Are you as good a photographer, as you once were

[todd peach seattle, washi]

Rob -

 

I was very active in photography from 1975-85, shooting primarily with FM/FE gear. I started a new career in 1986 and photography was largely 'set aside' for me just as AF was in its infancy. Around 1991, I stumbled into a camera store again and walked out with an N90.

 

I found AF exciting, and began a long binge of AF-NAS (Auto Focus Nikon Acquisition Syndrome) partially financed by MF-NSS (Manual Focus Nikon Selling Syndrome). I was shooting a lot again, and I was enjoying it.

 

Through an accident of time and place, I found myself starting a mailing list for people interested in Nikon Manual Focus in 1999. I had 'list' skills and I figured I knew enough about the older equipment I could at least comfortably moderate such a group. Hanging out (in cyberspace) with the MF'ers, I was struck by how much they enjoyed using their old gear. I finally bought a beat-up F3 and "re-discovered" that I enjoy MF in many situations, that I had in fact been "working around" some oddities of AF (aim-AF-lock-recompose-shoot).

 

So now I'm back to just 'general purpose' NAS, buying MF and AF gear. I think I'm buying more MF gear at this time largely because it's so dang cheap. I use both types of equipment, horses for courses.

 

Like Gerald, I think an F100/SB-26 with AF lenses is just the thing for high-volume event photography with fill-flash. I have worked (volunteered) some long photo days where by the end of the day I'm having trouble seeing through the viewfinder, and I'm muttering, "I hope the AF is working right, cause I can't see crap...."

 

Like Eric, I think AF greatly bumps up the percentage of 'keepers' for many sports. I prefer MF for Basketball and some other similar sports where it can be difficult for AF to pick out the 'target' that I'm interested in.

 

OK, so now I'm back around to Rob's questions: the F100 can be set up as a P&S. My extended family enjoys using it that way. My 'at rest' settings for an F100 are Matrix/Program/AF Single Servo. You can pick it up and 'snap shot' (in the firearms sense) very quickly. As the situation develops, you can modify the settings to suit. Is it 'too easy'? If you let it do all the thinking for you all the time, perhaps. It does have a lot of manual capability to keep you 'exercised'. I would not say it makes me a 'worse' photographer. My 'skill' had to advance to work with this camera, it takes a little practice to get the most from an F100, particularly understanding where the barriers are and why.

 

Using a manual focus camera is just different, and I enjoy it. I think it's vaguely similar to using a rangefinder camera, it's a different tool. It's unfortunate that these discussions are so often divisive.

 

-Todd

[ilkka_nissila]

I use modern cameras because they have built-in TTL spot meters and high-eyepoint viewfinders. If I try my dad's Nikon F, I can't see the whole frame with my glasses on, so it's a useless camera for me.

 

Other than that, I find AF in its latest incarnations convenient and it relieves me from eye fatigue, thus making my work easier. Autoexposure ... well, on colour negative film, it's very convenient and can give good results in situations where I couldn't manage with manual exposure. Zooms allow me to get shots I couldn't get with primes in people photography. So yes the technology makes it possible for me to take pictures which I couldn't do without it, and it makes the process a pleasure since I don't have to stress about every detail all the time.

 

The existence of technology doesn't hinder me in any way that I can see. I still take >50% of my shots with spot meter in manual mode, whenever I am not pressed for time and the subject is not going to go away. Both ways work for me.

 

The thing I regret is the high price of a Nikon camera with a spot meter and a high-eyepoint viewfinder. And the sloppy feeling construction of many mid-range AF Nikkors. Other than that, technology is great.

[constance_cook]

Todd said what I think. Especially for travel photography in tight places and unusual lighting, AF is wonderful and I know for sure I get way more keepers with it. But I really enjoy my MF cameras when I have time and dependent on what I'm shooting. And still differently, when I'm in the mood, I drag around a rangefinder and enjoy those, too. I almost always shoot B&W with rangefinders and I shoot more B&W with the MF cameras. It just suits me to do it that way.

