Internalising on camera function

[cliveh]

This is not so much noticed in the world of film cameras (although exists). But in the world of digital cameras very much more so. This internalising on the camera and its functions, with complete disregard to what the photographer observes and captures. It is like the marketing men have highjacked photography with little regard to the vision of the photographer.

 

[George Mann]

I will once again argue that digital "photography" fails to meet the very definition of photography.

Instead, I will argue that this highly artificial process of producing the resulting artificial facsimile is actually a form of graphic arts.

With that said, and in the interest of staying on topic, dwelling solely on the technical specs and processes, while ignoring ones artistic intent does bode well to obfuscate the true intent and use of these cameras to begin with.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Instead, I will argue that this highly artificial process of producing the resulting artificial facsimile is actually a form of graphic arts.

Agree, and I would call it a randomized result of unintended intent

dwelling solely on the technical specs and processes, while ignoring ones artistic intent does bode well to obfuscate the true intent and use of these cameras to begin with.

This is where I fail to understand infatuation with film cameras loaded with just a few fewer (than digital) internal "intelligence" helpers and endless discussions how superior it is to anything out there (yes, that Nikon F6 thread comes to mind). It seems features are so overwhelmingly front ended in all discussion, I can't see how they are not obscuring the view.

 

[George Mann]

This is where I fail to understand infatuation with film cameras loaded with just a few fewer (than digital) internal "intelligence" helpers and endless discussions how superior it is to anything out there (yes, that Nikon F6 thread comes to mind). It seems features are so overwhelmingly front ended in all discussion, I can't see how they are not obscuring the view.

For me, total automation = soulless experience (much like digital).

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Easy..........don't like it don't do it. Sitting around kvetching is time not spent doing what you enjoy. Or you could polish your rocking chairs.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Easy..........don't like it don't do it. Sitting around kvetching is time not spent doing what you enjoy. Or you could polish your rocking chairs.

Sure, but who buys into high tech in order to not touch it? And who knows, maybe all these electronically packed cameras monitor usage of features and shut it down completely, if Mr. Inteligente inside it tells it so?

 

[AgX]

Program auto-exposure already was introduced in 1958. I guess we can start from there....


"You press the button. We do the rest" is already from the 19th century.
Well, not in the meaning of today. But I am sure if the guys fom the industry back then had the means of today they would have implemented them.
Thus were to start?

 

[BradS]

Seems like you're confusing computer aided image making and photography.

 

[Wallendo]

I haven't updated my dSLR in 8 years. The new features added since that time don't add any functionality I need, and I don't use most of the features on the camera I do own. This is likely one reason dSLR sales are down. There will always be gear-heads seeking the absolute latest technology, and people posting frequently on online fora tend to fall in that category. I suspect most serious digital shooters only upgrade when new features are useful (or their older cameras stop working).

The internet chatter on digital fora is not really much different than endless Canon vs. Nikon threads on analog fora.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

The internet chatter on digital fora is not really much different than endless Canon vs. Nikon threads on analog fora.

I beg to differ on this one.

Endless talking about whether a toilet seat should stay down or up is vastly different from bragging rights wars over virtual toilet which you pee into without ever leaving your home. It takes credit cards too.

But God help us when you forget to press a right feature button messing up the entire engineering effort that was only meant to make you a better photographer and without you ever knowing it.

 

[cerber0s]

I see no difference whatsoever between digital and analog photography. Saying digital isn't actually photography is like saying that Da Vinci's work isn't real because it wasn't painted on the inside of a cave, using the rear end of a squirrel dipped in mud and lizard poo.

A camera is a tool, like a chisel or a CNC router.

Regarding what I see when I take a photo sure, the digital camera isn't an exact representation of what I actually see, what my eyes convey through my visual verv to the brain but neither is film. I don't see in black and white and the colors I actually see don't look anything like the colors captured on Portra 400 or any other color film that I know of. The beauty of it all is that I'm free to choose whatever tool, digital or film, that will allow me to approximate what I visualize in my mind andc I an guarantee you that what goes on in my mind has very little to do with reality.

Now I have to go find my jar of lizard poo...

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I see no difference whatsoever between digital and analog photography. Saying digital isn't actually photography is like saying that Da Vinci's work isn't real because it wasn't painted on the inside of a cave, using the rear end of a squirrel dipped in mud and lizard poo.

A camera is a tool, like a chisel or a CNC router.

Regarding what I see when I take a photo sure, the digital camera isn't an exact representation of what I actually see, what my eyes convey through my visual verv to the brain but neither is film. I don't see in black and white and the colors I actually see don't look anything like the colors captured on Portra 400 or any other color film that I know of. The beauty of it all is that I'm free to choose whatever tool, digital or film, that will allow me to approximate what I visualize in my mind and I an guarantee you that what goes on in my mind has very little to do with reality.

Now I have to go find my jar of lizard poo...

Well, arguably not the topic here. In digital your are not all that in charge, not even close compared to analog process. But the question here is about "tools" built into cameras and post process that automate (or at least CAN) way too much. It is an actual struggle to bypass most of them and do the minimum required to capture and process later. They build a lazy mind set and it is often late into the game when one notices. I won't even get into some image editors that earned accolades for ... doing automatic bullshit. Then again, we're in analog section anyways so I won't talk any more in D.

