Are you as good a photographer, as you once were

[ebogaerts]

That's good, because you didn't have any argument anyway. It just seemed like you were reaching there for a chance to slam those who don't like "G" lenses.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

Dang. And this was an interesting thread, too.

[Carl Stone]

Eric, the point of my remarks, as well as Shun's, was that some of the people here

consider themselves to be something special because they use full manual control.

I'm not slamming anyone, but I am pointing out that full manual isn't the only way.

Actually, I could NOT care less how anyone else does things, that's a matter of

preference. I do appreciate that those that shoot manual are good at it, and that I can

ask questions of them if I need to. That does not mean that modern technology has

hindered the photographer, indeed, quite the opposite.

 

Now if you have a chip on your shoulder, understand that I didn't put it there.

[ShunCheung]

Guys, as far as the Nikon Fourm is concerned, the only place there should be a chip is a CPU type inside your lenses.

 

Opinions on this topic certain vary. I would never find it as interesting as Todd and some others do, but hat is ok. However, I sure hope that people will never open that can of G-lens worms again.

 

Now I have a question for Rob. If you indeed believe that a Nikkormat can get the job done, why are you using an F100 and a D100?

[keith alan sprouse]

I'm with those who point out that it's a bit off the mark to equate being capable of attaining good exposures without automation with being a "good photographer," and for many reasons, not the least of which is that so many "fully manual" regularly dial in the exposure suggested to them by their in-camera light meter, which means that they are doing exactly the same thing as those who regularly shoot shutter-priority or aperture-priority (who use the exposure setting suggested to them by their in-camera light meter), except that it takes them a fraction of a second more time to do so. Those who shoot in full program mode are, of course, a different case.

 

For someone to make a truly meaningful distinction between himself and those who shoot in SP or AP mode, he would have to use an external light meter or none whatsoever; otherwise, he would be doing nothing particularly different.

 

Finally, proper exposure itself is only one relatively small element of a compelling photo--I, for one, rarely hear folks say "Wow, that image has no visual interest whatsoever, but the exposure is wonderful. I'll take two prints!"

 

Just my two cents...

[tcb.photo]

Easy Shun,

 

Read my post. I said I use a F100 and a D100. My question, to myself and any other who wished to participate is a simple one. IF, I were to pick up a "Nikkormat", or any similar camera, would I still be able to take the same quality of photos as I would with the F100 or the D100? Or has the automation reduced me to merely a "point and shoot" photographer? To quote myself: "Has my 'skill' advanced, or just my technology?"

 

This isn't a post about Manual focus vs Auto focus. It isn't a post about F100 vs the Nikkormat. This isn't a post about Digital vs. film. It isn't about "G" vs "D" or any of that.

 

Shun, It's a simple post that asks a simple question for self reflection. You could answer it with one word.

 

 

Why the post has gone beyond this is not my doing. I once heard the art comes for us, the question is -does it still

[chuck]

"Are you as good a photographer, as you once were?"<p>

Not at all. This is why I am taking a break to give my mind some time to work subconciously to generate a few modest inspirations.

[ebogaerts]

First of all, sorry to everyone if I potentially spoiled this thread.

 

"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."

 

The only thing I'm wondering Carl, is what this really had to do with the original post in this thread? Noone but you brought up "G" lenses, and the statement above was confusing. And your statement about those disliking "G" lenses, while still using automation are "the pot calling the kettle black" is ridiculous, and baiting. The rest of your post was so good, and then you had to leave it with this weak slam against those who aren't so hot for "G" lenses. So what? You are the one who seems to take it so darned personally. This was such a nice discussion, and I hate it when certain people "bait" others who don't share that person's opinion with an off-topic slam. I think you're a great contributor to these threads, save for those statements like the one quoted above. That's all.

[arnabdas]

BTW, I think I have improved a bit ever since I gave up on using the AF bodies (N80 and N90s) about 1.5 years ago ..

[dan_fromm1]

Well, I'm still using basically the same camera I was 33 years ago. Then, Nikkormat FTN. Now, FM2n and FG usually on auto with the aperture set where I want it.