 

Conni

[ShunCheung]

Since Rob uses the Nikkormat as an example, it is beyond MF vs. AF. We are talking about no motor drive. Just the fact that you are unable to make rapid consecutive shots is going to drive today's sports/action photographers nuts.

 

IMO, Rob's problem is that he is making two incorrect assumptions: (1) Some people can shoot just as excellent images with a Nikkormat as with an F5. That might be true for landscape shots or travel shots. But I don't believe that is true at all for sports/actions shots, and that is for anybody. (2) Somehow you are a better photographer/mathematican (or whatever appropriate name to fill in here) if you don't rely on modern light meters/calculators.

[Carl Stone]

Rob,

 

You have missed the point. My F100 will operate just dandy in manual mode, I don't

need to go

an older camera to do that. As for whether or not that cameras capabilities make me

a better photographer, I can't say. What I can say is that the camera can relieve me of

some of the work that I would have to do with a fully manula camera. That ups my

abilitiy to operate faster if need be. What is important is the image, and the simple

truth is that the F5-F100 are faster than I am. What's the difference if I let the camera

set the exposure, or use the built in meter to tell me where to set it? I can still

compensate, either way. IMO, this is being entirely over analysed, and really means

nothing to someone that has the ability to do things any way they like. A good

photographer makes good images with any equipment. The modern equipment adds

a convenience factor, as well as the ability to operate much faster, and with a greater

degree of accuracy at those speeds, than does a fully manual camera. Equipment is

merely a tool, and without a photogapher to control it, it's worthless.

[Carl Stone]

Someone asked if we could still effectively use a n old Speed Graphic. And the

practical answer is, who cares? It isn't necessary to use that old equipment anymore,

and you can bet your butt that news organizations don't issue them to their PJ's.

Todays modern equipment gives the photographer an overwhelming chance at

getting a good shot in the wink of an eye. He has more keepers on every roll. If you

judge someone by their keepers, then yes, they are a better photogapher. Does that

mean that the photog couldn't produce a great image by taking the time an effort to

use a manual camera? No, of course he can, but he doesn't really need to do all of

that, and it could very cause him to lose the shot. Let's not confuse studio work with

field work.

[avery_homes]

Shun stated: "(1) Some people can shoot just as excellent images with a Nikkormat as with an F5. That might be true for landscape shots or travel shots. But I don't believe that is true at all for sports/actions shots, and that is for anybody. (2) Somehow you are a better photographer/mathematican (or whatever appropriate name to fill in here) if you don't rely on modern light meters/calculators."

Well, I believe your assumptions are incorrect, and your missing the whole issue.

 

Having to process the information mentally, and there by understand it and the fundamentals does make you a better photographer. If you can't do it, then so be it. There are a lot of guys and gals, who just go out and take the photo, never understanding why it comes out or doesn't.

 

Other than sports, a good photogrpaher who understands the principals of exposure and advance photography can do anything you can do with you "automated wonders". Not to mention that many a great sports/action photo were taken with manual cameras long before the age a Auto focus. But I concede that the one arena where auto focus is much preferred.

 

To answer the "question", most photographers can not take as good a photo with the bare bones, as they can their automated wonders. Why, they just don't have the knowledge or understaning of basic and advanced photography.

 

Good question, but judging by the answers there are a lot of people who can't read

[ShunCheung]

Avery: "<I>most photographers can not take as good a photo with the bare bones, as they can their automated wonders. Why, they just don't have the knowledge or understaning of basic and advanced photography.</I>"

<P>

What you are suggesting is that a bad photographer can somehow take a good image with an F5 that he/she couldn't have done with something like a Nikkormat. I cannot disagree more with you on that. Matrix metering may give you somewhat better metering and AF may let you focus faster. But the most important aspect of a good image is composition, which cannot be automated, at least not yet. The F5 also cannot determine the appropriate depth of field, the appropriate shutter speed (a fast one to stop motion or a slow one to blur motion, depending on the photographer's choice). One will still need to have good basic photography skills to achieve a good image, even with an F5. Otherwise, a poor photographer who has no idea what he/she is doing with an F5 may end up with correctly exposed and correctly focused but totally uninspiring images.

