Do we rely too much on Technology

Nice one Martin and curse it I have already entered the competition.

Lovely sunshine here and within a couple of hours I'll have completed the day's work!

Mike

I think you got out of bed on the wrong side this morning, Mike.

What I suspect Impotentspider was referring to was the tendency of some people to think that all they need is a better camera, and they will take better pictures.

It's not really a film/digital argument, but more, as Malo suggests, a matter of wanting instant gratification for very little effort. All you have to do is spend some money and Bam! you're a photographer/film star/whatever.

It was more difficult in the days of b&w and slide film, because in the case of the former there was a lot of work to do, and in the case of the latter if you didn't nail the exposure you were doomed.

God knows why Aminstar is so defensive. He's actually a perfect example of somebody who DOES put in a lot of effort, and his results speak for themselves.

G

George I freely admit to getting out of the bed the wrong side. Goodness knows why.

I don't entirely agree with your summary. There seems to be the implication here that by applying the hair shirt of film you become a better photographer. I did film for years and loved it and my innate meanness meant that I did think a lot before pressing the button as it cost good money to see the results. That was a good thing and taught me to think about what I did and master the relevant technicalities.

With zero cost to digital it's possible to blast away and get 400 images in a day. Then the pain is sifting through 398 rotten shots to find two gems. That's what will surely encourage thought before shooting? That and seeing what skilled people can produce with the same equipment both technically and artistically.

I do agree that slide was a terrible task master and required very accurate exposure meaning you did learn a lot that way. But we are freed from those shackles now and can apply more thought to creativity rather than having the technical issues in the forefront of one's mind.

Mike

Ah yes. A valuable, and very straightforward learning experience, it was for me.

Step 1: Take the pictures
Step 2: Look at the shockingly bad results in disbelief
Step 3: Vow never to shoot slides again

The thing that's made me work at exposure with digital is, on the one hand, nasty cyan stripes across the sky, which has ruined many otherwise well-composed photographs.

And on the other hand, forever having to muck about with the shadow/highlight tool in PhotoShop.

I'm with Chris

Well I honestly didn't expect this many replies

Can I first say I wasn't having a go at anyone in particular, especially Amin, who incidently was talking b0!!0cK$ for a change Yeah right, and I'm Santa Claus.

After reading a quote from my own text I have to apologise and say that this statement: should really have read without having to RELY on modern technology which basically was the gist of my post, did Amin rely on technology to get his smoke shots? if so then all we have to do is point our Pentax's at a bit of smoke, press the shutter and we get images just like his, no we dont, Amin put a lot of effort into those with the lighting and post processing etc, so why cant we do the same with our equipment instead of blaming it when it does'nt lock on quick enough or it does'nt get the exposure quite right.

A camera and its accessories are tools and nothing more, it is up to the user to get the best out of them, its no use taking a handsaw back to the shop and claiming it does'nt cut straight or complaining that your brand new hammer bends nails when it hits them.

I do agree with these comments. There comes a point when modesty appears false, and has the potential to be a bit unattractive.

I think we agree on the diagnosis, but differ on the prescription. Fair enough. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

G

And the Manx method does not involve holding it by its tail

Quite right. Over here, four of the Little People hold a leg each, and then a large bogle..., but this is off-topic.

G

I have to tell you that when I tell our cat about this, she will be very upset....

That would be telling tails!

G

Wasn't trying to be modest. If anything I am vain and pompous, thought you all would have noticed it

I was genuinely speaking in terms of skill and ability some of you have here make me want to keep on improving and aspire to be like that. I have seen some stunning images in portfolios here and that is a boost for me to try to emulate.

My enthusiasm gets dampened when I read comments of the type that for a newbie it would be good to learn first using film etc etc, and that people nowadays rely too much in technology. I do rely too much in technology and if we were in the film age I wouldn't have got back into photography, that's just me. I love what the advances in technology provides me with.

Simple example is SDM. Isn't that supposed to do what it says there? Fast and silent, that's what we pay for. But then if I don't get it shouldn't I complain? It is advertised as that, and it is an advance in technology, otherwise we would just stick with screw driven focus. So yes, I do complain, I paid for the technology

Other than that I do enjoy using MF, when required. More than half of my shots are taken using MF and M mode, you just have to look at the images that I have and you will notice that.

And by the way, just in case anyone thinks that I must have got up on the wrong side of the bed, I haven't . I will go and have a few puffs now and have my fix

I think when people talk of going back to 'film' it really isn't what they mean...

Photography used to have three elements, well good photography anyway, and these were art, physics and chemistry. With the move to digital photography we have ditched chemistry.

There remains physics and art. The practise of Art largely cannot be taught so lets ignore that but bear in mind that looking at pictures and reading about the making of them can inspire us and increase our understanding.

There remains physics and in the context of photography I take this to mean grasping the fundamental laws that govern the creative making of photographic images. These laws include understanding optics (DoF, aperture etc.) the reciprocal relationship between shutter speed and aperture, the effects of changing ISO etc. etc. etc.

When people talk about going back to 'film' they surely dont mean that literally since the later Pentax film SLRs weren't so very different from digital ones.

What I think they really mean is try switching your DSLR to manual in every respect and sticking with it, and I mean really sticking with it, for a couple of weeks. Then you will really learn about photographic craft.

And tonight I'm going to try going to bed on the wrong side!

And, Amin, this isn't directed at you but, rather, a general observation.

Yes i agree with switching to Manual and sticking with it! Though for perhaps a bit longer than a couple of weeks, i would suggest a few years!
It`s not just another quick fix mode, It is the essential basis for learning your skills as a photographer. Only when you can operate your Camera Skillfully and confidently in Manual you can then apply any of the other modes appropriately. I think that Modern Camera`s actually make it harder to learn as it offers a false sense of security. When everything was manual you had no option (other than quit) but to learn how to choose an appropriate shutter speed for that moving object or to use a small aperture and the depth of field scale on the lens to squeeze as much depth to a landscape. Or to use an incident light meter to measure the light falling on a subject rather than that reflected from it. It`s not a hair shirt! It is a wonderful liberating experience once learned there is nothing to unlearn as it forms the basis upon which to assess any future technical developments and use them to best advantage without totally relying upon them.
Thats my tuppence worth anyhow!

Best Regards - Pete.