Do we rely too much on Technology

So you have to use manual to select the correct shutter speed? I hadn't realised that. And if I want a suitably wide aperture I also have to use manual?

What tosh. Use the technology wisely and intelligently and ask how people achieve things when you can't or don't. The joy of digital is that you can put it on Av mode say let it guess the exposure, review it and make any adjustments and shoot again. You didn't have histograms etc. on film.

You have your hair shirt I'll take all the help I can get but at the same time I won't disengage my brain.

You'll suggest manual focus next

Mike

Most sensible post I have read all day.

I shoot AV almost exclusively, I could shoot manual yes, but it just means turning another dial, why not let the camera take the strain ? Using ttl metering, you're only going to dial it in until you reach EV0 anyway & then compensate from there. Where's the huge difference between using AV mode & some EV compensation when required & using full manual ?

I generally want to control depth of field, obviously I am aware what kind of shutter speed will be required & I can affect this through altering the aperture or iso. Basically I am manipulating 2 of the 3 exposure paramaters & allowing the camera to take care of the 3rd, just for convenience sake. If I was primarily interested in shutter speed I could shoot SV & alter the iso to ensure I get enough depth of field.

The only time I shoot manual is when using manual flash off camera, as I need to manipulate the exposure more.

I used to use my ME Super on manual as I found with slide film it was easier to get the exposure bang on (basically meter off the grass in most cases) and easier than using the exposure compensation dial. With the K10D I use AV, choose my aperture and ISO, shoot, check the histogram and dial in compensation if needed. Why the difference? (a) a digi image costs nothing and (b) I have a histogram to check! Also, "shooting to the right" works for digi, but not for slides.

Off-topic...

Amin... if you want a roll of Kodachrome 64 to run through that MZ-30 let me know. I have one or two going spare

K.

I also use it when +/- 2 stops isn't enough...

MikeW and RR,

I am sure you two are not really as thick as you seem. But you really have missed the point.

*Nobody suggested you should use manual. The suggestion was that newcomers to photography might find this an effective way to learn the principles - like stopping down to increase depth of field.

"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 it all started because Impotentspider observed that people were too ready to blame their equipment rather than themselves when their pictures weren't as brilliant as they had hoped.

Have a good night's sleep.

G

ETA: Just realised that PeteL DID suggest switching to manual for years. He probably doesn't appreciate what quick learners we all are on here.

I also use Av almost all the time, it's really useful, however sometimes I prefer M - so to ensure my settings won't be changed unexpectedly (ie taking a night photo of people around a camp fire, where the fire is at the centre).

With manual focusing - I gave up totally, just configured AF button for autofocus, switched half-press shutter AF. I just love quick shift Oh, unless I use some older lens...

But +/- 5 stops is plenty for me

George, I class myself as somewhat of a newcomer (been shooting almost a year now - not including p&s of course) & am someone who has learned from scratch on a dslr.
Now I can only speak from my experience, I bought a dslr as I wanted to take control of the photographs I produced & 20 minutes of reading up on technique ensured I wasn't interested in "program" mode from the get go. I don't think it's difficult to grasp the relationship between aperture, shutter speed & iso. Of course putting it into practice is a learning curve & using it to creative advantage a steeper one.

Why buy a camera that affords you total control over your photography & then relinquish that control by seeking out that evil letter "P" ?
At least we've stopped short of the plethora of program modes available on some p&s cameras, hunting around the menu for a picture of a dog & crescent moon to ensure a "good" photo of your pet at dusk is quite frankly ludicrous (as my post seems to be heading)


With reference to the original question, the only in-camera technology I totally rely on is ttl metering (but that's hardly a new addition) plus tyou need to know how to exploit it to your advantage, knowing whether to expose for shadows, highlights, or midtones for the result you're after- as for post processing, I don't think I would enjoy photography as much without it, my results would certainly be somewhat more lacklustre. But I'm not a prolific shooter. If I spend a few hours shooting, I'm happy to return with 2 dozen shots & would be delighted to have half a dozen keepers after an hour or so in photoshop. But then, that's my hobby, I enjoy the processing as much as the capturing.

Aha, but there you have it in a nutshell. The ONLY thing that really matters at the end of the day is composition and timing. The camera is just a tool, but learning the principles or exposure is not rocket science. The hard bit is making good images.

Digital is great. It demystifies and democratises photography. An aesthetically talented kid can now make great images naturally without the hardware getting in the way.

However a whole new generation of aesthetically challenged drones Flickr and Twitter us to death with a tide of banal mediocrity which just happens to be properly exposed and in focus, but who cares?

