Philosophycal...

[Claire Senft]

When photographing scenics, nature and still life a manual focus, manual exposure camera with a good ground glass and decent DOF scales makes the job much easier than to try using much of the auto-focus equipment.

 

[smieglitz]

Go right ahead and find yourself some vintage gear and get after it. Then, when you see how truly wonderful advances in equipment are you will come back to the newer stuff. Trust me on this...

I disagree Joe. I think autofocus has a real place in fast action photography or as the photographer advances in age and their visual acuity suffers. However, I believe I can shoot quicker and probably more accurately using manual exposure controls. Plus, having an autoeverything camera suddenly lock up or go dead is not an experience I wish to repeat. I also hate having to reprogram the damn things when I wish to do something creative with them (e.g., underexpose by a stop or use a very slow shutter speed in low light, etc.).

I agree that manual equipment slows you down and perhaps one shoots fewer yet more contemplative images that way. "A good thing" as Martha would say. First with the move to ULF and now as I'm about to take up wetplate collodion photography, I sense this is taking that philosophy to an extreme. I also think it will be a better way of working for me personally. (YMMV.) If I manage to do a few dozen exposures each year in that process I think I will be doing well and hopefully I'll bevery satisfied with the resulting images. It is going to take a lot of preparation and forethought as well as contemplation of the image before I pour any plate. I sure won't be burning through them.

Joe

 

[jjstafford]

I disagree Joe. I think autofocus has a real place in fast action photography or as the photographer advances in age and their visual acuity suffers.

Nope. The good sports photographers I know have always led the field because they saw a thousandth second in the future. The auto-focus cameras, motor-drives haven't helped them one bit except in the later regard to save their thumb from the manual advance.

 

[blansky]

Nope. The good sports photographers I know have always led the field because they saw a thousandth second in the future. The auto-focus cameras, motor-drives haven't helped them one bit except in the later regard to save their thumb from the manual advance.

I'm not so sure.

I'd be willing to bet that virtually all sports photographers are firing away at 5 frames a second, half a second before the "action", then choosing the right shot later.

You'd be crazy not to. The shot right after the one you visualized may just be the better shot. It's a competitive business and the best shot wins.


Michael

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There used to be a guy who shot for the Cleveland _Plain Dealer_ who usually only took one shot at the Browns games for the sports page.

For bird photos I like having a motor drive because it makes the camera react faster and gets it ready for the next shot, but I only use 5 fps for flight sequences. I used to shoot bursts occasionally, but I found I was always keeping the first frame and tossing the others.

 

[haris]

Getting back to Haris' original thread, I'm having pretty much the same feelings. I started when everything was manual, and progressed with the technology through TTL and autofocus, and even digital. Each step let me do more, and be more.

But I started to feel I was letting the camera drive me. I still have the F5, but I picked up a nice Nikon F and really love it. I'm not sure why... Maybe it's the solid feel of the camera, or the idea of a simpler time, or maybe that I must think, really THINK, before an exposure.

I moved into large format for the same reasons. Now a good part of my work is in LF. And I see "alternative processes" in my future.

So now most of my work is with manual equipment. I'll keep the AF and TTL for those rare occasions where it's really necessary. And the best way to get an image on the net is with a digital camera. But I personally feel more like a photographer using the manual equipment.

resummerfield, your words are exactly what I wanted to say. Thank you for understanding me.

Thing that interesting me most is why me (and you as I can see) have that feeling at all, why in todays world someone have urge to escape from benefits of current photographic high technology, when that technology makes photographers life much easier... But, maybe Froyd could answer that

Regards, Haris

 

[waynecrider]

Your not alone in thinking the way you are. I believe we all get to a stage in life where we start questioning our lives and the way we do things. Many times this train of thought takes the form of simplifing our lives and returning to a slower pace, such as wanting to move out into the country, or it can take the form of getting rid of alot of stuff we have hanging around that's never used; We may want to feel unencumbered. Sometimes it's about taking control when we are so dependent on other things for our comfort and existence. As concerns the camera thing, sure I've been there, and I turned around and bought a 4x5. Back to the basics I thought. So your feelings are not abnormal, actually their pretty normal. The one thing that is interesting tho is how we have become dependent on the wiz bang technology. Escape examples might be trying to put away your cell phone, or maybe turning off the TV, or even buying a manual camera. In the end of course it's all about what will make you happy, which is why we all have so much stuff. Were always looking for something external that provides a different experience that we think will make us happier. Maybe for awhile it does, but it usually doesn't in the end. Sometimes it's more internal than external.

 

[stark raving]

I find myself thinking that people who use auto focus/auto mettering cameras and especially digital, are not "real photographers".

Haris,

There's a lot of pitfalls and minefields in your statement -- I'll tiptoe around the "what's a real photographer" question. (Don't want to start that thread again.) I use exclusively older mechanical, manual focus equipment myself, and mostly hand-held meters. But the question I can't get past is intention versus means. Let me explain.

