Because the camera is likely to be larger, heavier, and festooned with additional dials, buttons and superfluous information. The only variables necessary for making an exposure are shutter speed and aperture, and the capacity to wind on the film. Everything beyond that hands some aspect of your photography to a technical designer. That's okay if you want your photography to be a collaboration rather than a personal decision, but I don't trust electronic engineers or software designers to know how I want my negative to come out, and experience has shown I'm correct to entertain that suspicion.If a student has a camera that can be set to manual, and they can (or have figured out how to) set aperture and speed, how is that a hurdle?
Because the camera is likely to be larger, heavier, and festooned with additional dials, buttons and superfluous information. The only variables necessary for making an exposure are shutter speed and aperture, and the capacity to wind on the film. Everything beyond that hands some aspect of your photography to a technical designer. That's okay if you want your photography to be a collaboration rather than a personal decision, but I don't trust electronic engineers or software designers to know how I want my negative to come out, and experience has shown I'm correct to entertain that suspicion.
Film photography can be as complicated or a simple as you want to make it. Most film packets still have Sunny 16 info, and with a little experience even that will give you consistently exposed negatives. If your idea of fun is setting exposure bracketing for 1/2 or 1/3 stop increments, or spot metering for five different areas and letting the camera work out the average, you'll enjoy 1990s cameras. If you want street photography negatives that contain identical density, day after day and in all conditions, you shouldn't put your trust in automation.
Because the camera is likely to be larger, heavier, and festooned with additional dials, buttons and superfluous information. The only variables necessary for making an exposure are shutter speed and aperture, and the capacity to wind on the film. Everything beyond that hands some aspect of your photography to a technical designer. That's okay if you want your photography to be a collaboration rather than a personal decision, but I don't trust electronic engineers or software designers to know how I want my negative to come out, and experience has shown I'm correct to entertain that suspicion.
Film photography can be as complicated or a simple as you want to make it. Most film packets still have Sunny 16 info, and with a little experience even that will give you consistently exposed negatives. If your idea of fun is setting exposure bracketing for 1/2 or 1/3 stop increments, or spot metering for five different areas and letting the camera work out the average, you'll enjoy 1990s cameras. If you want street photography negatives that contain identical density, day after day and in all conditions, you shouldn't put your trust in automation.
... You do not give the photographer any credit for controlling the features of the tool at his disposal.
I don't sense that you are suggesting we pour our own plates.
I'm suggesting that photography is a simple medium made complicated with the aim of selling people more cameras. Would you teach a newcomer the basics using a Spotmatic or an EOS1v? I'm betting the Pentax (or any other match needle manual SLR) will tell them what they need to know more quickly, and focus their mind on taking consistently better photographs instead of learning optical computer programming.I disagree strongly with this attitude. The camera is only a tool. Blaming the camera for my failure would just be silly. This is like saying "The Devil made me do it." The automatic features in cameras can be used or not used in any way that the photographer wants. Your theory is that my use of an in-camera meter is bad and I should just use "Sunny 16". You do not give the photographer any credit for controlling the features of the tool at his disposal.
I'm suggesting that photography is a simple medium made complicated with the aim of selling people more cameras. Would you teach a newcomer the basics using a Spotmatic or an EOS1v? I'm betting the Pentax (or any other match needle manual SLR) will tell them what they need to know more quickly, and focus their mind on taking consistently better photographs instead of learning optical computer programming.
Nobody has questioned that. By the same token Ansel Adams and Gary Winogrand shot some of the finest landscapes and street photographs without even a light meter in their cameras.That answer is a smoke screen and is evasive. Nobody stays a beginner forever. People are capable of learning to use modern cameras and obtaining great results.
Nobody has questioned that. By the same token Ansel Adams and Gary Winogrand shot some of the finest landscapes and street photographs without even a light meter in their cameras.
True, although they were used for such events in their day. You could make a fair argument that sports photography (fast follow autofocus, high shutter speeds, autowind, etc) dominated the design of SLRs in their last twenty years and continues to influence DSLR thinking to the exclusion other priorities. Those wanting a more targeted camera were forced to look elsewhere.Agreed, and Press photographers used to use Speed Graphics and flash bulbs. Ansel Adams would have been hard pressed to cover a Sporting event with his view camera.
True, although they were used for such events in their day. You could make a fair argument that sports photography (fast follow autofocus, high shutter speeds, autowind, etc) dominated the design of SLRs in their last twenty years and continues to influence DSLR thinking to the exclusion other priorities. Those wanting a more targeted camera were forced to look elsewhere.
The question that might be asked is what advantage do readers of this forum believe film offers over digital photography. Whatever the answer, I doubt it involves more automation in the equation.
Explain with examples. Everything I've said is pertinent to the ease of using a manual camera, and the absurd attempts manufacturers went to to 're-imagine' it was difficult.Suggest you are on the wrong fora this is APUG.
The OP had a query you are not acknowledging are you a politician for a living?
Is it difficult to use a manual camera?
... and the absurd attempts manufacturers went to to 're-imagine' it was difficult.
The intent of camera manufacturers is to sell more cameras, by whatever means necessary. Is technical innovation a good idea? Sometimes, but by the 1990s SLR design was lead by gimmickry, in my humble opinion. Remember the (Minolta?) system for which you had to purchase different cards for various modes? Some people get off on that kind of thing, and it certainly keeps manufacturers in business, though it clearly wasn't enough to save Minolta from Canon-Nikon market domination.Are you sure that what you write is a true statement of the design intent for camera automation?
... but the popularity of solid, even primitive SLR cameras has not restricted the creative vision of newcomers, and probably never did. ...
You may, or may not be missing my point. If you can do everything you need to do with a simple, well made manual camera, what was the last twenty years of camera 'innovation' except a huge marketing exercise? Leica users (of whom I'm not a member) always insisted it was all a side show to the business of making pictures.Nor has the increase in camera automation restricted the creative vision of either newcomers or old-tymers, and probably never will.
Yup, however did Shakespeare manage without a word processor and a spell check? Actually, quite a few successful modern novelists write with a pen and paper. Are they mad?If you can write a novel with a typewriter, or a pen, why bother with a laptop?
Oh dear...
If you can write a novel with a typewriter, or a pen, why bother with a laptop?
Oh dear...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?