Thing is, no amount of technology can...

Give you the ability to previsualise the shot
Give you a sense of aesthetics
Give you empathy for your subject
Teach you when to shoot and when to watch
Give you the instinct for narrative that makes every truly great shot
etc..

This can all be learned of course, but its a much bigger deal than learning what F stop to use. Its the difference between being a master builder and a master architect. But very very few bother. Few even understand the problem.

Of course its much easier to talk about gear and F stops on camera forums and blame the gear when our shots dont look like Joe Cornish's.

Ah ha...BUT...(the "bold" box at the bottom ain`t working for me and No!,I ain`t shouting)...back in the day,when photography was first invented,the subject had to be still for a time...and isn`t that part of the issue here?,time?.

Learning takes time but time is something we don`t have these days,we don`t need to spend large amounts of time setting a camera up like days gone by,we don`t need to spend time processing film.

Yes,I`m a Newbie,Yes,I`ve taken some duff shots,No,I haven`t blamed anyone and or the camera,Yes,I`ll find the time to read my manual and learn more about my camera when I get the darn thing back from LCE.

I ain`t no David Bailey but I hope I can do better than Arthur Cole.

We all want that shot that no one else has but the likelyhood of that for most of us is like winning the Lottery on a Thursday!


Nic

Nic - right up to your post I was going to let this slide by but I can't let this go and this rant is no way personal.

Taking good photographs takes time, doing anything well generally takes time. If you don't invest time in learning and when you take the shot then you'll find making progress much slower and harder (as always solely in my opinion and I'm happy to be wrong).

You say we don't have time these days? Where's it gone then? People make time for what's important in their lives. Now if for some that means working daft hours to amass mounds of money or service unreasonable debt (and remember this is no way personal) then no they won't have time for a quality of life.

Time to learn and time to consider each shot and time to post process each shot must surely be the winning formula for technique if nothing else.

Incidentally I don't see taking photographs as a competition (except when it is) so I don't want the shot that no-one else has. I want the skill and ability to translate what I see in my mind into the photograph,like it and perhaps share it with others who also like it or find it provoking (like Paulys homeless people shots). I take photographs for fun and joy.

Mike

PS Although I'm coming across a real old grouch this is quite a fun thread as long no-one takes anything personally.

And I should 'fess up that I grew up on film so some of this is 'easy for me to say' but the amount I had to adjust to get digital to work amazed me.

Take it personally, not me mikew

You grew up on film and moved to digital and took the time to use the technology. In doing so you've learnt new ways to improve/manipulate/alter images impressively so with what I've seen of your work.

Myself, again grown up with film, moved to digital and to damn lazy to learn the thousands of possibilities available in Photoshop. I prefer to try and get the shot right in camera.

My early remark about everybody having to use film certainly sparked a fire here!

I was merely trying to state that a lot of what we learnt the hard way can now be done in 'idiot' mode by the camera, taking the skill out of our art.

After all anybody can shoot on full auto,but it takes time learning to do it well using Av, Tv or manual.

I'm also very impressed with the quality of posted images by 'newbies' who ask for, get and use advice.

But I too try to get it right in camera as I am lazy as well and would much prefer to avoid PP if I can.

How many times did you need to dodge and burn in the darkroom? How many times did you try and correct converging verticals? Did you always use the same grade of paper, the same chemicals. Did you never push a film in development? Not to mention filters when taking a photograph.

This is why JR recommends using slide film if you want a true hair shirt!

I embrace and revel in the new technolgy that on the one hand frees me from mental gymnastics when shooting but also gives me such a wide range of powerful tools to develop the image.

Mike

I confess to being hopeless in the dark room, maybe why that's why I take my time(with film) to get the shot right.

I didn't shoot slides, but didn't dodge and burn etc.

Maybe I should try and get my head around Photoshop.

Until then I'll just have to get it right in camera.

But there are and always have been times when that's simply not possible so that we have always needed post processing of some form.

But we do agree that everyone should master getting the basics right in camera - the best possible exposure, the focus, the DOF and the composition. On that I am sure we agree.

Mike

But the best possible exposure may also be the one that allows the most lattitude in post processing (low contrast, underexposed to protect highlights, no sharpening) rather than the one that looks best in camera (correct mid-tone exposure, high contrast).

I tend to shoot with the aim to maximise the potential of the end result, which is slightly different from getting it perfect in the camera. I shoot everything in RAW and process accordingly.

Its true you still have to start with something thats properly composed, in focus and has a WB close to reality, but you may well make different choices of exposure.