 

Am I as good a photographer as I once was? Amend that to "as I once thought I was." No, and I never was.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[keniji]

"Are you as good a photographer, as you once were?"

 

Why not? The more each of us perfect our skills, even if our tool of trade has all the fancy gadgetry and effects, the more we add that little bit more knowledge and experience.

 

As each day go by, we grow older...

 

As with each shutter release, we add a new experience...

 

Experience and our memory is not "deducted" from our minds. It's added.

 

We are better photographers today than we were yesterday, for as long as I keep snapping.

 

:) Afterall, my wonderful camera is sitting there on my shelf not doing anything by "itself" ;P

[ShunCheung]

Rob, but you still haven't answered my question. If anybody could take the same quality of work with a Nikkormat, why would they bother to spend the extra money on an F5? Why aren't you using a Nikkormat?

 

I have been heavily depending on the spot meter ever since it became available on the F4. Photographing white subjects such as swans, snow scenes, white buildings, etc. has never been easier. (Looking back, I should have bought an external spot meter back in the MF era, but I wasn't smart enough to realize that.) I can't imagine shooting fast action without AF-S and a high-speed motor drive .... In other words, there are lots and lots of things I can do today because of automation that I cannot do with a Nikkormat.

 

Essentially, automation takes care of the routine issues that machines do better than humans, such as measuring brightness (metering), measuring distance and distance changes rapidly (auto focusing), advancing film quickly, etc. It is like flying in a airplane from New York to London rather than swimming across the Atlantic. With machines handling those other issues, us humans can concentrate on things we do best, such as composition, the use of light, how to positioin bright areas and shadows in the image, etc.

 

Keith Alan Sprouse puts it very well. It is precisely things such as composition and the use of light that create the visual impact that separates good images from bad ones. The F100 hasn't automated that most important aspect of photography at all. Therefore, unless one chooses to, there is absolutely no reason to use the F100 as a point and shoot.

[Rick Waller]

I will limit my answer to sideline sports photography. In that narrow venue, I doubt there can be any reasonable or rational disagreement that the modern SLR's make one a far better photographer.

 

In the old days, sports photographers had three choices when it came to focusing. Either they tried to manually focus while following the action (and exceptionally difficult thing to accomplish in a fast moving sport like soccer or football where the players' movemement is completely unpredictable), hyperfocal length type focusing whereby you set your shutter/aperture to achieve maximum depth of field (impractical because of constantly changing lighting and uninteresting photos where the backrounds are fully focused and the subject is lost in the clutter), and "trap" focusing where you focus on a a particular spot on the field and wait (hope) for the player to run through that area AND do something interesting.

 

With my F5 (or D1h) and my 300 or 400/2.8 AF-S lens, I can just place a focus selector spot on my subject and follow him or her all over the field maintaining perfect focus. The AF-S (motorized focus) in the newer lenses means that I can focus literally instantaneously on a subject and get the shot - virtually no lag time in the AF.

 

Add to these two little honeys the nearly foolproof meter in these newer cameras and one can essentially ignore the fluctuations in the lighting. I generally set my aperture for its widest opening and guarantee myself that no matter what the sun is doing, I will have a perfectly exposed photo at the maximum shutter speed possible and my 2.8 aperture allows me to "pop" the subject out from the backround.

 

And lastly, let's not fail to mention how advances in film technology help the sports photographer. I use Fuji 800 speed NPZ (exposed at 640) almost exclusively in outdoor situations (even in bright sun). This 800 speed film is so good it is hard to fathom. I daresay the new 800 speed films are much better than the 100 speed films of 20 years ago. No contest.

 

So, is my F5+300mm/2.8AF-s + 2X converter really nothing but a point and shoot with interchangeable lenses? Yup, it sure would seem that way and I have never been ashamed to admit it. All that counts is getting the shot! At least as far as action photography is concerned, there can be no argument that the new gear allows one to be a far "better" photographer, if you define better by the number of interesting keepers.