In my dining room is a photograph I love. It is a picture of my four grandparents on my parents' wedding day, June 8, 1940. The picture has technical faults - it is a little unsharp, probably a combination of camera shake and the fairly primitive lens that took it. The tonality is impressive, it's from a big negative, 2 1/2 x 4 1/4. What I love most though is that it perfectly captures the personalities of the four people in the picture.

Knowing a little family history, I'm pretty sure it was taken with a Kodak Jiffy Six-16. That's a contemporary snapshot camera, sold 1937-42. A very reasonable device for a family of modestly comfortable means to own then for casual photography. Aside from that big negative, the success of the picture has very little to do with the means (i.e. equipment) of capture. The picture succeeds because of the rapport of the subjects with the photographer. The subjects agreed with the intention of the photographer -- the picture is an artifact of a communal act of photography 65 years ago. The "visual dialog" is between the subjects and the photographer. The viewer is merely allowed a glance into this closed community.

Now spin forward 60 years. What if this event had occurred in 2000, not 1940? Before I gave her a Pentax Optio, my wife used a Samsung 35mm P&S camera. Auto everything. Just like the Jiffy in 1940, a very reasonable object for people of modestly comfortable means to own in 2000 for casual photography. What if my wife had been the photographer with her Samsung in 2000? Aside from the absence of tonality of that nice big negative, I submit the results could have been the same. The means is superseded by the intent. The picture would still be more about the relationship between subjects and photographer than about the technology the photographer used. YMMV.

Jonathan

 

[blansky]

I don't think it was mentioned here before but there are many photographers who are NOT always interested in ART but who use a camera as a tool.

Is it a great piece of fine woodwork if the craftsman uses some power tools.

Many photographers in professional fields use their camera as a tool to capture an image for other than strictly artistic reasons. Wedding photographers don't have any dilemma if they use auto focus/exposure because the final result is more important that what was used to achieve it.

Product photographers use whatever works for them to satisfy an art director. Sport photographers need to get great exclusive images.

There are many reasons for photographs to be made and artistic esthetics are only one small nitch.


Michael

 

[Ian Leake]

There are many reasons for photographs to be made and artistic esthetics are only one small nitch.

I couldn't agree more. Just because I like slow & manual doesn't mean it's the right approach for everyone. Also, I take photos for pleasure not for business, so I'm not exposed to a whole set of things that would drive me in a different direction.

 

[Quinn]

Absolute Truths
Joe must be speaking about personal experience. He said, "trust me on this..." But there is no way you can tell Haris he will abandon vintage gear for modern high-tech gear without knowing and understanding his situation. It's all about context and intent. For you, it may have been about time, energy and effort. "Old school" photography scores low marks on convenience, time and minimal effort. But it scores extremely high in other areas, areas that are the most critical for some of us.

Familiar Ground
This is the discussion I had with myself a few years ago. I'm a fulltime, professional photographer for the U.S. government. I get to play with the latest and greatest digital equipment; D2X, D2H, every piece of glass you can imagine, printers; Epson 9600, Kodak ML 500, computers; high-end desktops, laptops, wireless LAN/WAN, etc. and software; Adobe CS, et al everyday of my life. I like my job, I wouldn't want to shoot MF/LF or even 35mm film on the job. Digital is the best solution for what I'm required to do and it does a satisfactory job.

The Caveat
With that said, my job does not fulfill my personal expression and creative needs. For me, digital technology has flattened the "photographic landscape." A few years ago, I almost left photography/my career. I had to work through this issue of, “Why am I a photographer/artist?” Haris is correct, it has nothing to do with "right or wrong" it's a personal, philosophical question. Everyone must answer it for themselves. For me, it was about balance and perspective. Because of digital technology, my relationship with photography suffered tremendously. The joy of image-making was gone. I felt like I wasn't involved anymore, like it was a purely mechanical act. No darkroom, no prints, all zeros and ones; quantity, not quality. Technology is a double-edged sword; I love it and I loathe it.

How I Resolved This Dilemma
I found that going to the roots or the heritage of photography was very soul satisfying to me. I wanted to push myself and challenge myself with photography. It’s true that everything in the art world comes back around in some form. For me now, wet plate Collodion photography is my passion and my connection to the art of photography. My world of pixelography/photography is mutually exclusive events or acts. I’ve found the balance and I’m very satisfied.

 

[jjstafford]

Like Quinn, I work under government grants and have whatever I want in the digital world, but thank goodness I have at least a few hours a week to make nondigital photographs, lest I go nutz.

FWIW last week I had a print made from a SWC negative that I took beside a digital version. Printed it to 21x21". The print truly shut-up the digital fanatics. It was a good opportunity for me NOT to say "I Told You So", so I did not. Relations are better than ever now.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

One uses whichever equipment provides the most pleasure in the process of using it. If you feel that using large cameras and slowing down will give you greater pleasure that using small automated cameras, then get yourself a large camera.