred<br>

- shooting in dark conditions where AF can't work<br>

- shooting a very fast event which you are expecting and which you can pre-focus, and wait for the exact moment of the event. AF would ruin the timing<br />- shooting an image where the point of focus is outside the cluster of AF sensors (using AF to focus and then recompose is not accurate. The more you move the camera when recomposing, the worse this inaccuracy gets)<br />- tilt/shift work. There are no AF lenses which do this, afaik.</p>

<p>Daniel Toronto</p>

 

<p>Dick,<br>

<br />That really is my point. If you have learned the craft of photography, you can shoot in manual or in auto-something, but because of your experience, you know what to expect from the camera and/or will change the setting according to your vision.<br>

<br />Now, someone just starting in photography, using the Auto-everything will wonder before hand what the image will look like and if not what he/she expected, won't know how to correct it. Everyone can be an Auto-everything photographer and shoot 1000 pictures... and a few might surprise them and turned okay, but can they repeat the good images over and over?<br>

<br />An experienced photographer will know before hand what the picture will look like and if for some reason a picture doesn't turn out the way he/she expected, he/she will know what to adjust on the camera. I use some forms of partial manual such as Aperture priority or Shutter speed priority according to what I want my picture to look like. I use the Auto-Focus a lot, but recompose so that my subject is not necessarily in the center, etc. I over or under expose when I know my DSLR can't produce the image I want, say like a silhouette or a portrait in front of a bright light source.<br>

<br />The DSLRs of today are so automated, that I think new photographers are at lost. That's why they are more prone to purchase every new gadgets or upgrading to the newest DSLRs. It won't make them better photographers, to a point it will make them more dependant on technology than the craft of photography.<br>

Will they be the masters or the slaves?</p>