[tcb.photo]

Rob, but you still haven't answered my question. If anybody could take the same quality of work with a Nikkormat, why would they bother to spend the extra money on an F5? Why aren't you using a Nikkormat? - Shun

 

Shun, That isn't what this thread was about is it? What I'm saying, again, is that the things I once had to use my "mental" ability to determine is now done automatically. Hence, if my work is better than when I used a Nikkormat; is it me or the technology? Or by not using my own mental ability, am I doing my self a mis service. As someone said, "by not using the muscle,...".

 

I too use spot metereing and average, more than I use Matrix. But that's a far cry from the mental calculations I did with center weighted in complex lighting. Or the Trial "and error" method of learning flash photography with the non TTL flash.

 

By not using my mind as much to achieve the reults, am I really a better photographer? That my friend is the question. We've had a few private conversations, and you know I have a "soft spot" for the "manual way". But this isn't a thread about how manual cameras make us better photogpahers. It only asked if the technology actually helps you, or hinders your learning curve.

 

But to change the thread, I will address your specific question. The answer is really easy, to make things simpler. People buy F5s and F100s and D100s to make photography easier. Anyone can take a good photo with a D100 and a decent lens, at least as long as he can turn it on. The Fully automated cameras allows us to stop using our brains and allow the computer to do the work for us. OR, for those who can't do it, to allow them to get the results, with out truly understanding what it is they are doing.

 

But it would be foolish, and irrogant, to assume, that just because someone uses a Nikkormat, or "F" or M2, that they can't produce the same quality of photos that you or I can with a F100 (or F5) with my ED, Asph. lens.

 

Long before Spot metering and matrix metering, af and all the rest people were producing art that is today still the standard. Few of us can capture a landscape like Ansel Adams, and he didn't matrix metering either. My point is, can I ever achieve that level with out all my automated gizmos. Not a debate, just a honest journey of self discovery.

[ShunCheung]

Rob, when I was in high school, a teacher told me that a century or two ago, the best scientists used to spend like half of their time on calcuations, perhaps using pencil and paper. Today, all of that routine work is done by computers so that humans can use their brains on more creative stuffs. So do you think today's scientists are worse scientists because they use computers, i.e. automation?

 

There are many different areas in photography. People still shoot landscape with 8x10 view cameras. The film has improved but the camera technology hasn't change much since Ansel Adams' days. If you shoot landscape, there difference between a Nikkormat and an F5 is relatively small although I would argue that the spot meter and 1/3 stop control are very helpful. However, if you shoot sports action, Eric Waller's answer says it very well. I don't believe for a second that a Nikkormat can get you the same results, although some people still claim that they don't need AF for action work.

[Robert_Lai]

As far as technical problems such as exposure measurement and focusing aids go, I'm better now than before as I've got new toys such as an external flash meter and the 6x magnifying finder.<p> However, because of my rabid NAS (Nikon Acquisition Sydrome), I've got too many lenses. I used to be able to previsualize a scene as how a lens would present it to me, before mounting said lens. Now I'm not really sure unless I mount the lens and look through. The advent of zooms has made this even harder.<p>My wife summed it up recently "You were a better photographer 20 years ago. You cared about the subject then. Now all you care about is stuff (equipment), and your pictures suck".<p>Ouch! But, alas, true.

[Carl Stone]

"I don't believe for a second that a Nikkormat can get you the same results"

 

Nor do I. The F5 or F100 will do anything that the Nikkormat will do, and it will do it

easier and with more control, not to mention the things it will do that ther Nikkormat

won't. I am NOT trashing other cameras, but let's be honest, the F5 and F100 are far

superior to any other Nikon film cameras when it comes to operation. I'm not

considering how tough your old F2 is, or how much you love your F3HP etc., I'm just

talking capabilities. If folks want to shoot with their old manual cameras, great, but

don't tell me that they make peple better at photography, that's just BS. The truth is

that some folks think they are better served doing things the hard way, more power

to 'em, but I'm not having any.

[tcb.photo]

I don't believe for a second that a Nikkormat can get you the same results, - Shun

 

 

Then Shun, you answered the question didn't you. the answer is "No". What makes you the photographer you are today, and a very good photographer you are, is the technology. You don't have to get upset, I'm afraid I'm the same way now, many of us are.

