Do we still need photographic knowledge?

I agree and that's why I think 'knowledge' in the context of the poll needs to be more defined otherwise the vote will be skewed....

I understand that this is all probably just a bit of fun though!!

That's my interpretation too

In the context of what I mentioned in the original post, photographic knowledge is knowing what effect aperture and shutter speed have on your image and how this relates to specific purposes, such as producing a good portrait. The vision is the portrait, the technical knowledge is needed to produce the vision and that was what I was asking if we still need, because a button on the camera suggests it can do it for us.

I’m no expert, but I like to read a lot about photography, and I do believe we still need the knowledge, without it there wouldn’t be any challenges.

Nope, I don't believe a button on the camera can ever do it for us, because it doesn't knw exactly what we are trying to achieve.

Take the cat photo wich was posted a few days ago. One of the comments was that the dirt on the cat's eye was distracting. The OP said that the dirt was part of the point he was trying to make with the shot.

Likewise, the camera may "think" we want a particular setup and give us a technically perfect image for waht it thinks we want. But our, ( well, your) photographic knowledge might allow you to do so much more with the image.


IMHO

Don't go there Ken!

If Pentax produced such a body it would be hideously expensive due to the low demand.

The fact that I like using my MX as well as my 'idiot proof' K200d is irrelevant. I still need some basic knowledge to use both effectively.

As the old saying goes, a camera is only a light-tight box with some glass on the front...

Anyone can take a photo using full-auto and end up with a satisfactory photograph...

Technically no-one should be able to take a bad photo, but as I frequently see some horrors, ability to spot an image, compose it, thinking about the elements in the frame, how sharp the picture should be, whether the lighting is satisfactory should lift the picture from ok and mundane to something more special..

Having a camera that allows you to influence the process until you have the final print helps, then there is the desire to better oneself to create that one (or more) image that makes the audience go WOW! rises us from being ordinary snapshooters... I have opted to stick with film, in order to force me to think more about the pictures I take, as I don't like wasting film - it's too easy to adopt the scatter gun approach in the hope that you have a good digital image...

I visited a studio of a dutch photographer recently - he had recently bought 2 x H3D-39s, and 2 x D3s (to replace 1Ds Mk2s:shock. When he was asked why he had invested so heavily in Hassleblad and Nikon D3 systems he said it would allow him to take photographs that the majority of photographers couldn't capture. With his ability too he was able to create some fabulous portraits right in front of our very eyes on A2 sheets...

I got this far not knowing anything...

seriously....

everybody talks, and you wish most would stop, but occasionally find yourself willing to pay to hear a speaker that has something intelligent to say...hmmn.

If everybody uses the "auto" setting and goes around mindlessly clicking snapshots, eventually a robot will come along and do it better.... eventually everybodies images will look too similar... and eventually a person will come along and decide to be different... and switch it off "Auto"

Millions of people own cameras but do not claim that photography is one of their hobbies. For them, the programmes and modes do a wonderful job, in helping them to take mainly well exposed and in focus photographs. However, with digital even the masses have to know far more about their camera set up, memory cards, computers and printing than ever they did with film.
The enthusiast in any hobby will seek to know more about their chosen subject. Good photographs are so much more than well exposed and sharp images. Composition, lighting, mood, atmosphere, harmony, dof, grain etc have far more bearing on producing a good photo. This is also true of resolution, post processing, colour management, printer and printing. With all this goes the requirement for a fair knowlege of computing.

I do think digital has taken away some of the mystery and magic of taking pictures personally, although I am sure this is a view not shared by many on a DSLR forum.

I loved the K2 and LX because they were primarily manual, and even if the battery failed you could still have manual shutter speeds and take decent pictures. It's harder with colour but with black and white I developed an 'eye' for the correct exposure if I knew what film I had in the camera (HP5 or whatever) - I could guess quite accurately and
taken decent shots without using the meter or autoexposure measurements (and certainly not autofocus, that would be heresy!)

There was a certain satisfaction and awe in the creation of the image from framing it completely in the viewfinder (cropping during printing was for cheats or people who couldn't compose 'proper' shots - what a photography snob I was!) and printing full frame prints with a slight border to prove it was full frame composition...then I had kids and got lazy and bought a P&S SONY Cybershot that I could carry in my pocket. Only now am I coming back to 'real' photography instead of snaps.

I think the answer is that digital and all the automated settings is both blessing and a curse. Blessing because it makes it easier to take pictures and not worry about getting it wrong (especially since you can take lots and discard the rubbish) and a curse for exactly the same reason!

At the end of the day I take the David Bailey attitude that a good photographer will take great pics with a Box Brownie - it's all in the 'eye'. You either have it or you don't, although digital settings make it easier for those who would previously have taken bad pictures for technical reasons (not compositional) like wrong exposure, to get it right, so for this it must be applauded.

Although maybe photography should be like learning to drive a car - you should be made to operate a manual one first before being allowed near an automatic!

Digital and all its auto settings... actually isn't it easier to learn the basics of f-stop, shutter speed, and ISO, than get your head round all these hundreds of newfangle features/modes? With the two basic principles of shutter speed and aperture, and of course a good eye, you've basically got photography licked. It's not rocket science, but the menu system on most DSLRs is!

Edit - Oh, and an understanding of light as well of course!

how come you said in two lines what I failed to say in about ten lines?

personally,i feel knowledge compares to driving a car. if you learn in an automatic,then "push and go". if on the other hand you learnt in a manual, you will have learnt to "mix and match". but this is only my own humble opinion, i know a lot of you guys (and ladies) have more experience than me !!

I say yes, after all "knowledge is power".

I think understanding what a camera is trying to do when you set everything in automatic mode will always be a great help, especially when you don't get the results you are expecting.

When I got my first camera, back in the days when everything was manual I remember my father taught me the "sunny sixteen" rule and "composition by thirds". Just those two little gems of always helped me.

Full auto is really the mode what you say, to be on the safe side.
The only problem is that you don't know what the camera is doing so if somethings go wrong you won't be able to tell what only that the camera did something stupid.

the sunny sixteen is... i don't know not really a rule. you can make perfect photos against the sun but you need to know what to do.
and the third isn't the only composition rule there is. You can guide eyes for example over your photo with lines and light... to make a good photo is very hard and not just a click.