Also, photography isn't about reality for most part, it actually hardly ever is.

 

[cerber0s]

Well, arguably not the topic here. In digital your are not all that in charge, not even close compared to analog process. But the question here is about "tools" built into cameras and post process that automate (or at least CAN) way too much. It is an actual struggle to bypass most of them and do the minimum required to capture and process later. They build a lazy mind set and it is often late into the game when one notices. I won't even get into some image editors that earned accolades for ... doing automatic bullshit. Then again, we're in analog section anyways so I won't talk any more in D.

Also, photography isn't about reality for most part, it actually hardly ever is.

True, but the same could be said about sending your film to a lab.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

True, but the same could be said about sending your film to a lab.

Yes, I suppose I'm not one to take this one as I do only B&W and never in a lab. I probably don't want to know what labs do.

 

[Craig75]

1/125 f8 with a manual camera = thief of fire
1/125 f8 with a digital camera or auto film camera = hostage of the industrial military complex

 

[grain elevator]

Is this a written sort of Rorschach test? If not, I suggest you, cliveh, explain what you mean by "internalising" an "on camera", I can't understand it, even though I can guess it may have something to do with automation.

 

[Craig75]

Well, arguably not the topic here. In digital your are not all that in charge, not even close compared to analog process. But the question here is about "tools" built into cameras and post process that automate (or at least CAN) way too much. It is an actual struggle to bypass most of them and do the minimum required to capture and process later. They build a lazy mind set and it is often late into the game when one notices. I won't even get into some image editors that earned accolades for ... doing automatic bullshit. Then again, we're in analog section anyways so I won't talk any more in D.

Also, photography isn't about reality for most part, it actually hardly ever is.

Op just wanted to aimlessly poke the bear of digital vs film then sit back and watch the same old burnt out arguments go back and forth for the millionth time.

Op should know better

 

[George Mann]

Op just wanted to aimlessly poke the bear of digital vs film then sit back and watch the same old burnt out arguments go back and forth for the millionth time.

Op should know better

Where in his original post did he indicate such? He was referring to those who place emphasis on the technology incorporated into cameras at the expense of everything else.

 

[cerber0s]

Where in his original post did he indicate such? He was referring to those who place emphasis on the technology incorporated into cameras at the expense of everything else.

My argument is that there is no expense

 

[cliveh]

Where in his original post did he indicate such? He was referring to those who place emphasis on the technology incorporated into cameras at the expense of everything else.

That is exactly what I meant. I didn't want this to be a digital v analogue thread, as I wanted to point out how film cameras have limited function, but digital cameras are completely exploited through marketing with the never ending emphasis on functions and the next model with new functions and forever moving away from the fact of seeing. Does this explain my OP better?

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I beg to differ on this one.

Endless talking about whether a toilet seat should stay down or up is vastly different from bragging rights wars over virtual toilet which you pee into without ever leaving your home. It takes credit cards too.

But God help us when you forget to press a right feature button messing up the entire engineering effort that was only meant to make you a better photographer and without you ever knowing it.

Oh I'm sure were I to attempt LF photography I will screw it up on a grand scale for awhile. If one doesn't know how matter not what the device is capable of.

Sure, but who buys into high tech in order to not touch it? And who knows, maybe all these electronically packed cameras monitor usage of features and shut it down completely, if Mr. Inteligente inside it tells it so?

That goes beyond skepticism into foolishness.

That is exactly what I meant. I didn't want this to be a digital v analogue thread, as I wanted to point out how film cameras have limited function, but digital cameras are completely exploited through marketing with the never ending emphasis on functions and the next model with new functions and forever moving away from the fact of seeing. Does this explain my OP better?

The former is nothing more than modern advertising geared to move product by planned obsolescense. The latter isn't the camera's doing but the user.

 

[MattKing]

I too generally prefer cameras that offer complete manual control.
And I too get frustrated with multi layered menus that offer so many settings that it can be hard to find the one you are looking for.
But I sometimes set my Canon 7e to eye controlled auto-focus and programmed exposure and shoot happily without worries.
And I'm amazed by the quality I can get from that tiny (110 film size) micro 4/3 sensor in my OMD digital that is truly picket sized, and works great in fully automatic mode.
Film has a whole bunch of stuff "programmed" in by the film scientists. Same with photographic paper. It may be a bit easier to get it to perform the same way each time you use it, but it still is essentially a "black box" that creates magic without most people understanding how.

 

[Craig75]

The only things digital has that a 90s film camera designed for olympics doesnt have is ibis, and video. Everything else is just upping the specs.

You can get shots impossible with film cameras. All the people needing specs moved on leaving the rest of us looking for the easiest repaired film cameras.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

That goes beyond skepticism into foolishness.

Any sense of humor left out there in the mountains? Key to playing this game is to relax a bit, but digital is dead, film is king, Wait! Backwards, is it? Nah. Love the talk though.

When some refer to this overblown use of "little people" doing their thing inside the film chamber as affecting thought process, they (or I) mean I don't want your help without me knowing what that help is. So instead of dealing with menus, we kneel before the Saint and pray for the best. Eventually we get it, while the menus' folks don't.

So this exchange will continue to go on, the Earth will turn flat again, and Kodak will slash its prices at least in half.

 

[George Mann]

You can get shots impossible with film cameras.

I am not convinced.