 

But just for the record, Ansel used allot more than just view cameras.

 

Like it or not, there are those who use old "F" and Nikkormats and Leica "M" and so on, and are every bit as good as we are.

[tcb.photo]

I am NOT trashing other cameras, but let's be honest, the F5 and F100 are far superior to any other Nikon film cameras when it comes to operation - Carl

 

But Carl your missing the point of this thread. The point isn't weither the F5 is a better camera. Obviously it is, so is the F100, F3, N80, N90s, etc. The question is, could we take as good of photos without all the automation?

 

So, your response is really not relevent. I said, in a deviation of the question asked by Shun, that great photogrpahers are still able to take equally as good of photos with old cameras such as Nikkormats. Would it force them to "think" and truly understand exposure? Of course, but that isn't rally a bad thing. Would it take longer? Sure, especially if your out of practice.

 

So in the end does our automation make us better photogrpahers? Or do our cameras take better photos, regardless of our knowledge or lack there of?

[ShunCheung]

Carl and Rob, I am afraid that you two are on the verage of quoting me out of context. I am saying that *if you shoot sports action* or in my case wildlife action, I don't believe for a second that a Nikkormat can get you the same results. When Canon first introduced those fast AF long lenses a little more than 10 years ago, the word spreaded quickly and sports photographers switched to Canon in huge numbers simply because AF could do things most humans couldn't.

 

Instead of saying that technologies make us better photographers, I would rather say technologies can do certain mechanical things better than us humans can, in some cases far better. Therefore, we use technologies to help us achieve better results that we couldn't have achieved otherwise. That is why we fly in airplanes, use computers, and use AF, light meters, motor drives, etc.

[edwardchen]

What would happen to the world without engineers? I would be still travelling on foot.

[Carl Stone]

Rob,

 

Here was your question:

 

"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.)? "

 

And my answer is, NO. The Nikkormat doesn't have the same control as the more

modern cameras. As Shun has pointed out, when it comes to fast action, PJ work,

manual sucks. AFS, metering choices in camera, built in bracketing plus built in

compensation, etc., have outpaced the Nikkormat, and many of it's alternatives.

The F5's, and F100's only demand being familiar with the camera's controls.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>"Go figure." --Carl Stone<br>

</em><br>

Go figure what?<br>

<br>

I am not interested in discussing the lenses you mentioned but

this question is not a question, but rather a slur. Your last

paragraph there is "baiting" and deducts from what you

wrote above it.<br>

<br>

Dave.

[ShunCheung]

First of all, can we just forget about Carl's comments on G lenses in this thread? As a moderator here, maybe it is best if I just delete that part and all follow ups to it, but I would rather not delete stuff here unless it is really necessary.

 

Forgive me for perhaps saying the same thing one more time. Let's try this example: Rob lives on some remote island and the only car available to him there is a slow 1959 model that cannot go faster than 40 miles per hour, so it takes Rob a hour to drive from point A to B on the island. Suddenly someone brings in a 2003 Porsche for him, and now Rob can drive from A to B in 30 minutes. So does Rob become a "better driver" (or faster driver) overnight because of a faster car? Of course not. Rob is the same driver and anybody else on the island can also get around faster if they can drive a faster car.

[tcb.photo]

For those who have gotten "lost", here is the original question:

 

"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?" -Rob Helm

 

It isn't a question on which camera is better. I AGREE, that the F5,F100, N90s, N8 etc. etc., make my photography easier, faster, and perhaps even more accurate. So Carl, your point is won. But it isn't the question I posted.

 

The question is if you didn't have this technology, could you still take the same quality of photos???

 

If you weren't shooting "back in the day", or don't use the "oldies but goodies", then you don't have a refrence point to start with. I do, and wonder if I've improved or learned more, or has my equipment just made it easier?

 

Please "Guys" get off the "G" lens, and comparisons between F5s and Nikkormats. No one said a Nikkormat is as "good" of a camera. Only that there are photograhers who can still take as good of photos with one. Sadly, I don't think I'm one. I'm like the guy who has used a calculator too much, I'm forgetting my mathe skills.