<P>

As I said before, automation has only automated the routine part of photography. The creative part is still up to the photographer.

[ilkka_nissila]

In addition to composition, light is just as important. And doing manual exposures does improve the technical quality of the photos, as well as increasing the sensitivity of the photographer to the quality of light.

 

But the fact is that a modern camera is much better in letting the photographer control the light than a Nikkormat.

[abbie_benson]

Personally, I think that there are many photographers who can take equally fine photos with manual cameras. Maybe not the Nikkormat, but then I'm not really familiar with it. But I'll bet you that there is some great still work being done with the old FM2 yet.

 

 

Shun might not agree, I think you are more of a Auto focus/digital buff anyway. But I believe a photographer who doesn't have to rely on all the Stuff Rob mentioned in his post is a better photographer. I might even say his "art" is purer

[avery_homes]

As Shun Put it: "What you are suggesting is that a bad photographer can somehow take a good image with an F5 that he/she couldn't have done with something like a Nikkormat."

 

Well that pretty much sums it up. Especially if he knows diddly about exposure. Your Auto everything toy does all the exposure work, and even focus. He won't be "Ansel", but he will get good results with no knowledge. And my boy, that's not art.

 

Set it on Program and away he goes, the "Great Photographer". how can help but take technically correct photos? And that's what you call Photogrpahy?

 

You take you photo and let the camera do all the work for you. Live in the world where you consider yourself in charge. But I'll live in the world where the photos I take are my doing. When I take a difficult photo of a skyline, or a subject and it come out the way I wanted it too, I know it was me - not the camera who had the skill.

 

Rob, those marvels do basically reduce you to a point and shoot photographer

[tcb.photo]

I do believe this post has run it's course. Even though it "wondered off" track several times I think it was interesting for the most part. It was based on a conversation I had with some friends a few days ago.

 

For me it was a "enlightenment".

 

Modern Auo focus cameras are, without a doubt helpful, fast and as Shun points out, often necessary. I never meant to imply that they weren't, or that I would rather use a old Manual focus camera all the time. My only question was, by depending on them, do we loose some of our "photgraphic instinct". Could I pick up a FM2, Contax RTS III, Hasselbladd, etc. and still take the same photos? Obviously it's a question that only I, or you, can answer.

 

For my self I'll swith the F100 to center weighted and shoot maanual more often, just to "hone" the skills I may have and develop new ones.

 

One of the thinigs that Shun was trying to say is that true "art' of a photograph comes from the person, no matter what he is using. No truer words were ever spoken. "Technically Correct" doesn't mean it "artistic".

[ShunCheung]

Two weeks ago, I was photographing at the Yosemite National Park. Somehow I decided to take the attached picture with no filter just to show the effect, after I had shot the "correct" one with a 2-stop graduated neutral-density filter (see the link at the end of the next paragraph). The camera happened to be an F5 at matrix metering mode and the film is Fuji Velvia 100F. Notice that the reflection is consierably darker. To the human eye, the scene was perfect, but because the narrow latitude of slide film, no matrix metering can possibly correct the problem. The F5's matrix metering tried to make its best compromise, and the result is that the top part of the image is about 1.5 stops over-exposed while the reflection is a bit under-exposed.

<P>

Knowing the limitation of my film, I quickly switched to spot meter and checked the meter reading of the rock and the reflection. There was a 2-stop difference. So I used a 2-stop "hard" GND filter to darken the top half and got <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photo/1855698">the image I wanted</A>.

<P>

In other words, using an F5 has never prevented me from using and refreshing my photography skills and knowledge. There are a lot of things even an F5 cannot automate.

[ilkka_nissila]

Excellent image (the one with the grad).